PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire.



XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:55 PM
Why oh why did they not put spitfires in the game???
A German ace was asked by hitler what he needed to win the battle of britain and he said, Spitfires.
I rest my case.

"Never before in the field of human conflict has so much been oued to so few, by so many"

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:55 PM
Why oh why did they not put spitfires in the game???
A German ace was asked by hitler what he needed to win the battle of britain and he said, Spitfires.
I rest my case.

"Never before in the field of human conflict has so much been oued to so few, by so many"

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 01:00 PM
The Spitfires are being worked on, just relax.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 01:01 PM
johnson3 wrote:
- Why oh why did they not put spitfires in the game???

Because it's a sim of WW2 combat on the Eastern front???


- A German ace was asked by hitler what he needed to
- win the battle of britain and he said, Spitfires.

That would be Goering, not Hitler. The ace would be Galland, and the answer and question a bit more complex than that.


-
- I rest my case.
-

Cool. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: Several versions of the Spitfire are being worked on and will be included in a future patch or addon.


-
- "Never before in the field of human conflict has so
- much been oued to so few, by so many"
-

Owed. By so many to so few /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


cheers/slush


http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 01:07 PM
quite simply.....

Because Spits played a comparatively minor part in the war on the eastern front.

Since this game currently deals with the eastern front exclusively, there were many more appropriate planes to model first.

Don't worry though,
other theatres are being added and you'll get your Spit!

Cheers

OJ

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 01:52 PM
---Because Spits played a comparatively minor part in
- the war on the eastern front----


Minor but still a role so bring on the spitfire.

as did so many other planes now incorporated into FB.

Hope they finish the pits for all types soon, so all german plane lovers will feel the smooth power of the spit.

SALUTATIONS!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:03 PM
Bring on the Spitfires! With work being done on the B-17, B-25 and P-51 there's no need to exclude that wonderful RAF contribution to the air war. Remember the Spitfire MK XIV that Rammjager contributed to Jane's WWII Fighters? What a beauty! I used to let her fly in autopilot in external view just to admire that artwork. Rammjager, if you're out there, please accept my humble yet passionate gratitude...



"He who hesitates is lost" - John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:12 PM
OJ79 wrote:
- quite simply.....
-
- Because Spits played a comparatively minor part in
- the war on the eastern front.
-


It's more like because noone has modelled it yet. The BI-1 was an experimental plane yet it is in IL-2 because someone modelled it.



=======================================

(H).

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:29 PM
why no Spit ?

`coz you don`t need it to fly over Pacific /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif you`ll be fine with a P-51...

and seriously, I hope will get it sometime soon. If you Tommies were as big a market as the Yanks we could have it already /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<center>http://kasa.torell.pl/~apacz/phpBB2//images/photos/d54c698c3f19b121b9889.jpg</center>

---------------------------------------------------------------
"He comes and stays with me, ADOLF GALLAND, you know, and he's, uh, he's a very . . . he's acquired a tremendous sense of humour. He's a very dear chap. I'm very fond of him."

SIR DOUGLAS BADER
-----------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:59 PM
The Spitfire is going to be a difficult plane to fit into the mix.

How can a SpitV, which was dominated by the FW190A-3 be introduced into the current plane set?

The SpitV was a very good fighter plane.

If it is modeled as an inferior fighter plane to the FW190A-4 then how will it stack up in FB?

If it is not modeled as an inferior fighter plane to the FW190A-4 then the game will be rewriting history.

The same problem exists with the P-51.

How can these fighters be introduced into the game when so much has been documented concerning relative performance.

The Spitfire in particular is going to be difficult to fit into the plane set because it, like the russian planes, had very good turn performance, yet it suffered relative to the early FW190s due to what?

"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights.."

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

"The Manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it."

from Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat by Alfred Price

Chapter 5 - Unsolicited Testimonials

The book described test results made by the British during World War II.

page 39

"The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war."



The Russian planes performance relative to the FW190 is relatively uncontested with avaialable historical documentation (except what Oleg has and is unable to reproduce) but the relative performances of the FW 190, the British and the American planes is well documented.

If the Spitfire is modeled relative to the FW190 as documented in the example above then how will the Spitire stack up against the Russian planes?

Do you see the problem?





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:03 PM
Agree josef.. i have been thinking the same.. well soon we will find out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and let the Spitwhiners loose.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:11 PM
I fail to see any problem here. The Fw-190 was a BnZ'er, which fits with the descriptions, and the Spitfire was a turnfighter. And that's the way I guess it's going to be modelled.

If the Spitfire gets owned by the 190's in online play, then it's because online pilots have become skilled BnZ'ers. If not, then it's because people tend to get involved in turnfights even though that leaves them in a disadvantageous position.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:34 PM
The Spitfire V is not even in developement yet, the MKIX and MKXIV clipped winged are by Slava and Fievel.

Then there is Biggs with the MKI and the MK22.

I take on that FW190 with the MKXIV clipped wing or the MK22 any day.

And there is always the Tempest who is also near to completion.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:49 PM
In real life, the outcome of very few fights was determined by the relative turn performance of the planes involved.


But in this game, the Spit will likely dominate the FW because of the unrealistic style of combat present here and in virtually all flight sims. This is the very reason that, in IL-2, historically inferior planes like the i16 can perform much better than they ever did in real life.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 04:12 PM
It ´s true that the spitfire will be a difficult aircraft to mix, but it doesn´t matter, it still took it´s non excludable role in the eastern fornt air war and therefore it´s neccessary to add it. And the next point is that I just love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the most important thing in the aircraft is the pilot, so I know that Fw-190 A-3 could outfly the Spit Mk.VB almost at all menuvers, but with a good pilot...........TALLY HO!!!!! I´m looking forward....

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 04:44 PM
What exactly is B&Z?

What does personal choice of maneuvering tactics have to do with climb, roll, acceleration, dive, zoom climb, and speed performance?

Of course if a pilot chooses to fly to the strengths of the opponents plane he will likely lose.

The only tactic the FW currently can employ in FB is hit and run.

Dog fighting is not an option.

The FW was a better dog fighter than the Spitfire.

The FB FW is not a dog fighter at all compared to the current plane set.

If the Spitfire is introduced then it will either be the worst dogfighter or better than the FW.

This is a problem.

Energy fighting is common in on-line play. Not everyone simply pulls on the stick.



JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 04:49 PM
U say why dont they have them....well u said that hitler used them to win the war bu he didnt win it with the Spitfires so thats why there is none.


,EyesPink

Canada 5 VS. USA 3

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 05:03 PM
The Spitfire MkV was out before the Fw190. It will do ok in the early years.

The Spitfire MkIX, and MkXIV will handle the Fw190 just fine.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:19 AM
page 51

From FW190 in Combat

"The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favorably with the Fw 190 and that provided the Spitfire has the initiative, it has undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down."

The game will model Spitfires in a manner that suits the programers. They may or may not be able to handle the FW190s depending upon many factors not limited to the actual performance specs modeled.

How accurate the Spitfires will be modeled and how accurately the planes match up will be a subject of controversy. The difference between the present controversy between how the current planes match up and how the Spitfire will match up in the games plane set has to do with the available historical records documenting such match ups. There is documentaion on performance differences between the Spitfire and it's contemporary fighter opposition. Documentation made in mock combat trials by fighter pilots during the war.

If the game models the SpitV with less climb and acceleration performance than the FW190A-4 than it will be at a severe dissadvantage in dogfighting, compared to any plane in the sim, early or late. If the game models the SpitV with greater or parity in climb and acceleration performance than there is going to be a problem with historical accuracy.

Does anyone have documentation on relative climb and acceleration performance between the I-16 and the FW190A-4?

Buzz, since you know how the game will model the Spitfire relative to the FW can you offer anything more specific.

For instance will the early war SpitV have less climb, less roll, less speed, and less acceleration performance at all altitudes compared to the games version of the late war FW190A-4?









JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:43 AM
True story:

Hitler asks Galland "What will it take to beat Britian?"

Galland says: " A squad of Spitfires"

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:47 AM
BuzzU wrote:
- True story:
-
- Hitler asks Galland "What will it take to beat
- Britian?"
-
-
- Galland says: " A squad of Spitfires"
-

Most don't understand what Galland was really saying, taking the statement out of context. Galland also wanted to PO the "Fat One".

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:54 AM
He did say it at the end of BOB. After the LW had failed. How do you know he didn't mean it?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:57 AM
Well he did a good job with it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hot Space

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:04 AM
Actually he replied....


" a squadron of Spitfires"

Georing turned on his heel and left redfaced

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:13 AM
Did you know that Galland started off his flying career as a 'ground pounder'. In Spain, as the Staffelkapitan of 3/J 88, flying 300 missions in He 51s. He then flew Hs 123s in Poland while being a Staffelkapitan in II9s) LG2. he applied for and was accepted into the Jagdwaffe in April 1940.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:58 AM
Buzz,

In context your historical quote could be considered as an attempt by you to justify the performance abilities of spitfires in general and more specifically the performance of future spitfires in the game.

If you can please refer to the source of your quote, that is to say where you heard or read this quote and in which context the quote was made it would go a long way toward recovering from your exposed ingnorance, or mine.

The quote in question can be found in the Book
Fighter General

The Spitfire at the time of the quote was better suited to close escort duty than was the current 109.

That was the extent of Adolf Gallands quote as it pertains to relative performance, according to that source.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:03 AM
Ingnorance?? Why am I ignorant, because I didn't quote a source? I wasn't the only one quoting it on this thread. Maybe you don't like Galland saying it, but that's not going to change what he said.

Most people will agree that the Spit was a good plane. It shot down plenty of Fw190's. Do you disagree with that?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:04 AM
Fact, the allies won the war.

No matter what anyone says about the 190, 109 UFO's or WHATEVER! It was not enough to topple the allies in the air, on the ground or on the sea.

The allies won the war.


Nuff said......

See you in the fence.....

Asus P4B533 i845E
P4 2.4
Asus GF4 Ti 4200 128MB (44.03)
1 GIG DDR RAM (PC 2100)
SB Audigy
MSFF2
XP Home

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:59 AM
Galland did make that comment because he was upset that his fighters were tied to the bombers. When you are tied to bombers you lose the initiative, and in that instance maneuverability becomes more important than speed/climb.

Galland also praised the Spitfire when Bader was captured, and Bader praised the 109. They were both great planes.

In '42, you would have to compare the FW-190A-4 with the Spitfire Mk.IX. These planes were very evenly matched but had different strengths. The Spit.IX was a big improvement over the Spit.V.

The 190 wil be better after the patch and will be a better dogfighter IMHO because I think it will be able to use its speed better to go into the vertical. If you are in a FW-190A-5 and you are going 565+km/h and you are flying against (at the same altitude) a Yak-9/9T/or 1B flying at 520+km/h then when you pull into the vertical you will gain more altitude and simply be able to Hammerhead onto your slower opponent. This was impossible in FB 1.0, but in the beta I was doing it fairly easily even against the AI. If you have an altitude advantage this becomes even more pronounced as you build speed very quickly in a dive. The A-4 has a bit more trouble, you have to stick to hit and run (and the ridiculous top speed of 550+km/h for the La-5 standard is a joke IMHO). Anyway the 190 will be able to use hit and run tactics (which were very commonly used in WWII) and against many opponents will be able to use the vertical. You should never fight in the horizontal in a 190, and you should never be going slow unless you are Hammerheading.

The FW-190 if flown right will be able an excellent plane after the patch but it will never be a good one vs. one plane (which is accurate). The 190, if flown as a team, will be the best plane in the game along with the La-5/7. The same goes for the P-51 and P-47 at higher altitudes. The 190 would also benefit from full-real settings and should be excellent in coops and online wars. I think the Spitfire will fit in fine also. The 190 and Spit will both be good but they are flown using entirely different tactics.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/08/0304:04AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:36 AM
"The FW-190 if flown right will be able an excellent
plane after the patch but it will never be a good
one vs. one plane (which is accurate)."


Accurate?

By what definition is Accurate? The FW190 was praised by many sources in history as a good or even excellent dog fighter. Even when a poorly running 190A-3 was tested in mock combat against a SpitIX the pilots who did the testing concluded that it was, if anything, an even match. They did not say the FW190 required a team of fighters to defeat a single Spit IX, nor did they claim that the FW190 pilot would need to employ hit and run tactics to defeat a Spit IX.

If you make a statement please back it up with some reference. The only source available that I know, in my limited research, that indicates any reinforcement of the statement that the FW will never be a good one vs. one plane is the current simulation of Forgotten Battles.

If there is evidence that suggests accuracy of that statment please refer to it.

The 190A-3 was different from the 190A-4 in what respect?

In one source; The Great Book of WWII Airplanes;

"the Fw 190A-4 differed from the A-3 only in the addition of a methanol-water power boost system (MW 50) to the BMW 801D-2 to achieve added power under the rated altitude of 5000 m (16,000 ft), and a replacement of the FuG 7a radio with the newer and more powerful FuG 16z."

Reality cannot be proven with documented specifications. Documented specifications can, at best, reinforce a conclusion or hypothesis, but documented specifications cannot prove any fact other than the documented specifications were documented. What would be required for proof is to run mock combat trials with the planes as they existed at those times in the past. No one has access to those planes as they existed in the past. But others have done this job in the past. Actual fighter pilots that have actually needed to know the facts because their lives depended upon the information have done these tests. But then again we would have to trust historical documentation again to reinforce our conclusions, we cannot know the facts. We can keep an open mind and consider the past as a matter of subjectivity.

We may find the simulated SpitV to be inferior to the FW190A-4 as a dog fighter,then again we may find that it is not simulated as such. If it is not inferior in one on one engagements, if it is not inferior as a dog fighter, if it climbs better or rolls better or dives faster or is faster at any altitude then it will not reflect much documented history. This is opinion reinforced by historical reference. Does anyone have any historical reference indicating the opposite opinion, something other than a computer game that has been advertized as being accurate, that does not offer supporting historical evidence to reinforces the claim of accuracy specifically as it relates to the FW190 series aircraft?

If we are to believe the current version of IL2 to be accurate then we are to believe that the FW was not a one on one dog fighter relative to the contemporary plane set in the game. Once the SpitV is introduced in the plane set there will be applicable historical evidence to be used to judge the accuracy of the game.

Anyone can believe, at their discretion, what is accurate. I tend to put a little more weight into the opinions of fighter pilot accounts than someone who has experience with the current version of IL2.

Many of those first person pilot accounts say that the FW190 was an effective one on one dog fighter.

Many of the players in the game IL2 say the opposite.

And so it goes we believe what we choose to believe.

I will try to keep my mind open. Is there anyone with supporting evidence that reinforces the conclusion that the IL2 game simulates the FW accurately, if so how will the game simulate the Spitfire?

I think there is room to entertain the notion that the Spitfire is going to be a very poor performer in IL2.






JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:43 AM
"It shot down plenty of Fw190's"

Seriously BuzzU,

That is rediculous, everyone knows it's the pilot not the machine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


One of us is more ignorant about Galland than the other, is education in order?





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:44 AM
I don't believe I said the Spit V was a match for the Fw190. It wasn't in real life, and it shouldn't be in FB either. I said the SpitIX was more than a match. In real life, and hopefully in FB too. It should be a fair fight with both planes having their own advantages, and of course the pilot will make a big difference.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:17 AM
Josf wrote:

"If you make a statement please back it up with some reference."


This is just my opinon. Perhaps I should have put "IMHO" after saying "which is accurate." Still, I thought from the overall tone of my post you could tell I was just posting my thoughts from experiences in FB. The comment I made was just a side comment. I'm not going to sit on the internet and find sources and rifle through my books and scan articles in, I don't take things that seriously. I'm just going by what I have read over the years and drawing my own conclusions. When a plane like the 190 has an inferior turn radius and rate of climb it generally needs to extend away using its best asset (speed), and when doing so if the enemy pilot is persistent then this will likely only result in a series of drawn out head-ons. I meant the 190 is not a good dogfighter in the classic sense of a low speed turning battle, that is why many experienced LW pilots thought this was unwise and worked against the strengths of their aircraft. One vs. One I would much rather be in a Spitfire, but then again if I was caught in that situation I would find friendlies. *But again, all this is my opinion*.

"The 190A-3 was different from the 190A-4 in what respect?
- the Fw 190A-4 differed from the A-3 only in the
- addition of a methanol-water power boost system (MW
- 50) to the BMW 801D-2 to achieve added power under
- the rated altitude of 5000 m (16,000 ft), and a
- replacement of the FuG 7a radio with the newer and
- more powerful FuG 16z."

I compared the A-4 and A-5, never mentioned the A-3 at all. The A-5 was a good bit faster than the A-4. I'm well aware of the differences in the versions of the 190.

"I tend to put a little more weight into
- the opinions of fighter pilot accounts than someone
- who has experience with the current version of IL2."

I agree 100%.

None of us will ever know the truth about how these fighters performed because we were not there. It upsets me when people state things as factual without any experience.


"If there is evidence that suggests accuracy of that
- statment please refer to it."

The frustrating thing is that you can find sources/references that contradict each-other constantly, to the point where they are almost useless. That is why I base my own conclusions/opinions on pilot accounts (as you said) almost exclusively.

Again, I admit should have followed "which is accurate" with "IMHO." But I feel your response was a little strong for such a small comment.

No big deal though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:16 PM
Hi guys!


First, Galland's statement about Spitfires:

The statement has been more or less correctly quoted on this thread, but the problem is that it is frequently misunderstood.

First, it was in response to a question from Goering, not from Hitler.

The conversation occurred about 2/3 of the way through the Battle of Britain, not after its end.

Thanks mainly to the constant pressure of attacks on airfields and pilot fatigue/losses, RAF Fighter Command reached crisis point and came close to breaking. But, and this is a crucial 'but', the Germans DIDN'T REALIZE THIS!

Luftwaffe intelligence repeatedly assured themselves that the RAF must be down to their last few fighters (very wrong) and that soon resistance would crumble (almost right - if they had kept up the pressure on airfields).

This encouraged the Luftwaffe to expect that British fighter opposition would fade, then virtually disappear, leaving them free to pound the British into submission.

The problem for the German aircrews was that, despite the see-sawing backwards and forwards of the fortunes of battle, with some bad days for the RAF and some for the Luftwaffe, there was no apparent trend in their favour.

There was NO SIGN overall of British resistance weakening. Day after day, week after week, they continued to be effectively intercepted. Their losses mounted and morale began to be affected.

When plans start to go awry in war, things assume an air of desperation and the bomber commanders pleaded for closer escort from the fighters. Goering responded by ordering the fighter units to fly in much closer formation with the bombers.

The stupidity of this angered many of the fighter commanders, among them Adolf Galland. When Goering asked them if there was anything he could give them to help with their mission, Galland said "...give me a squadron of Spitfires!"

This was NOT because Galland considered the Spitfire a superior fighter. As far as the Germans were concerned at this time, the Bf 109 was still the best fighter in the world. The comment had two aspects.

One was simply to express Galland's frustration and anger. The second was to point out that the type of mission Goering was now demanding was more suited to the Spitfire's characteristics than to those of the 109.

I won't bore you with a list of the sources, but among them are many on BoB and Galland's own book 'The First And The Last'.


Now on the Spitfire vs Fw 190 thing:

Although the Germans felt that they had the best fighter in 1940, they were prepared to admit that the Spitfire was the best of all the enemy types they had encounterd since the war began.

They believed the 109 to have the edge overall, especially with its fuel-injected engine, but also knew that in certain situations the Spitfire pilot could easily prevail. Like its stablemate the Hurricane, it was generally not considered advisable to get into a turning dogfight with either British figher.

Unlike the Hurricane, however, the Spitfire also had the power/weight ratio and overall performance to be a near-match at all but the highest altitudes.

The Spitfire, therefore, was to be treated with a degree of caution and respect previously not accorded to other enemy machines.

As time went by and 1940 slipped into 1941, both sides made significant improvements to their fighters, with the 109E giving way to the 109F and the Spitfire I/II giving way to the Spitfire V. Throughout this time, a situation of near parity continued.

The change from 109E to 109F was a significant improvement and one that the Germans believed would AT LEAST keep a check on improvements to the Spitfire.

Improvements in the British fighter were no less important, with the change to cannon armament and the gradual remedy of negative-G carburetion problems being notable. The RAF felt comfortable that the Spitfire could AT LEAST continue to hold its own against the 109.

Then, in the Summer of 1941, the Germans pulled out their trump card. The Fw 190 was clearly superior in almost all respects to the Mk V Spitfire. This came as a complete shock to the British.

Far from having what they percievied as at least parity with the best known German fighters, they were now at a serious disadvantage. Such was the lead stolen by the Luftwaffe that it took the RAF almost a year (quite a time in WW2 terms) to produce an effective response.

That response was the Spitfire IX/VIII - still possessing virtually unimpaired the fine handling of its predecessors but with a generous leap in engine power.

As it turned out, the Spitfire was a 'happy' design that lent itself very well to such upgrades. With the extra horsepower and other refinements, the Mk IX/VIII at the time of its introduction (and for some time afterwards) became clearly the master of the 109 and easily a match for the 190.

I won't go on to the Griffon engined Spitfires, because I don't believe they figured in Eastern Front air fighting. Suffice to say they took another leap forward in engine power, but this time at some cost in handling. Fine machines, though. (And stunning to look at, IMHO.)

So where does that leave us?

If they model a Spitfire V into FB, I expect it to be noticeably inferior to the 190 and to struggle a bit against some of the 109s. (Especially with the machines the Brits initially gave to the Soviets, because many of these were 'clapped out'.)

If they model a Spitfire IX, I'll expect quite a bit more 'bang for my buck', so to speak.

It'll be interesting to see how they do it!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:24 PM
From the looks of it the MKXIV with clipped wings is the first Spitfire to make it in FB since this model is furthest in developement.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:13 PM
Some of the Luftwaffe pilot's wannabee on this forum are genuinely confused why trying explaining their apparent inability to fly their planes with real-life plane characteristics.
Having Fw190 superior to SpitV does not automatically make every encounter between the two decided before shots being fired.

It is much easier to blame wrong FM or DM instead of learning to fly your preferred mount to be able to exploit its good flight characteristics and negate bad one, to learn to employ good tactics and teamwork. Face it - no amount of whining is going to help Fw190 pilot to win the turnfight versus Yak (or SpitV for this meter).

Unfortunately huge amount of whining on this forum is already helped to make Fw190 unique among planes in IL-2 lineup - this plane being the only one flying according to manufacturer's test data, all else were modeled to real-life test data. Obviously, overmodeling Fw and dumbing down opponent planes is not going to be enough to help some of the "experten wannabee" - so the whining will continue forever and we would need just learn to live with it.

There are bugs in FM, but those bugs apply to all planes, on all sides. Hopefully they will be fixed soon. I have face in Oleg team's ability and will to provide support to the great game IL-2:FB had grown to be.

By the way Fw190A-4 didn't have MW-50 system installed. Engine had a provision for it, but not the rest of necessary "plumbing" and no tank for MW-50. Insegrim even said that MW-50 was not used on A series at all. There was another (peaty much equivalent in term of final performance - injection of high octane fuel instead of water-methanol mixture) system installed on A-8, but not MW-50.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:16 PM
kyrule2 wrote:

"190 has an inferior turn radius and rate of climb"


Kyrule2,

Please excuse my blunt responses. There is difficulty in communicating with few words, and a lot of words are less likely to be read.

For example the above quote has something that, in my mind, should be indentified. Does the statement refer to the relative rate of climb of the FW190 in the game or reality?

In the game this relative performance variable can be tested and proven. In the game this relative performance variable will change the relative combat capabilities of any plane matchup. The plane with the better climb rate has the option to dissengage at will in a fight, the plane with the inferior climb rate cannot. The plane with the higher climb rate is better suited to certain basic combat meneuvers such as the pitch back that is so basic in energy fighting. Climb performance is a vital part of sustained turn techniques and the vertical scissors. Where a fighter should have better climb performance it should also have better energy fighting capabilities the reverse is true the plane with inferior climb abilities will not have as much energy fighting capabilities. Energy tactics can be effectivly employed in a one on one situation against an opponent with greater turn performance.

In reality there is evidence that suggests that the FW did have good climb performance. Evidence suggests that the FW had better climb performance than the SpitV at all altitudes.

This is what
Focke Wulf
Fw190 in Combat
says about the SpitIX/FW190A-3 match up relative to climb

"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft althought on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increase when both aircraft were pulled up into a climb from the dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

The captured FW190A-3 was:

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engines speeds which may also affect the injection system.[Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do217 bomber.]"

In the game the FW does not climb well relative to any plane in the set. If the SpitV is introduced in the set it may or may not climb faster than the FW190A-4 and the SpitIX may or may not have a "slight" climb advantage, an initial climb dissadvantage that is a greater dissadvantage in initial climb from a dive, and may or may not be a good one vs one matchup where the outcome is determined by pilot skill and initiative.

Currently the FW190A-4, in the game, is limited to hit and run tactics.



P.S. That was a good post about Galland, Thanks.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:38 PM
Bogun spewed forth this garbage:

"Some of the Luftwaffe pilot's wannabee on this forum
are genuinely confused why trying explaining their
apparent inability to fly their planes with
real-life plane characteristics."


Bogun,

Is there a reason for your outburst?


Do you have a specific person in mind that your insults are directed upon?

Can you please explain just which real-life plane characteristics you refer to?

How would you go about flying an Fw190 against a SpitV, would you limit yourself to hit and run tactics, would you avoid the lone SpitV unless you had a wingman?

Would you use your superior climb to advantage?

How is one to respond to insults; in kind?

Is this the intent of your insults; to incite emotion, to destroy any sense of rational communication?

Do you mean to obfuscate?



The FW190 in IL2 had, according to Oleg, a speed performance that was taken from manufactured performance data. Do you know that this is still the case with Forgotten Battles?


How does any of your post relate to this topic?

The SpitV is going to be a tough plane to fit into the plane set. That is my contention. It will either be a dog compared to every other plane if the FW190A-4 remains relatively the same or it will not be modeled according to much historical record.

Bogun I know this won't mean much to you and I am at best only practicing my typing skills, I think you have problems.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:57 PM
What's a Spitfire?

"We make war that we may live in peace."

Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:14 PM
The spitfire was a good plane, but it haad crappy range, 450 miles at best.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:33 PM
Nitrous Pete, you wouldn't happen to be the same Nitrous Pete from Southern New Jersey would you? I know Darren pretty well if you are, he offered to take me out for a flight a month or so ago. Does Darren still have his Mustang (car, not the plane)?

Oh, and Josf, my comment was directed more at the game. The fact is that planes had various climb rates at different altitudes and from what I have read the 190 actually climbed pretty well at low altitudes, but I'm certainly no expert so who knows. Also, as I said earlier, speed can be converted to altitude so this helps the 190's climb rate in a sense as well. I shouldn't have used "inferior", "average" would have been more appropriate. But again, in certain circumstances is was probably actually pretty good so my comment probably should have been clarified. As for the turn rate, unfortunately the 190 was usually out-turned by its opposition like the Spitfire, Yaks, Lavochkins, P-39's, etc. Which is fine, I don't like to slow down and dogfight anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/08/0305:45PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:57 PM
Figures given for Spitfire's normal maximum range in Aircraft Of WWII, by Stewart Wilson:

Mk IA - 575 miles

Mk IIA - 500 miles

Mk V - 470 miles, 990 miles with drop tanks

Mk VII and VIII - 660 miles, 1180 with drop tanks

Mk IX and XVI - 434 miles, 980 with drop tanks

Mk XIV - 460 miles, 850 with drop tanks

So, varies a bit depending on the mark, but point taken. Yes, the Spitfire's range was nothing remarkable - but then, it was designed primarily for point defence/air superiority and interception in European conditions, so range was not the top priority. The 109 was even worse!

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:06 PM
Range is not that important on the eastern front anyway. The 109 would be in big trouble if it was.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:16 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- I don't believe I said the Spit V was a match for
- the Fw190. It wasn't in real life, and it shouldn't
- be in FB either. I said the SpitIX was more than a
- match. In real life, and hopefully in FB too. It
- should be a fair fight with both planes having their
- own advantages, and of course the pilot will make a
- big difference.

Errr, unlikely Buzz.
This is FB we're talking about.
The Spit can easily outturn the 190 so the 190 won't stand a chance in this sim against the Spit.
Dives and zoom climbs and vertical fighting in general don't cut it for the 190 here.
BnZ is a different story of course and you can BnZ with anything.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:21 PM
Salute Josf

Your source is wrong.

No models of the 190A were equipped with MW-50, with the exception of some 190A9's. The 190A8 had provision for MW-50, but was not equipped, due to the shortage of the kits, and the requirement for the available units to be installed in the 109's to help their performance. The 190A8 did have GM-1 Nitrous injection for better high altitude performance.

The difference between the 190A3 and A4 was the introduction of PETROL injection into the supercharger intake venturis when the aircraft was run at 1.42 ata maximum boost.

This had the effect of cooling the combustion chambers and reducing detonation, and allowing for WEP to be used for a longer period.

Essentially it had a similar effect to water injection, although it was not as effective at cooling the combustion chamber.

Salute RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:30 PM
Christos_swc

Nobody can say how the Spit will be in FB. I have tried the 08 patch, and the Fw190 is a very dangerous plane now. In a turn fight? No, but that's for noobs anyway. Fly the Fw190 as it should be flown, and it will be a good fight for the Spit.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:30 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- Bogun spewed forth this garbage:
-
- Is there a reason for your outburst?
-
- Do you have a specific person in mind that your
- insults are directed upon?
-
- Can you please explain just which real-life plane
- characteristics you refer to?
-
- How would you go about flying an Fw190 against a
- SpitV, would you limit yourself to hit and run
- tactics, would you avoid the lone SpitV unless you
- had a wingman?
-
- Would you use your superior climb to advantage?
-
- How is one to respond to insults; in kind?
-
- Is this the intent of your insults; to incite
- emotion, to destroy any sense of rational
- communication?
-
- Do you mean to obfuscate?

The reason is simple.
For a long time on this forum people usually called "Luftwhiners" on this forum maintaining the campaign to artificially inflate the performance of German planes, specifically (but not limited to) Fw190. "Luftwhiners" don't do the research, they just whine, frequently residing the mantra about "superior performance" of their preferred plane. This is to make sure that you understand - I did not call you a Luftwhiner - you presented the data you believe justify you performance claims. You are not one of them, by definition.

Fw190 was a great plane, and I enjoy flying it, also with some difficulties. There are people who do this much better then me and, by the way, they don't complain about this planes performance. Fw190 had many virtues, but good <u>sustained climb rate</u> was not one of those. <u>Zoom climb</u> was, but not a sustained climb.

I have a copy of original German climb test doc of Fw190A-4 and if you want - will e-mail it to you. I just don't have a web space to post it here.
Here is Fw190A-4 climb rate data from this document, it should be very close to A-3:
1000m - 15 m/s
2000m - 15.2 m/s
3000m - 11.8 m/s
4000m - 11.4 m/s
5000m - 11 m/s
6000m - 9.7 m/s
7000m - 7.7 m/s
8000m - 5.7 m/s
9000m - 4.6 m/s
10000m- 1.6 m/s
As you can see - Nothing special, decent but nothing special. Latewar Spitfires ,probably, being superior to pretty much everything else in the game in term of sustain climb.

Russians run some comparison dogfight on their own of lightened version of LaGG-3 vs. P-39 and SptifireV in the fall of 1942.
If you know Russian you can read about those in Pokryshkin's memoirs here:
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/pokryshkin-1/11.html

P-39 and SpitV both were superior to LaGG-3 in the turnfight.
P-39 was superior to LaGG-3 in vertical maneuver.
SitpV was equal to LaGG-3 in vertical maneuver.
P-39 and LaGG-3 were even in dive and both superior to SpitV.

So, what is you problem with incorporating Spitfire in the game?
It would fit right in everywhere in the game - in mid war lineup or in late war lineup.

Now, about You "Spewed Forth Your Garbage":
You assumed that you will not have any opposition in your understanding of the subject and You are drawing the conclusions about who planes being modeled (or not being modeled). You didn't even try to actually fly those planes, even Fw-190 you claim to know a lot about. Because if you do - you would know that Fw190A-8 for example climb to a 5000m in 5 minutes with %100 fuel and %100 ammunition. Even the most optimistic German manufacturer's data never claimed anything better then 6.1 minutes.

If you tested Beta8 you would know that top speed of Fw190A-8@SL was at about 590km/h. It is exactly 30km/h faster then manufacturer data for speed @SL.

Should I continue?





AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:36 PM
My mistake - it was A-5 and
2000m - 12.8 m/s



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 08/08/0304:10PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:41 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Christos_swc
-
- Nobody can say how the Spit will be in FB. I have
- tried the 08 patch, and the Fw190 is a very
- dangerous plane now.

And it damn right should be./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 10:48 PM
bogun

eric brown speed,climb test with a8 was close manufacturer data

perhaps reason oleg had they use,
brown test have prove that 190 manufacturer data good

eric bown test

a8 571km/h sealevel with wep 1700ps,

initialclimb 17,5m/sec with wep 1700ps

with Special emergency power(2050ps) could she 10min use,
is she faster and has better initialclimb as 17,5m/sec

a8 6,1min to 5000m are with wep 1700ps,
but not with Special emergency power 2050ps



Message Edited on 08/09/0301:41AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 12:33 AM
the 190 was considered highly manoverable due to its roll rate, roll rate is very important in a turn fight, if spit is following it in a turn the 190 can roll to the other side and pull away ahead of the spit, at low alt and against a clipped wing spitfire spits roll rate is very good tho. The spit V should be compared with the 109 F, it was better than the F2 and i think the f4 managed to match it, the 190 was a better fighter than the 109 F.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 12:47 AM
Also Galland would remain on the Western Front, so of course he was also part of the German officer core that was not aware of the arms build up in the East.

It makes you wonder how willingly the 109 pilots would have put their lives on the line over the channel if they found out Hitler had no intentions of invading Britain at all.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 02:09 AM
for those who might be interested here is Galland in his own words about the "Spitfire" quote:


http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 02:56 AM
Bogun wrote:


"So, what is you problem with incorporating Spitfire
in the game?"

I do not have a problem. My observation has been stated, how can I make it any more clear?

The SpitV was documented as being inferior to the contemporary FW190 in climb, roll, speed, dive, acceleration, and zoom climb. The SpitV was not a match for the FW190 in combat. If the game does not reflect this historical documentation then there is a problem. It is not my problem. I do not advertize the game as being accurate.

If the game does reflect the historical documentation and the FW190 is a better fighter plane than the SpitV is going to be a real dog in the sim.

The problem, not my problem, is that there is specific information on the comparitive combat effectivness of the FW190 vs the SpitV unlike any of the present planes modeled in the sim.

Who can compare for example how the FW190A-4 should compare to the Yak1B?

Certainly I cannot, and I do not even have any historical documentation that such a match up has occured. But as far as the FW190A-3 (very nearly the same aircraft as the A-4, as far as I know) vs the SpitV there is much documentation, specific documentation.

Back to the FW190A-4 vs Yak1B comparison.

Who can say which plane climbed faster?

We can propose a value for each plane and then compare our best quess and if one plane does in fact climb better than the other, in the game, it can easily be attributed to the normal range of error.

But in the case of the FW190A-3 vs the SpitV there is specific information such as "The Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it."

That source goes on to quantify the statement with specific information.

The SpitV, in the game, can be flown in mock combat against the FW190A-4 and the results of the tests can be compared to the historical evidence.

Which plane climbs better, which plane rolls better, which plane accelerates better, dives faster, faster top speed, zoom climb, and which plane is the better dog fighter.

The pilots doing the tests in that source were trying to find out why the pilots in the FW190s were kicking their asses. They found out that the plane was a better fighter plane.

The FW190A-4 then should be a better fighter plane than the SpitV.

Now if you do not see a problem. If in your view the FW190 will be modeled as a better fighter plane than the SpitV and if you think that the SpitV will then fit into the plane set as it should then so be it. That is your opinion.
We will see.

If you mean to police these boards and expose the Luftwinners for what they really are, in your opinion, then please consider the possibility that no one in this post was whinning, that you have made the first reference to anything derogatory, and therefore you are the only one doing any whinning. You are only feeding the fire.
Who are the ones that you have directed your insults towards, and do you want them to post in this thread, are you asking for their responses?

How can you be any more effective in attracting luftwinners to this thread; Put a big sign on it reading "Luftwhinners wanted here!"

I would very much like to have original documented performance specs for WWII aircraft. I have in exchange some .gif copies of energy manueverability charts for the early spit and 109 dated 19-11-40

Please keep these threads civil, and I regret having my own outburst of garbage, sorry.









JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 04:30 AM
JG14_Josf, I am sorry for my outburst to. Constant Luftwhining is really getting to me, I now getting edgy to easily.

You are talking like we are the first people who are trying to compare various fighter planes to one another. We are not - whole Russian development effort during the war was based on a comparison to German planes Russians were considered benchmark planes - Bf109F-4, Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6, Fw190A-4 and A-8.
If you read Stepanets A.T. Yak fighters of the Great Patriotic War period. ISBN 5-217-01192-0 you can find just this kind of comparison on every page.
You can also find graphs with some results of LII VVS testing of speed and climb of various planes in the book "State of Russian Aviation Industry 1917-1945". Book had been scanned and Insegrim has a lot of those graphs posted somewhere on a web. If you need - I will e-mail those graphs to you.
Book Soviet Combat Aircraft of The Second World War" by Yefim Gordon is another great source.

Question: Do you consider Fw190A-4 currently in the game being better plane that Yal-1 or Yak-1b?
If yes - I'm telling you - Spitfire V will fit right in. Just imagine, same kind of diving and climbing, better turning, slightly faster Yak-1. Call it Spitfire V. Also, best characteristics Spit was shoving at the altitudes where you will never see Yaks flying. The major problem with this plane is going to be this - for many of the people the only characteristic which meter - is <u>The One And Only, The Turn Rate</u>. When we see this plane finally arriving in the game, no doubt, there going to be another wave of nasty whining.

I actually feel that Spit V and Zero are going to be very good for the game for one very important for me reason - they are going to be instantly proclaimed "n00b planes". At list I hope so, may be mistakenly - because even having Bf109F-4 - pure and simple Uber plane did not stop whining.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 05:10 AM
I think if we get the clipped spit the fw190's greatest advantage will be lost namely it's awesome roll rate.

Dont forget that in FB most combat is under 2000mtr's so having a good diving plane is not much help.

No1RAAF_Pourshot



http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/ssaabignew.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 05:26 AM
OJ79 wrote:
- quite simply.....
-
- Because Spits played a comparatively minor part in
- the war on the eastern front.
-
- Since this game currently deals with the eastern
- front exclusively, there were many more appropriate
- planes to model first.
-
- Don't worry though,
- other theatres are being added and you'll get your
- Spit!
-
- Cheers
-
- OJ

Dont know were you got your history from bub, but look at the kill list of Hartmann or Barkhorn...Are you another revisionist historian authortity? Spitfires were more than plenmtiful and more than a passing fancy in the Eastern Front

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 05:52 AM
"Question: Do you consider Fw190A-4 currently in the
game being better plane that Yal-1 or Yak-1b?"

No.

I have not done much sim flying in the current version of IL2/FB with the FWs. Most of my flying in the current version has been with the 109E models.

I just did a test in the quick mission builder. Just one test so far indicates the answer to the above question is no.

Select an FW190A-4

Select a Yak-1B

Fly the FW straight at the Yak-1B to eliminate any possible lead turn advatage possible.

Jink to avoid the head-on shot.

Fly straight for awhile then turn slightly to ckeck 6.

The Yak has competed 180 degrees of turn from a co energy state and has closed to a distance that threatens.

The Yak will be in a possition to fire before the FW can turn 180 degrees of turn.

Start climbing in the FW. Try different speeds and check 6.

The Yak follows and maintains a threatening range.

Switch planes and do the same.

That was enough of an energy maneuvering test for me.

I am confident.

Take any two pilots and run 10 head to head fights with one pilot flying the Yak1B and the other flying the FW190A-4.

Note the results

Have both pilots switch planes and go head to head another 10 fights.

Note the results.

I am confident that the Yak1B will record more victories, unless one pilot in the test is really bad and then the results would be equal with neither plane recording more victories than the other.

So the answer is no.

The FW190A-4 in Forgotten Battles in not the better fighter plane than the Yak1B.

If the SpitV is modeled the same as the Yak1B relative to the FW190A-4 than it will not reflect the history recorded.

Can the IL2/FB FW climb away from the Yak1B?

Does the Yak1B retain enough energy after a 180 degree turn to threaten a co energy FW190 that does not make a turn?

Does that sound like the FW190 is a better fighter plane?

This does not sound as you have suggested where the SpitV has "same kind of diving and climbing" if the combat trials noted earlier are any true reference.

Stepanets A.T. Yak Fighter of the Great Patriotic War sounds like a very good book.

Is it possible to get a copy of that book translated to English?





JG14_Josf

JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:05 AM
Fw190 is not "an instant success" plane and some of the bugs mentioned hopefully will be fixed din the patch, but.

Even as it is now Fw190 is awesome, when one spends enough time learning how to fly it correctly. I didn't and I was under same impression you are right now for long time.
Then constant whining had forced me to try to fly LW planes just to find out how hard it is to fly them. I also start searching for the tracks, recorded by people who know how to fly them right. Well, I had found those tracks.
It was eye-opening to see A-4 outmaneuvering I-16 or I-153 in a genuine turnfight, for example. Or killing four P-39 or MiGs. Or two La-7 or Yaks. Aces of course.
When I saw those tracks I begin to understand what was happening to me, when I met really good Fw190 drivers on HyperLobby.

Patience, good energy tactics, awesome roll rate and gravity assisted turns, flaps, better zoom climb and dive - they all make Fw190 great plane. <u>One just have to learn how to use it.</u> It is also very important to be able to correctly judge the energy state of yours and your opponent's planes. Teamwork, good communications - are icing on a cake.

It was interesting enough for me to start practicing. I am nowhere near as good as those guys are, but I am getting better.

Don't know where to get Stepanets' book in English, but there is a txt version of it, and if you have enough patience you can try to translate it with on-line translator. I know how bad on-line translations could be, but the book is just too big for me to try to translate the whole thing myself.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:36 AM
Bogun,

Take any 2 pilots.

Head to head.

Yak1B vs FW190A-4.

20 matches.

10 in each plane.

See what you get.

If you find the FW190A-4 is the better plane then I will stand corrected.

The Yak1-B will eat the FW190A-4 in both angles and energy tactics.

That may be accurate.

But against the SpitV the 190A-4 is documented as being superior.

A good pilot can have an edge over a bad pilot regardless of which plane is being flown that is why in the test the pilots switch planes each flying one plane 10 times.

Which plane would consistantly win if there were 10 pilots switching planes for 100 bouts? The Yak1B is going to come out on top. Why? Because it has greater energy maneuverability and better turn performance.

That is not the historical picture presented in reference to the SpitV and the 109A-3.

The Tracks you speak of may suggest that the FW190A-4 is capable of success. But unlike the real world the players in sims with the most experience are not learning how to fly a real plane to it's limits so much as they are learning the limits of the program, including the limits of the Artifical intelligence.
Take any two of those outstanding sim pilots and do the test with both pilots flying both planes. See which plane is better.

Better zoom climb and better dive? Are you sure?

Yes if I am wrong about the Yak1B and the FW190A4 as it exists presently in IL2/FB then my understanding of fighter combat is lacking. That may be true.

If I am right then what does that say about your undersanding?

It has not excaped my notice that you have not actually acknowledged that in fact the FW190A-4 is the better plane than the Yak1-B in the current version of IL2/FB.

Is the FW190A-4 a better fighter plane than the Yak1-B in the current version of IL2/FB?

Was the FW190A-4 actually a better fighter plane than the Yak1-B in reality?

Do you contend that the FW190A-3 was not the better fighter plane than the SpitV in reality?

http://home1.gte.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 08:45 AM
Josf, to be honest I didn't thoroughly read all the latest posts in this thread but I was curious if you have tried the beta08 version? I agree the 190 was a deathtrap before, but the FW-190's are MUCH better now, especially at maintaining energy, gaining speed in dives, zoom climb, elevator response, etc. Also judging planes (if I am understanding correctly, maybe I am wrong) by the way the AI flies them is faulty as the AI has exaggerated flight models that is far superior to the ones a human pilot gets. In either case in 1 vs.1 (ace level) fights in 08 I have some difficulty defeating the Yak-1B in my 190A-4, but I can always disengage at will. But in 4 vs. 4 fights we do very well (usually winning) because we can use our speed and high speed handling to catch and attack any pursuer. In a 1 on 1 fight if your plane has better speed (FW-190) but your enemy has better climb and turning ability (Yak-1B), then the best you can hope for is to extend and force a head-on. Against fighters with superior turning/climbing ability I never engage in 1 vs. 1 fights in my 190. I'll go find friendlies. The 190 in FB is a somewhat poor 1 vs.1 plane, but in teams it is awesome. Is this historically accurate? IMHO yes to some degree judging from the 190's strengths. And I do believe the Yak was superior in terms of turning ability and equal or better regarding climbing ability. Get the Yak to medium to high altitudes and you will close the gap and can use your increased superiority in speed to perform vertical maneuvers more efficiently. The FW-190 was very successful, and 1 on 1 dogfights were the exception. From what I have read most kills were made by bouncing unaware or distracted opponents, and the 190 does this very well. It has high survivablity and no plane is better at safely disengaging and escaping IMHO.

Still, the confines of a computer simulation will never accurately represent reality and this must be kept in mind. The real performance of these planes is unknown to all of us, and will never be known. All we can do is take pilot accounts into consideration and draw our own conclusions. And from my experience, the 190 in beta08 performs as I would expect and requires tactics that I believe were needed to be successful. Again though, this is just my experience/opinion.

As Bogun said, I was awful in the 190 at first, but with practice I have become pretty good (at least I hope). Offline (full hard settings) I am dominant in the 190, much more so than in any other plane. But the 190 took alot more practice to become skilled with than any other plane IMHO, with the P-47 being next. Perhaps I have gotten off topic with this post but I am just throwing my thoughts out there, even if they are not intended specifically for you.

But I do want to say one more thing. I think the A-4 is a better plane than the Yak-1B in FB (beta08) because like I said I dictate the engagement. I can out-run the Yak and get help or if in a multiple plane skirmish I can break away if need be. If the slower Yak wants to run or disengae it will have a much harder time IMHO.

And I do think the 190A-4 was a better plane in reality for the reasons I listed. And I do think the 190A-3 was better than the Spitfire V, again for the same reasons. But that doesn't really matter, a FW, Yak, or Spit pilot that uses the wrong tactics will fail. And I think this is represented fairly well in FB(beta08).

As a side note the ridiculous toughness of the Yaks, and the overly high top speed at sea-level of the La-5 standard are historically inaccurate and makes things more difficult for 190 pilots than they should be. Especially for the A-4. Sorry to be long-winded.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/09/0307:53AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:13 AM
The 190 had excellent diving and zoom climbing characteristics against early war a/c.
Those are not being modelled and that's what's hurting the 190.
Hopefully from what I've read here this is about to change.
Sounds to me the 190s vertical capabilities after the patch will match those of the Hurricane in the original FB
That would make the 190 really uber/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:35 AM
Christos_swc wrote:
- The 190 had excellent diving and zoom climbing
- characteristics against early war a/c.
- Those are not being modelled and that's what's
- hurting the 190.
- Hopefully from what I've read here this is about to
- change.
- Sounds to me the 190s vertical capabilities after
- the patch will match those of the Hurricane in the
- original FB
- That would make the 190 really uber.

And they are still going to complain about it after they get shot down a few times that it's still not good enough.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:41 AM
Christos, the diving and zoom capabilities are definitely improved in beta08. The AI 190's were even diving/accelerating away from me in dives. The 190 gains speed very fast when diving now IMO. And as far as 190 vertical maneuvers go, I have mentioned a few times that against Yaks I was simply extending away while level, building to maximum speed. Then I would pull straight up and Hammerhead, with the excess speed built over my opponent carrying me higher and allowing me to dive down on my opponent. This was IMPOSSIBLE in FB 1.0. The La-5/7 are still, and will be a 190 pilots biggest concern. If a La gets on your tail you better have a team-mate around or use your superior roll-rate to try and escape. I mentioned a maneuver that should work concerning this (roll-rate) and I tried it against the AI and it worked like a charm.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:45 AM
kyrule2 wrote:
I mentioned a maneuver that should
- work concerning this (roll-rate) and I tried it
- against the AI and it worked like a charm.
-

Sorry, can't find it.
What manouvre would that be?
I know 190 pilots when attacked by a Spit V would roll on one side, then quickly roll in the opposite direction to find themselves on their backs, then dive away using superior acceleration and finally climb away from the Spit.
That's not to say that real life mnanouvres would necessarily work here.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 12:29 PM
Spitfire will be superior to FW-190 in FB.. only because the cramped gunsight view with the FW-190.. totally ruins deflection shooting, which is more than important in FW-190-series..

Period.. Talk about FW-190 vs Spitfire after we get fixxed forward view with the Butcherbird.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 12:58 PM
When I started out with Il-2 I somehow managed to get used to the German a/c visibility with my 109.
After getting used to the no-cockpit view online though I can't really go back to firing blind.
I don't know if German pilots fired blind deflection shots but I'm not going to attack any bombers directly from behind with the deadly defensive guns, I always dive on the from above.
That allows me to avoid getting hit more often than not but it means that cockpit view is out of the question.
Oleg has stated though that he won't change the cockpit lay out of the 190 unless some documentation arises that forces him to change his mind.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 01:37 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- Figures given for Spitfire's normal maximum range in
- Aircraft Of WWII, by Stewart Wilson:
-
- Mk IA - 575 miles
-
- Mk IIA - 500 miles
-
- Mk V - 470 miles, 990 miles with drop tanks
-
- Mk VII and VIII - 660 miles, 1180 with drop tanks
-
- Mk IX and XVI - 434 miles, 980 with drop tanks
-
- Mk XIV - 460 miles, 850 with drop tanks
-
- So, varies a bit depending on the mark, but point
- taken. Yes, the Spitfire's range was nothing
- remarkable - but then, it was designed primarily for
- point defence/air superiority and interception in
- European conditions, so range was not the top
- priority. The 109 was even worse!

Range of the 109 was very similiar to Spitfire, not worser. Most authors give 109 ranges at a high speed cruise speed, which is very uneconomical. Under economic flight condtions, the range was between 413 and 465 miles w/o droptank. Theoretically the K-4 was the farthest reaching, as it could use it`s 115 methanol tank for additional range along with a 300 liter droptank.

BTW, many of your droptank figures refer to Spitfire ranges which were not used in reality, ie. mounting excessive sized droptanks.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 01:48 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

-
- No models of the 190A were equipped with MW-50, with
- the exception of some 190A9's.

Nope, the A-8 did not have MW50, but it seems some 190A Jabos like the A-4 had. The A-9 definetely had it from early 1945.


- The 190A8 had
- provision for MW-50, but was not equipped, due to
- the shortage of the kits, and the requirement for
- the available units to be installed in the 109's to
- help their performance.

There was no "shortage" of MW kits. The 190A-8 simply not used MW50, because it used a different kind of, equivalent booster (Erhohte Notleistung, which was injection of petrol into SC eye), which produced identical results to MW50, but was simplier and more practical to implement. It ment the installation of a 115 liter tank (which was, btw, the same one as the ones in the late 109s used for methanol storage...)



-- The 190A8 did have GM-1
- Nitrous injection for better high altitude
- performance.

Semi-correct, they had GM-1 for high altitude (though it`s a question how often was this actually used), and it seems they could use Erhohte notleistung for low altitudes as well.

Erhohte Notleistung was standard in any case, and raised

-
- The difference between the 190A3 and A4 was the
- introduction of PETROL injection into the
- supercharger intake venturis when the aircraft was
- run at 1.42 ata maximum boost.

You are speaking of the A-5, and it raised boost to 1.58/1.65 (low/high SC gear) atas from 1.42.

Rasing from 1.42 to 1.58 increased SL power from 1800PS to approx. 2000PS.

Some British docs say that 1.65ata was possible in the low blower stage, but this is probably incorrect.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 02:06 PM
Here are some some sustained climb figures for FW190A-5 at 1.42 and 1.32ata (US tests with EB-104):

At 3874kg, Cowl flaps 1/2 open. It should be noted that A-5 was given at 4000kg TO weight, so this plane is about equivalent of an A-5 w/o the outer MGFF cannons or a fully loaded A-3 or A-4 w. MGFF cannons.


1.32ata / 1.42 ata, in meter/secundum.

0m : 16.25 / 19.7
1220m: 17.25 / 20.3
2900m: 12.2 / ---
3200m: --- / 14.25
5400m: 13.6 / ----
6000m: ---- / 15.25
10400m: 0 / ----
11000m: ---- / 0

If you connect these points, you will get the exact sustained climb vs. altitude graph.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 02:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Range of the 109 was very similiar to Spitfire, not
- worser. Most authors give 109 ranges at a high speed
- cruise speed, which is very uneconomical. Under
- economic flight condtions, the range was between 413
- and 465 miles w/o droptankjavascript:document.forms.post_message.bod y.value = document.forms.post_message.body.value + ' \n\n' + document.forms.post_message.usersignature.value;do cument.forms.post_message.submit();
Post. Theoretically the K-4
- was the farthest reaching, as it could use it`s 115
- methanol tank for additional range along with a 300
- liter droptank.
-
- BTW, many of your droptank figures refer to Spitfire
- ranges which were not used in reality, ie. mounting
- excessive sized droptanks.
-
-


That would be real bright, just cruise along at the best economical range speed in a combat zone.


What is so excessive about the Mk IX/XVI's range? They had a 85 gal internal tank capacity and could carry a 90 gal (409 L) external tank. Twice the fuel = ~ twice the range. That is only a 1/3 larger than the LW 300 L drop tank. What is excessive is the 170 gal (770 L) but that would easily put the range over 1200mi.

It is less (409L/415L) than what the K-4 could carry over and above its main fuel tank. If the the K-4 uses the 115 L tank for fuel then it looses its performance enhancement fluid (MW). Now is range or performance the most required?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:13 PM
MiloMorai wrote:


-
- That would be real bright, just cruise along at the
- best economical range speed in a combat zone.
-

Funny, Spitfires allowed to do this, 109s are not.


- What is so excessive about the Mk IX/XVI's range?
- They had a 85 gal internal tank capacity and could
- carry a 90 gal (409 L) external tank.

90 gallon tank was not used for the MkIX for most of the time, early versions only used 30 gallon droptanks. Later, 45 and 60 gallon tanks appeared, and finally, 90 gallon ones. Besides, many British external tanks were NON-JETTISONABLE, making them usuful for ferry purposes only, but not combat sorties. It also seems that some of those non-droptank ranges refer to the rarely used or installed rear-tank equipped Mks, IIRC they were used in a single account, to send Spits to the Mediterran. Range alone w/o the amount of fuel carried gives little actual information.


-
- It is less (409L/415L) than what the K-4 could carry
- over and above its main fuel tank. If the the K-4
- uses the 115 L tank for fuel then it looses its
- performance enhancement fluid (MW).

Without MW50, 1850 PS was still possible for K-4, along with the increased range. That would yield 593 kph/h at SL, 712kph at 7500m. Performance loss was thus rather minor in this case.

- Now is range or
- performance the most required?

Depends on the situation.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 08/09/0304:21PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:18 PM
It was developed as an interceptor and the Mustang was concieved and designed by the Brits and made in the US. It didnt achieve its greatness until it had the Allison replaced with the Merlin.... Id dogfight a Mustang with a Spitfire any day....

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 04:41 PM
I don't know how the Spit will play out here, but Aces High has the Spit V, IX, and XIV, along with the 190 A5, A8, and D9. In my experience, unless the Spit pilot gets jumped unaware, there are only two probable outcomes between pilots of relatively even skill:

1. The 190 (any mark) dies
2. The 190 (any mark) runs away

The Spit will almost never lose. It doesn't matter which type, either. Furthermore, the Spit IX is probably the best dogfighter in the entire plane set, and the XIV is an energy fighter with no peer. You can check out the performance charts for all the planes in the plane set at www.hitechcreations.com (http://www.hitechcreations.com).
Just my $0.02.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 05:33 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- Bogun,
-
- Take any 2 pilots.
-
- Head to head.
-
- Yak1B vs FW190A-4.
-
- 20 matches.
-
- 10 in each plane.
-
- ......
-
- Do you contend that the FW190A-3 was not the better
- fighter plane than the SpitV in reality?


JG14_Josf, you are mixing it up again.
You are not trying to compare just planes, but AI flying those planes. It had been said many times, including by Oleg on this forum, that AI is better at turnfighting then in energy maneuvering.

Is Fw190 better in zoom climb and dive? Of cource, if both Fw and Yak in the same energy state initially.

This is a big misunderstanding, when like in some of your scenarios, you assume that in a head-on with Yak you in Fw are in same energy state. Just try it against human opponent - you fly Yak and ask you friend on Fw190 not to maneuver, just go strait. <u>By the way, to win you have to be not in even with your opponent, but be in higher energy state. </u>

You are asking was the FW190A-3 was better fighter plane than the SpitV in reality?
Yes, but if real Fw190 pilots try to do same as our virtual Fw190 pilots do - turnfighting with anything moving - the result would be the same as it is in IL-2 now.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 06:24 PM
Hiya,Vo101 Isegrim

On ranges for the Spitfire, and whether or not the 109 was 'even worse'.......

You could be right, and you've already got me 3/4 of the way there, but I've yet to be COMPLETELY convinced. ALL of the many and varied sources I've read give (even when adjusted) generally SLIGHTLY lower figures for the 109.

Quoting from one source (the one where my Spitfire range figures came from) and corroborated from a different source and different publisher, the figures for the 109 are given as:

*E-3 - 410 miles

*F-4 - without drop tank - not given by either source (with single 300 litre drop tank 528 miles)

*G-6 - 350 miles (620 miles with drop tank)

*G-10 - 356 miles (with drop tank not given by either source)

*K-4 - 356 by one source, 366 by the other (maybe typo, and once again figures with drop tank not given)

Now, these figures do not appear merely SLIGHTLY worse than those quoted for the Spitfire, they appear overall to be SUBSTANTIALLY worse, so why do I insist on saying SLIGHTLY in my original statement above?

The reason is, I actually do believe that there is substance to what you are saying and I've done some calcualtions to make the appropriate adjustments.

After making said adjustments, the 109 comes out only SLIGHTLY worse than the Spitfire - but slightly worse is still worse!

In any case, I'm genuinely grateful for your post, because it has drawn attention to an area that I had not previously questioned.

Thanks for your input - I have learned something new!

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:38 PM
Bogun,

You missunderstand.

Take any two human pilots.

Have them fight each other, 20 times each in both planes.

See which plane dominates.

Any two human pilots.

That is in the current version of IL2/FB.

Have you actually done any testing to quantify the dive and zoom advantage of the FB190A-4 relative to the Yak1-B in the current version of IL2/FB? If so what is this advantage?

My simple energy performance test admittedly is prone to error since it involves the Average level of A.I. in the Yak1-B and the Ace level A.I. in the FW190A-4.
However my tests have serverd me well in the past when deciding which tactics are survivable when going on-line against Human opponents.

The FW190A-4 vs the Yak1-B in the current version of the game is not the better dog fighter.

The test results of two human pilots flying each plane as described above will prove or disprove that statement, and as the scientific method describes the proof should be repeatable, and the greater the number of tests the less likely will be any error.

I've heard the notion repeated often that we the flight sim community do not exibit the skills used by actual fighter pilots during the war. I think this perspective is in error. Of the opponents I've met on-line many of them are fully capable of employing the correct tactics for the plane match up.

According to one source:

"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper."

Try outclimbing someone in a Yak1B while you are flying an FW190A-4 in IL2/FB. The difference is, if there is any in climb, will not be as described above. Not even close.

Therefore the Yak1-B is not a good example of what the SpitVB should be modeled like if it ever makes it into the plane set.

My contention remains. The SpitV will be a tough one to find its place in the plane set.

I have no experience with the new patch.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 08:10 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- The Spitfire is going to be a difficult plane to fit
- into the mix.
-
- How can a SpitV, which was dominated by the FW190A-3
- be introduced into the current plane set?
-
- The SpitV was a very good fighter plane.
-
- If it is modeled as an inferior fighter plane to the
- FW190A-4 then how will it stack up in FB?
-
- If it is not modeled as an inferior fighter plane to
- the FW190A-4 then the game will be rewriting
- history.
-
Well put Josf.
The 190 needs improving in FB to reflect its true potency.

http://dogtail2.freeservers.com/images/109s_returning[reduced).jpg

"Spring chicken to shyte-hawk in one easy lesson"

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:20 PM
- 90 gallon tank was not used for the MkIX for most of
- the time, early versions only used 30 gallon
- droptanks.

The mounting points for the 30,45 and 90 gallon tanks were all the same. The 30 and 45 gallon tanks were more common early on, because the need for the 90 wasn't there. The 90 became more common later on.

If your mission calls for an extra 30 gallons of fuel, you don't add a 90 gallon tank.
The 90 gallon tank was available on the MK V before the Mk 9 entered service.

- Later, 45 and 60 gallon tanks appeared,
- and finally, 90 gallon ones.

Never heard of the 60 gallon tank. The 90 and the 30 gallon both came in at the same time, I believe the 45 gallon was slightly later.

Even the 170 gallon tank was available before the Spit IX entered service.

- Besides, many British
- external tanks were NON-JETTISONABLE, making them
- usuful for ferry purposes only, but not combat
- sorties.

I've never seen any external tanks on Spits that were not jetisonable, apart from the expermintal wing tanks on Spit IIs. Even the 170 gallon tank could be jetisoned.

RAF doctrine was not to jetison tanks unless "operationally necessary", which might have confused you, but all external tanks were dropable.

- It also seems that some of those
- non-droptank ranges refer to the rarely used or
- installed rear-tank equipped Mks, IIRC they were
- used in a single account, to send Spits to the
- Mediterran.

All those ranges given above are for a single 90 gallon drop tank, and no extra internal tankage.

Internal rear fuselage ferry tanks were fitted to the Mk V on some occasions, of 29 gallon capacity. They were used mainly to send reinforcements to NA and Malta.

Internal rear tanks were fitted to some late Spit VIIIs, IXs, XIVs, and XVIs. They were of various capacities, up to 75 gallons or so. When used, the Spit was subject to the same sort of limitations as a Mustang with rear fuselage tank. They were used in combat, not as ferry tanks.

- Range alone w/o the amount of fuel
- carried gives little actual information.

All those ranges are with normal forward fuselage tank, (85 gallon on most Spits) and a single 90 gallon drop tank.

With the 170 gallon tank, the Spit V range increased to 1450 miles, ferry only.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:45 PM
Let's wait until after the patch as the 190 will be much improved, trust me. The 190 in FB 1.0 and the one we will likely get after the patch (judging from test08) will be completely different planes. I like this discussion, but until we fly the new and improved 190 it is kind of irrelevent.

And Christos, I was referring to a maneuver I thought of where the 190 at high speeds with an La on his tail does a quick half-roll into a slit-s (an inverted split-s), and dives toward the ground. At a specified critical altitude which requires testing, the 190 again does a very quick half-roll and pulls hard out of his dive (flap assisted if neccessary), just avoiding the ground. The La's far inferior roll-rate WILL result in him hitting the ground if he tries to follow you, he simply does not have enough time to do the half-roll and pull out. He has to break off. As someone else suggested, you don't want to dive exactly straight down or level, and you don't want to pull out exactly straight or level either just to make things more unpredictable, difficult for your attacker.

*This maneuver would be/is impossible in FB 1.0 but with the 190's improvement in beta08 it was possible and works very well against AI and they have exaggerated flight models. I think it will work against humans as well.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:10 PM
Kyrule2 wrote:

"The 190 in FB is a somewhat poor 1 vs.1 plane, but in teams it is awesome. Is this historically accurate? IMHO yes to some degree judging from the 190's strengths."



My research is limited, however what I have read so far indicates that the 190 was anything but a poor 1 vs 1 plane. Here is another example:

From Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
by Mike Spick
page 121

"Instead of telegraphing their intentions by forming up at high altitude in full view of the German radar, the British now took to crossing the Channel at low level, then climbing flat out just before they reached the coast. At the same time, increasing use was made of low-level penetrations by light bombers, which called for a different approach to the fighter escort mission. For the Jagdflieger, the leisurely wait at cockpit readiness, followed by a calculated climb to altitude, was now eliminated: the Spitfires, rocketing skywards at full throttle, were often already above.
With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crtical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of the RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before."

My interpretation of this is that the FW had a higher power loading than the Spitfire or the 109. The FW had greater energy maneuverability than both planes possibly only on the front side of the envelope.
The Germans were able to maintain an energy advantage with vertical maneuvering over the Spitfires more so than what was possible with the 109s. The Germans could remain "In the fight" longer with the FW due to its advatages in energy maneuverability, specifically in vertical maneuvering; dives, zooms, sustained turns above corner speed etc.
The 109s did not enjoy as much energy advantage. One area that power loading tends to show up is in climb. Of course it is much more complicated and beyond my understanding. I've posted the Historical reference and then my interpretation. The Historical record is what is important, not my guess.
My guess is used to direct the reader toward a possible explination for the historical record. The facts, if the reference is accurate, is that Germans flying FW190s were effective in dog fighting.
To say this was due only to teamwork or tactics tends to leave out the possiblilty that the British were also capable of employing teamwork and tactics.



Here is another reference illustrating the combat effectiveness of the FW190:

Wings of the Luftwaffe
By Cpt Eric Brown.

(This plane in question may actually be the same 190A-3 wrk# 5313 that was refered to in Unsolicited Testimonials in the book Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat by Alfred Price)

"The RAF took advantage of its windfall of 23 June 1942...
..on 13 July, this invaluable prize was delivered to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford, where it was put through intensive performance trials and flown competitively against several Allied fighter types...
...It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "Mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavorured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the Horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking""


There you have an explination of energy fighting made by Captain Eric Brown in reference to actual WWII combat with Spitfires and Focke Wulfs. The reference suggest the FW190 was more than holding its own in dog fights.

If the FW in FB remains 'as is' (The patch has not been released, the fat lady has not sung) and if the SpitV is introduced, in the plane set,which one will be the better dog fighter; FW or Spit?

Anyone notice the forward view restrictions in the Spit movie clip on this board?



JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:23 PM
Josf, like I said nobody will know the truth whether or not the 190 was a good 1 vs. 1 plane or not. We will never know the truth to most qestions regarding WWII planes because so much conflicting data is available. Like I said What I am posting is just my opinion/conclusion and I may be wrong but nobody will ever know.

I respect you posting your finds, they are good reads. Remember I am a 190 fan. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But I still have to draw my previous conclusions based on the strengths of the 190, others may feel differently, which is cool.


You wrote:

"If the FW in FB remains 'as is' (The patch has not
- been released, the fat lady has not sung)"

Read my above post, the 190 will be a completely different plane after the patch, I guarantee it. The 190 will have excellent high speed handling, something variants of the Spitfire should not have. The controls of the Spitfire tended to get very stiff at high speeds, like the 109 but not as bad. I'm just basing this on what I have read. Spitfire fans don't flame me, I love the Spitfire too. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:23 PM
Salute

1st: Find me some documents showing 190A4's with MW-50. I doubt you will. The only 190's with radials which were absolutely equipped with MW-50 were the later F models.

If there were no shortages of MW-50 kits, then why was the 190D9 not fitted with them till late December 1944, despite the fact they were requested by the Jagdflieger almost as soon as the aircraft became operational?

The Petrol injection was first used on the 190A4 with later model of the 801D. Do the research.

<<<<<<<<<

In regards to 401 Badger's claim that he would dogfight a P-51 with a Spitfire:

You'd die... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire had a much better turnrate, and the clipped wing versions would outroll a Mustang. Both performance prequisites for close in dogfighting.


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


If you scroll down the page below you will see a comparision between a P-51D and a Spitfire XIV. The XIV was not as good a dogfighter as a IX.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

A P-51D would be able to fight a Spitfire IX using its superior speed and better high speed maneuverability. It would want to avoid a dogfight. Against a Spit XIV, it would have a tough time at high altitude where the XIV would be faster. At low altitude, it would have a speed advantage.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:01 PM
Kyrule,

I have nothing against your opinion personally. The information I have and what is presented in this thread suggests otherwise.

Specifically the opinion that the FW was not a good one vs one dogfighter is at odds with some historical records.

I have yet to find a source that reinforces the idea that the FW190 was not a good one vs one dogfighter except flight sim games which do tend to suggest that conclusion.

This is not to say that the SpitIX wouldn't own a Sturmfitted FW190A-8. That is not the question.

History has recorded that during the operational use of the Focke Wulf it was known as an effective one on one fighter plane. If that has not been made clear in my references then perhaps this one may:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

"The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind. The remaining I-16 types, of course, were not even close. The F model appeared in the north in large numbers in November 1942. Before that time we saw primarily the E model. The I-16 type-28 and -29 fell behind the F model in maximum speed and vertical maneuver, but surpassed the F model in horizontal maneuver and armament. The F model was very capable in vertical maneuver. If he even thought you were going to catch him, the pilot gave it more throttle and broke away.

The FW-190 appeared at approximately the same time as the Bf-109F, sometime in October 1942. It was a powerful fighter. The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect, perhaps, except horizontal maneuver. But by this time our Yaks and lend-lease P-40s and P-39s were arriving in large numbers."

Try fighting an IL2/FB 190A4 against an IL2/FB I-16 and see if your experience can be described as "The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect, perhaps, except horizontal maneuver."


As far as the patch goes, again, I do not have the patch. It stands to reason that it will change before the release, otherwise it would have already been released.





JG14_Josf

RichardI
08-09-2003, 11:12 PM
Numbers, numbers, numbers.
If you look at numbers, yes, the FW-190 was superior in some areas to some marks of Spitfires. Pretty vague, eh?

What that tells me is that numbers mean sh!t. That's why FW's got shot down by P-51's and P-47's and P-38's and Spitfires, and Tempests, etc, etc,...

There was much more to RL airwar than numbers. Wake up.

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:44 PM
I have to smile when I occassionally visit the general discussion pages and see a Spitfire thread because,after being an IL2 devotee from the beginning,I just know whats coming.

It normally follows the pattern:

1/ "Would like a Spitfire in the game"

2/ "Why.The (Insert favourite LW fighter here) was far superior because ....."

3/ "Spits were on the Eastern front so should be in"

4/ "Not in enough numbers...inferior aircraft...heres the proof (Tables and graphs follow)"

5/ "It wasn't inferior"

6/ "Yes it was.."

7/ "No it wasn't..."

etc,etc,etc.

I am a Brit,this makes me biased I agree.However the facts are that together with the Hurricane the Spit proved more than a match for the Luftwaffe,giving rise to Gallands oft quoted request of Goering "Give me a Squadron of Spitfires",or something like that.The RAF held out against a vastly numerically superior force and thus enabled Britain to remain free and enable D-Day to be launched.This,together with the Russian efforts caused the downfall of the Nazi's.(However I think we have the moral high ground as we never signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis nor supplied their war machine until a double-cross caused us to get into the war.The aircraft in question helped hold out aginst the forces of darkness for over 2 years until the cavalry deemed to arrive).

Like it or not,the Spitfire was a fine aircraft,ask any pilot who flew it.It performed valiantly in the role it was designed for/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif oint defence interceptor.

It was more manouverable than any LW fighter which is why the RAF pilots always tried to sucker the 190's into a turning fight rather than allow them thy're BnZ advantage.Once in a turning fight the 190's rather nasty faults were its undoing.

The Spitfires limited range and comparatively light armament of the early versions were a drawback and the 190 proved a nasty surprise when it appeared and it too was a fine fighter.

As Flashman said "T'aint the weapon,t'is the man behind it" (Quote from the film "Royal Flash")

Another pilot (I forget who) said words to the effect of "Know the strengths and weaknesses of your aircraft and that of your enemies,When you fight,fight on your terms not his".

To say that the Spitfire has no place in the Sim is a bit silly when we have P51's and B1's and Zero's and P38's and P80's on the way!

And I've always said that anyone who shouts against the inclusion of any plane from WW2 in this sim wants his bumps feeling! I want 'em all ASAP!

Oh and one more little nugget of information for the "LW uber all" brigade.The Germans lost,the Allies won.

I now its obvious but its a little fact that seems to get lost amongst the ranting.'Nuff said /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bo_Nidle



Get my skins at: www.mudmovers.com (http://www.mudmovers.com) and www.il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) the full screenshots are available at www.tangodown.co.uk (http://www.tangodown.co.uk)

http://www.orangeneko.com/rik/thumbs/flashbn.jpg

"You've got to treat your kite like you treat your woman! Get inside her 10 times a day and take her to heaven and back!"Lord Flashheart RFC 1917.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:46 PM
I dont know how that first smilie got in there..oops /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bo_Nidle



Get my skins at: www.mudmovers.com (http://www.mudmovers.com) and www.il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) the full screenshots are available at www.tangodown.co.uk (http://www.tangodown.co.uk)

http://www.orangeneko.com/rik/thumbs/flashbn.jpg

"You've got to treat your kite like you treat your woman! Get inside her 10 times a day and take her to heaven and back!"Lord Flashheart RFC 1917.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 12:50 AM
Bo_Nidle wrote:

"I have to smile when I occassionally visit the general discussion pages and see a Spitfire thread because,after being an IL2 devotee from the beginning,I just know whats coming."


If you read selectivly then of course you will find what you are looking for.


Can you please define B&Z?


Does B&Z refer to hit and run?


"The Spitfires limited range and comparatively
light armament of the early versions were a drawback
and the 190 proved a nasty surprise when it appeared
and it too was a fine fighter."

Is a fine fighter one that must resort to hit and run tactics?


Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

page 183

Double-Superior and Double-Inferior Conditions

"The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good and very lucky."

Whenever a sim pilot used the term B&Z to describe the tactics best suited to a particular plane, and if the term B&Z means in effect; hit and run tactics, then what they are saying is that that particular plane is suffering from the condition known as double inferior. A condition where one fighter has both significantly lower power loading and higher wing loading. The double inferior plane is less capable of both energy and angles tactics.

When a plane in a sim is modeled as double inferior it has historically (sim history) taken on the role of the B&Z fighter plane.

Sim history and WWII Air Combat History are not the same history, yet they are often confused.

As to who won the war, if your interested at all in human history; the socialists gained the most ground, the average run of the mill citizen payed the price. And that perspective of who won the war is as relavant to this topic as any other.

Those who are eager to have the Spitfire included in the plane set may take a look at the P-47 to get an idea of what they are likely to get.

Some of the previously staunch IL2 appologists, those who were so quick to cry "Luftwinner" at the mere mention of possible modeling discrepencies have now taken up the cause of accuracy.

The Spit V in particular is going to be difficult to get right. The possiblity exists, however remote, that IL2 is not going to model it favorably.

This would be a shame.

However does it not at least seem possible that the same may be true concering the FW?





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 01:09 AM
This thread has fast turned into another b!tch thread about the Spitfire this and the Focke-Wulf that! Who gives a fat rat's A$$! All this moaning and carrying on about it don't mean sh!te.

As RichardI stated...There was much more to RL airwar than numbers.

Too bloody right! How about pilot skill and tactics?


Grow Up Children and for once in your miserable little lives just live and let live!



http://people.freenet.de/Santarossa/Ss2.jpg




Message Edited on 08/10/0310:23AM by K2_

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 04:20 PM
Hi guys!

I see that despite my most earnest efforts, the meaning of Galland's 'Spitfire comment' to Goering is STILL being misunderstood.

Would anyone like me to quote directly from Galland's own book?

panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 04:57 PM
Fighter General
by Toliver and Constable

page 111

With the bomber crews claiming that they were not being closely enough escorted, and adversary relationship had dveloped between fighter pilots and bomber pilots. Goering sided unreservedly with the bomber pilots. He returned now to the necessity for close escort, in view of the imminent use of hundreds of bombers in the London assault. Galland choked down his anger and tried again to explain to Goering some of the fighters' difficulties.

"Herr Reich Marshal, our Me-109 is superior to the Spitfire in the attack. That is the way we should use our fighters-hunting down the RAF and attacking them. We have a clear advantage in such operations."
"Galland, the size of your personal bag of enemy fighter is unimportant, compared with the protection of my bombers. I am telling you what is important."
"Sir, the Spitfire is an excellent defensive fighter, because it is more maneuverable than our Me3-109, even if a little slower-especially in acceleration. Such a fighter is much better suited to close escort than our Me109, which is handicapped in that role."
"I reject your arguments categorically, Major Galland. The bombers must be protected at all costs. You've got to get some fighting spirit in these pilots, instead of giving me reasons why you cannot protect my bombers."
Goering followed with more scathing criticisms, but, when he glanced at his wrist watch and realized his time was short, his mood changed abruptly. From reproachful abuse, he turned suddenly amiable, like the sun coming from behind a cloud.
"Now then, Moelders" He said, "what can I help you get for your Geschwader?"
Moelders asked for a new series of Me-109s, fitted with the more powerful DB 605 N engines. Goering said he would get them, and turned to Galland.
"And you? What do you want?"
"I'd like an outfit of Spitfires for my Geschwader!"
Galland heard his impudent request go blurting out of himself as though coming from a third party. The words rushed out, propelled by his rage over Goering's vilifications of his pilots. Goering's amiable facade disappeared. The second greatest orator in German, he stood speechless at the insolence of the young Kommodore he had just promoted. Scowling and gtrowling, he went stomping off to his train."




JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:09 PM
JG14_Josf, thanks for posting the text.

But, do you really think those that take the comment out of context, will really stop doing so? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:19 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- "The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario
- has real problems He may not be able to avoid
- engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he
- is engaged. These problems may be alleviated,
- however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight
- inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day
- in the bar. If this luxury is not available,
- high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft
- engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the
- pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good and
- very lucky."
-
- Whenever a sim pilot used the term B&Z to describe
- the tactics best suited to a particular plane, and
- if the term B&Z means in effect; hit and run
- tactics, then what they are saying is that that
- particular plane is suffering from the condition
- known as double inferior.

BnZ has to do with relative turn performance, not
this strange 'double inferior' notion. The Me 262,
for example, is best used as BnZ because it doesn't
turn well (nor accelerate well on the level, but
that's another issue). An Me 262 in the open skies
shouldn't have many problems disengaging unless it
has left itself in a chronically low energy state,
though.

Or are you talking about something else? I'm not
really very clear here.

- Those who are eager to have the Spitfire included in
- the plane set may take a look at the P-47 to get an
- idea of what they are likely to get.

Hmm - the P47 has uninspiring roll and poor turn.
In general the Spitfire had fairly good roll (not
as fast as the 190, but some clipped wing versions
weren't far behind) and until about the XIV, good
turn. They are chalk and cheese.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

"But, do you really think those that take the comment
out of context, will really stop doing so?"



Picture three monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

or someone with their fingers in their ears chanting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you"


I expect only to gain typing proficiency through practice.

Your welcome /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:32 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- My interpretation of this is that the FW had a
- higher power loading than the Spitfire or the 109.


Spitfire V - 6,785lbs (TO), 1470hp - 4.6 lb/hp
FW190A4 - 8700lb, 1700hp - 5.1 lb/hp
190G2 - 7100lb, 1475hp - 4.8lb/hp

This shows the Spitfire V having a better power loading
than the 190A4, and a shade better than the 109G2 (but
only just).



Message Edited on 08/10/0304:32PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 07:52 PM
AaronGT,

Your numbers are generous and they illuminate an undeniable fact that the SpitV had a higher power loading than the FW, if of course those numbers are accurate. I only qualify that statment because I am in no possition to prove accuracy one way or the other, however those numbers are what I have available for weight and horsepower.

The math shows the SpitV to have a 10% advantage in power loading.

You have exposed my error.

Please consider my qualification from my same post you have quoted

"Of course it is much more complicated and beyond my understanding."
"My guess is used to direct the reader toward a possible explination for the historical record. The facts, if the reference is accurate, is that Germans flying FW190s were effective in dog fighting."


Please consider now where my guess for the power laoding statement was based;
the following quote from the book Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw

"Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight, as shown by Equation 4 in the Appendix, and is a measure of the aircaft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy perforamnce. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading." the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. both these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways. For example, a fighter with a relatively powerful normally aspirated piston engine may have lower power loading and better performance than a turbocharged fighter at low altitudes; but the turbocharged fighter would retain its power better at altitude and could have superior energy performance at higher levels. Likewise with jet engines, performance can vary greatly with inlet design, therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speeds but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent."


On the same page as this quote in the book Fighter Combat is an appropriate quote from

Lt. General Adolph Galland, Luftwaffe

"One of our achievements at this period was the "Rosarious Traveling Circus." This was a flight comprised of all air-worthy captured planes we could find. They traveled through the West from unit to unit in order to familiarize our pilots with enemy technique. The leaders could fly these enemy types themselves. In this way we found out that we had usually overrated their performance. The circus proved a great success."

Back to the point.


My error is to assume I can communicate effectivly and be brief.

My guess as to why the FW190 was reported as having dominated the SpitV, by the British pilots testing a captured FW190 being flown themselves in mock combat, having determined that the FW190 had a climbing, accleration, and top speed advantage was to conclude that the FW had a power loading advantage.


The math does not lie.

The SpitV has a power loading advantage.

According to Shaw however, tactics are dictated by certain relative performance variables.

Energy tactics are more suited, according to Shaw, to planes with a higher T/W advantage.

Please consider specifically:

"In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent" page 141 Figher Combat

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights" page 48 Focke Wulf

"The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight.." page 49 Focke Wulf

"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights,.." page 47 Focke Wulf

Is it possible to get documentation from any findings made by the pilots associated with the Rosarious Traveling Circus?







JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 08:30 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Let's wait until after the patch as the 190 will be
- much improved, trust me. The 190 in FB 1.0 and the
- one we will likely get after the patch (judging from
- test08) will be completely different planes. I like
- this discussion, but until we fly the new and
- improved 190 it is kind of irrelevent.
-
- And Christos, I was referring to a maneuver I
- thought of where the 190 at high speeds with an La
- on his tail does a quick half-roll into a slit-s (an
- inverted split-s), and dives toward the ground. At a
- specified critical altitude which requires testing,
- the 190 again does a very quick half-roll and pulls
- hard out of his dive (flap assisted if neccessary),
- just avoiding the ground. The La's far inferior
- roll-rate WILL result in him hitting the ground if
- he tries to follow you, he simply does not have
- enough time to do the half-roll and pull out. He has
- to break off. As someone else suggested, you don't
- want to dive exactly straight down or level, and you
- don't want to pull out exactly straight or level
- either just to make things more unpredictable,
- difficult for your attacker.
-
- *This maneuver would be/is impossible in FB 1.0 but
- with the 190's improvement in beta08 it was possible
- and works very well against AI and they have
- exaggerated flight models. I think it will work
- against humans as well.


Hmmmm, this is the manouvre I use with the Dora which has similarities:
90 degree roll to the right, 270 degree roll to the other side to find yourself on your back.
Pull back to dive down vertically.
Just when you think you are reaching point of no return roll 180 degrees and pull yourself out of the dive in the opposite direction.
If he wants to follow and flies anything other than a Dora (no other 190 since they are extremely heavy on the controls at high speeds) he is most likely to hit the ground .
Some times the more conservative will not try to follow and will up from the dive in the opposite direction from you.
In any case it will be a scary moment for him/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 08:31 PM
ok Gents it's simple If you say the Fw-190 A-3 /A-4
where better so be it, I just want the spitfire playable in FB I do not give a F... about better or superior. We will see which one will be better in the game. If this view is incorporated into FB I am happyhttp://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/KermitWeeksSpitV1.jpg


and a lot more I belief.

SALUTATIONS!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 09:42 PM
Christos wrote,

"Just when you think you are reaching point of no
- return roll 180 degrees and pull yourself out of the
- dive in the opposite direction.
- If he wants to follow and flies anything other than
- a Dora (no other 190 since they are extremely heavy
- on the controls at high speeds) he is most likely to
- hit the ground."

LOL Christos. Our maneuvers sound VERY familiar. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Great minds must think alike. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:21 PM
I thought it was a screenshot of FB with TrackIR /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/KermitWeeksSpitV1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:46 AM
It would be a Mk IX and remember...


Its the man not the machine....

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:48 AM
Aaron GT posted : "and until about the XIV, good
turn."

The XIV's turn was as good as that of the XI, read the ADFU test report linked to in one of the previous reports. Identical, I think it said.



"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 01:02 AM
Quote by Adolph Galland : "One of our achievements at this period was the "Rosarious Traveling Circus." This was a flight comprised of all air-worthy captured planes we could find. They traveled through the West from unit to unit in order to familiarize our pilots with enemy technique. The leaders could fly these enemy types themselves. In this way we found out that we had usually overrated their performance. The circus proved a great success."

The same was thought of the 109E by the British. Geoffrey Quill, the famous Supermarine test pilot, fought against 109's during the BoB. Later having flown a captured one he remarked, I'd have had less respect for the 109 at the time had I flown it sooner.

It's common for pilots to think the enemy has a faster, more dangerous machine. One BoB British pilot remarked that they thought the 109 seemed faster at the time because they usually had a height advantage, and were coming down at us at great speed.



"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:12 AM
the FW 190 had a fast roll ..... so did the spitfire ... i fnd no trouble in chasing ppl in BFs in the Hurricane

the Hurricane in FB has a very poor roll rate ....

roll rate doesnt seem to me to be much of an advantage but when its fast you have a harder time keeping the reticule on the Bandit ......

the FW was faster at all hights over the Spitfire ....

well i shoot down Yaks & BFs & FWs in the super slow Hurricane .......

speed is less of an advantage than ACCELERATION or CLIMB

acceleration was something the Spitfire was close to the FW in at slow speeds 200 - 300 Kph

i love the FW 190 ...
its a awesome looking beast ......
but in FB its Handeling is stuffed , & the View given to us is quite possibly the worst view possible to have in a FW

the spitfire will kick the FWs A$$ in a turnfight

BnZ was used to stay alive & the best planes at BnZ are the most powerfull with the best climb

in a computer i dont have to stay alive .... i have a REFLY button
so i turn fight

in a Turn fight the FW was good , not like in FB
it still got owned tho by the Spitfire cause the Spitfire OUT-TURNED it

we do over G manuervers in these computer games
IRL you had to be wary
so IRL a better roll rate helps .... A LOT

but not in a Flight sim



Message Edited on 08/11/0304:36AM by WUAF_Badsight

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:46 AM
Hello there JG14 Josf,

Regarding Galland's 'Spitfire' quote:


Thanks for quoting that passage from 'Fighter General', by Toliver & Constable. It is accurate and informative and, hopefully, will help in the purpose.

To further assist, I will quote from Galland's own book.


But first, for those who haven't seen it and to help with the background and context, here is an extract from my explanation, which appeared on page 2 of this thread:

"Thanks mainly to the constant pressure of attacks on airfields and pilot fatigue/losses, RAF Fighter Command reached crisis point and came close to breaking. But, and this is a crucial 'but', the Germans DIDN'T REALIZE THIS!

Luftwaffe intelligence repeatedly assured themselves that the RAF must be down to their last few fighters (very wrong) and that soon resistance would crumble (almost right - if they had kept up the pressure on airfields).

This encouraged the Luftwaffe to expect that British fighter opposition would fade, then virtually disappear, leaving them free to pound the British into submission.

The problem for the German aircrews was that, despite the see-sawing backwards and forwards of the fortunes of battle, with some bad days for the RAF and some for the Luftwaffe, there was no apparent trend in their favour.

There was NO SIGN overall of British resistance weakening. Day after day, week after week, the Germans continued to be effectively intercepted. Their losses mounted and morale began to be affected.

When plans start to go awry in war, things assume an air of desperation and the bomber commanders pleaded for closer escort from the fighters. Goering responded by ordering the figher units to fly in much closer formation with the bombers.

The stupidity of this angered many of the fighter commanders, among them Adolf Galland. When Goering asked them if there was anything he could give them to help with their mission, Galland said "...give me a squadron of Spitfires!"

This was NOT because Galland considered the Spitfire a superior fighter. As far as the Germans were concerned at this time, the Bf 109 was still the best fighter in the world. The comment had two aspects.

One was simply to express Galland's frustration and anger. The second was to point out that the type of mission Goering was now demanding was more suited to the Spitfire's characteristics than to those of the 109."


Now for the quote from Galland's book 'Die Ersten Und Die Letzen' ('The First And The Last'). My copy is an English translation dating from 1956:

"Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures.

I tried to point out that the 109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more maneuverable.

He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons.

Molders asked for a series of 109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.'

After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way.

Of course, fundamentally I preferred our 109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame.

Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."


OK?

Now, I hope that's enough.

As somebody pointed out, the quote will probably continue to be misunderstood, but if JG14 Josf and I can, between us, help just ONE person to understand, then it hasn't all been in vain!


Thanks, everyone, for you patience.


Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:09 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Aaron GT posted : "and until about the XIV, good
- turn."
-
- The XIV's turn was as good as that of the XI, read
- the ADFU test report linked to in one of the
- previous reports. Identical, I think it said.

Right you are. I dug it up - AFDU report no. 117

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV

It's not clear from the preamble if the test was actually
with Spitfire XIV RB 141 or RB 179. It implies the latter
but doesn't say for use (141 was considered to not be
representative of squadron aircraft). It says " In accordance with instructions from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., tactical trials have been completed on Spitfire XIV. Aircraft No. RB.141 was delivered to this Unit on 28.1.44 for comparative trials with the Tempest V. It was discovered that this aircraft was not representative of production aircraft for Squadrons, and Spitfire XIV No. RB.179 was made available and delivered on 25.2.44" but which was used
for the trials?

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:15 PM
I guess for better rating which a/c had the best active/passive forces you should know the force the prop could pull/push of each a/c. Thrust to weight seems more realistic, than HP to weight. (same as on jet engines)





http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:56 PM
In the above long text about the why's and wherefore's of Adolf Gallands quote, there lies more of the classic Battle of Britain Myth which goes like this..

"Fighter Command was close to collapse towards the end of August and the beginning of September due to relentless pressure by the Luftwaffe against the airfields, and that it would have collapsed had they not switched to London"

This is not true. Fighter command at no time came close to collapse. Under pressure, yes, collapse, no.

It is incredibly difficult, even now, to render an airfield unserviceable. Holes are just filled in, life carries on. If hangars and buildings are demolished, the crews work in the open and sleep in tents or in requisitioned houses. Aircraft continue to take off and land. Even during the most intensive bombardments by the Luftwaffe, Kenley went down for only two hours, and Biggin Hill not at all. No airfields were abandoned, not even the most heavily bombed of all, Manston.

All through this period of 'collapse' as the Luftwaffe ruefully noted,they were continuing to be met in strength, with determination, and with no sign of weakening. It is a fact that at the beginning of September when the pressure was at it's most intense, the RAF had more men and machines available to it than it did at the start of the battle, mid July.

Hardly the symptoms of collapse.

Even if airfields were damaged beyond repair, the Squadrons would simply have dispersed to the numerous rough grass airstrips, plentiful in number, in the area. Exactly the sort that many Luftwaffe units were operating out of in France.


"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

Message Edited on 08/11/0306:58PM by EPP_Gibbs

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 07:37 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- EPP_Gibbs wrote:
-- Aaron GT posted : "and until about the XIV, good
-- turn."
--
-- The XIV's turn was as good as that of the XI, read
-- the ADFU test report linked to in one of the
-- previous reports. Identical, I think it said.
-
- Right you are. I dug it up - AFDU report no. 117
-
- Turning Circle
- 18. The turning circles of both aircraft are
- identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly
- better to port than it does to starbord. The warning
- of an approaching high speed stall is less
- pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV


Keep in mind that it most likely refers to SUSTAINED turning performance. There`s no way that a Mk XIV at 8500lbs could turn as tightly as a MKIX at 7400lbs... during sustained turns, it`s possible that the larger power reserves enable the later, heavier model to match the lighter one during sustained turns (where pilots only pull it as much that there would be no speed loss), more power making up for the weight.

So, simply because of physics, sustained turn radius or time could be similiar - but the minimum (when allowed for loose speed) turn radius/time simply can`t be with so much higher wingloading.

Ie. see the manouvering trials between MkV and MkIX - they note the importance of power advantage with MkIX.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:00 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- 1st: Find me some documents showing 190A4's with
- MW-50. I doubt you will. The only 190's with
- radials which were absolutely equipped with MW-50
- were the later F models.


It sounds like as it would told by someone who actually saw anything regards the A-4. Which, as we all know, is not true.


- If there were no shortages of MW-50 kits, then why
- was the 190D9 not fitted with them till late
- December 1944, despite the fact they were requested
- by the Jagdflieger almost as soon as the aircraft
- became operational?


The usual stuff: first claim that MW50 kits for the A-8 were in short supply, that`s why petrol injection was used instead (complete BS), then switching the arguement and say that D-9 were not fitted with them because they were on short supply again, which latter claim is

a, Has nothing to do with the original claim regarding to A-8, it`s switching the arguement due to the incapability to support to original one
b, Dead wrong, as D-9s were fitted with MW-50 well before December 1944 (known/referred as the Oldenburg Gereat).

So, as usual, we have the typical blanket statements from Buzzshaw, absolutely uninformed, unfounded and unsupported.

-
- The Petrol injection was first used on the 190A4
- with later model of the 801D. Do the research.
-

Wrong again. BTW, a hint: it was BMW who originally developed methanol injection...



-
<img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-r
- eport-868/42.gif">
-

Well this NACA roll chart was discussed a couple of times already. It shows calculated roll performance for the "Spitfire" at a stickforce it was incapable using.

NACA report with Spit MKVA with metal ailerons could apply only 40lbs stickforce maximum. It was also noted that full deflection with 30lbs was not possible beyond 110mph indicated airspeed, and maximum roll rate was 63 deg/sec or so at 230mph speed / 30lbs stickforce. So probably a bit higher at the maximum possible 40lbs, say maximum deflection could be maintained up to around 140mph, for a maximum of 70-80 deg/sec at 230mph. Nothing of extraordinary, especially at high speeds where stick forces were excessive.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/rollrate.pdf

It should also be noted that this was probably the best rolling Spitfire model, as later ones had rather heavy Hispano cannons in the wings, and also the weight increased by almost 2000lbs by the development of the MkXIV, decreasing roll rate considerably (see remarks of Chief Spitfire factory test pilot).



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:16 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- In the above long text about the why's and
- wherefore's of Adolf Gallands quote, there lies more
- of the classic Battle of Britain Myth which goes
- like this..
-
- "Fighter Command was close to collapse towards the
- end of August and the beginning of September due to
- relentless pressure by the Luftwaffe against the
- airfields, and that it would have collapsed had they
- not switched to London"
-
- This is not true. Fighter command at no time came
- close to collapse. Under pressure, yes, collapse,
- no.
-

- All through this period of 'collapse' as the
- Luftwaffe ruefully noted,they were continuing to be
- met in strength, with determination, and with no
- sign of weakening. It is a fact that at the
- beginning of September when the pressure was at it's
- most intense, the RAF had more men and machines
- available to it than it did at the start of the
- battle, mid July.
-
- Hardly the symptoms of collapse.


Hardly a description of the real events I must say. How close the RAF was to collapse is hard to determine. However, the usual "no sign of weakening" is a complete nonsense. The RAF had planes, it only lacked pilots. Trained pilots. Already by August the RAF lost most of it`s well trained fighter pilots, over 50% had less than 50 hours of training. The situation only worsened by September, and the only way they could keep up the numbers of pilots was to simply take fresh students from the training schools, who didn`t even completed their already shortened and very basic training, and assign to operational squadons. Yes, you had refilled your depleted pilot strenght. On paper. In reality, you have only replaced the fallen, experienced pilots with human target drones with usually less than 10 flown hours on Hurricanes or Spitfires. They could barely fly them or take off... How much 10 hours worth? Well compare that to what chances you would have to stand against Collin McRae (sp?) after taking 10 hours of driving lessons... Something very similiar to what the Luftwaffe had at hand in 1944, however, even then they had 100 flying hours in 109s or 190s instead of the 250-300 hours in the previous years.
So, as things stood in September 1940m, the RAF had roughly the same number of planes and pilots as in July, with the small exception that the quality of the pilots was MUCH inferior, rendering the whole Fighter Command inferior in it`s fighting capabilities. Add to that pilot attrition rate was about 50% higher than on the German side in September. There are statistics for that in Baker`s Adolph Galland book, giving RAF Fighter pilot attrition at around 28% in September, vs. 22% in the Jagdwaffe`s side. Clearly things weren`t shiny on the RAF`s side on the long term, especially as the Germans didn`t cut the lenght of fighter pilot training - those times would come years later.

It`s foolish to think that the pilots themselves weren`t aware of that. They were. In Den Leighton`s book 'Fighters', it is described that some Hurricane squadrons simply run away when they saw Messerscmitts; the squadron commander threatened his men that he himself will be the one who will shoot them down if they don`t stand and fight. It wasn`t a single case.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:09 PM
Here are some Spit Fw190 comparisons . Informative but they left out some late fw models to compare too maybe they had reasons for it. That seem to be testtrials vs the early fw190 captured by raf.

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:23 PM
WOW the FW was like WAY beter that the spit
in that comparisons

----------------------------------------
<center>
http://defence-data.com/storypic/spitfire.jpg

"Take off is only the beginnigg
Bail out is YOUR end."

Message Edited on 08/11/0302:24PM by Juego

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:37 PM
That's because the FW wiped the floor with the Spit V.
Evcen the Spit X failed to redress the balance, mostly as a result of mismanagement.
Over the Dieppe beaches the 190 once again beat the Spit easily, including the Spit X.
The Brits had underastimated the number of those foghters available as well as the fact that there was a newer faster version with emergency boost available.
.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:00 PM
- The RAF had planes, it only
- lacked pilots. Trained pilots. Already by August the
- RAF lost most of it`s well trained fighter pilots,
- over 50% had less than 50 hours of training.

And the Luftwaffe? By the end of September, they had only 676 single engined fighter pilots ready for duty, compared to well over 1000 for the RAF.

- The
- situation only worsened by September, and the only
- way they could keep up the numbers of pilots was to
- simply take fresh students from the training
- schools, who didn`t even completed their already
- shortened and very basic training, and assign to
- operational squadons.

As opposed to the Luftwaffe, who couldn't even do that, and simply allowed their operational strength to decline.

- refilled your
- depleted pilot strenght. On paper. In reality, you
- have only replaced the fallen, experienced pilots
- with human target drones with usually less than 10
- flown hours on Hurricanes or Spitfires. They could
- barely fly them or take off... How much 10 hours
- worth?

And yet they continued scoring at a better than 1:1 rate against the Luftwaffe. No wonder, as the Luftwaffe had pilots who had flown every day for months, on long sorties, and never been rotated to quieter regions. That's one of the reasons why the 109s had their worst month of the Battle vs the RAF in October.

- Something very
- similiar to what the Luftwaffe had at hand in 1944,
- however, even then they had 100 flying hours in 109s
- or 190s instead of the 250-300 hours in the previous
- years.

The difference being the Luftwaffe got hammered in 1944, whereas the RAF won in 1940.

The Luftwaffe carried out attacks relentlesly during the BoB. They kept no reserve, and committed almost all their fighters to the battle. In contrast, the RAF kept half their frontline fighters out of the battle at any one time, rotated squadrons, and kept a sizeable reserve. That's why they were in much better shape at the end than the Germans.

- So, as things stood in September 1940m, the RAF had
- roughly the same number of planes and pilots as in
- July, with the small exception that the quality of
- the pilots was MUCH inferior, rendering the whole
- Fighter Command inferior in it`s fighting
- capabilities.

In contrast, the Luftwaffe had less planes, and a lot less pilots than in July, and what pilots they had were tired.

- Add to that pilot attrition rate was
- about 50% higher than on the German side in
- September.

And the Luftwaffe pilot attrition was higher in July August and October.

The Luftwaffe lost more 109 pilots killed and captured during the battle than the RAF lost Spit and Hurri pilots. The RAf had more injured, but overall pilot attrition was similar. Of course, it could be that the good results achieved in October were partly down to injured RAF pilots returning to duty after a couple of months off.

It's easy to see the predicament the Luftwaffe were in. Their bombers required at least 2 escorts each, so the 650 odd Luftwaffe single engined fighter pilots available could only escort around 200 bombers a day, assuming that all the available pilots flew every day.

- There are statistics for that in Baker`s
- Adolph Galland book, giving RAF Fighter pilot
- attrition at around 28% in September, vs. 22% in the
- Jagdwaffe`s side. Clearly things weren`t shiny on
- the RAF`s side on the long term, especially as the
- Germans didn`t cut the lenght of fighter pilot
- training - those times would come years later.

No, they simply allowed their operational strength to decline. 676 pilots ready for duty just wasn't enough, even the 900+ they had started the battle with hadn't been enough.

- In Den Leighton`s
- book 'Fighters', it is described that some Hurricane
- squadrons simply run away when they saw
- Messerscmitts; the squadron commander threatened his
- men that he himself will be the one who will shoot
- them down if they don`t stand and fight. It wasn`t a
- single case.

Len Deighton writes good fiction. If the RAF fighters were running away, how were the Germans losing the battle so badly?

By the end of December, the number of Luftwaffe fighter pilots fit for duty had barely increased, to 711, which is understandable as the lower rate of operations would have allowed the sick to recover. However, the actual number of pilots had slightly declined yet again, to 915, even after the quiet months of November and December.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:05 PM
- Evcen the Spit X failed to redress the balance,
- mostly as a result of mismanagement.
- Over the Dieppe beaches the 190 once again beat the
- Spit easily, including the Spit X.

The first Spit IX squadron went operational on the 28th July, Dieppe was the 19th Auagust. There were only a small number of Spit IXs at Dieppe, especially as they also flew cover for the first USAAF bombing raids in Europe on the same day.

- The Brits had underastimated the number of those
- foghters available as well as the fact that there
- was a newer faster version with emergency boost
- available.

There was no faster variant than the one the British had tested. The 190A3 they tested at 1.42 ata, although in Luftwaffe service it had been derated to 1.35ata. The 190 might have been using 1.42 ata by Dieppe, but only a few early examples.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:10 PM
George Beurling aka: "Buzz" sure as hell liked the Mk VB and did damn well in it too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
He didn't go up against any 190's in Malta (IIRC), but had he, he would have whipped their asses! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:16 PM
Some history of the Mk 11 vs the 190:


"Squadron Leader Chadburn and 416 Squadron was moved to the south of England to the front lines of the air war. They flew cover missions over Dieppe on August 19th, 1942, saving many Canadian and allied lives. Chadburn was leading his squadron of Spitfire IIs over the convoy heading for the beach when a large formation of 15 Focke-Wulf 190s dove on them from the rear. He pulled his Spitfire into a tight turn and the rest of the squadron followed. This brought them onto the German's tail. Three FW 190s fell to their guns and the others made off"

Later...


"Now another flight of FW 190s was approaching several thousand feet above them while a group of Messerschmitt Me110s flew past at their height. Chadburn split his squadron, with one section attacking the Me110s while he and the rest went after the fighters. Eleven more German aircraft were hit and chased off, while none of 416 Squadron's aircraft were damaged. This is especially note-worthy as the Spitfire II was too slow to compete with the FW190. Three FW190s were destroyed and Chadburn got a "probable" on a Ju88."

The II did OK it seems in capable hands http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:22 PM
In Dieppe, the FW A-4 appeared with a water injected 2100 HP BMW 801 D-2 engine and a top speed of 670 Km/h.
Als, a previously unknown bomb variant, the FW 190 A-3/U1 got in service.


hop2002 wrote:
-- Evcen the Spit X failed to redress the balance,
-- mostly as a result of mismanagement.
-- Over the Dieppe beaches the 190 once again beat the
-- Spit easily, including the Spit X.
-
- The first Spit IX squadron went operational on the
- 28th July, Dieppe was the 19th Auagust. There were
- only a small number of Spit IXs at Dieppe,
- especially as they also flew cover for the first
- USAAF bombing raids in Europe on the same day.
-
-- The Brits had underastimated the number of those
-- foghters available as well as the fact that there
-- was a newer faster version with emergency boost
-- available.
-
- There was no faster variant than the one the British
- had tested. The 190A3 they tested at 1.42 ata,
- although in Luftwaffe service it had been derated to
- 1.35ata. The 190 might have been using 1.42 ata by
- Dieppe, but only a few early examples.
-
-
-
-
-



<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:28 PM
johnmilmner wrote:
The II did ok it seems in capable hands.


The Brits, by their own account, became very worried as a result of the superiority of the 190 in combat over the Spitfire V.
The Spit IX that was supposed to redress the balance seemed longterm at the time and they had no way of knowing what improved version of the 190 would perform like.
The V was no match for any version of the 190 and that has gone down in history.



<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:32 PM
That's probably why they left the 190 out of the '41 plane-set. You wouldn't be able to catch it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I would love to see an A-1 or A-2.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:35 PM
- In Dieppe, the FW A-4 appeared with a water injected
- 2100 HP BMW 801 D-2 engine and a top speed of 670
- Km/h.

Nobody has ever found any evidence of MW50 being fitted to the A4. Even Isegrim isn't likely to claim that.

Look at this post from Warbirds:

http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22560&pagenumber=2

Willaume has a lot of info on the 190 (I think he is a source for some of Isegrim's info)

The 190A4 and onwards had engines that could take MW50, but they didn't have the tanks, and it wasn't used. (I have seen claims some Jabo A4s were fitted with it, but again no evidence)

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:46 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- The RAF had planes, it only
-- lacked pilots. Trained pilots. Already by August the
-- RAF lost most of it`s well trained fighter pilots,
-- over 50% had less than 50 hours of training.
-
- And the Luftwaffe? By the end of September, they had
- only 676 single engined fighter pilots ready for
- duty, compared to well over 1000 for the RAF.

That is not so. You count only first line fighters of the Luftwaffe, vs. all the RAF with it`s reserves. In reality, the number of RAF Fighter planes were never more than 620-650 during BoB - the rest were in reserve stores, w/o fuel or pilots to fly them.



-- The
-- situation only worsened by September, and the only
-- way they could keep up the numbers of pilots was to
-- simply take fresh students from the training
-- schools, who didn`t even completed their already
-- shortened and very basic training, and assign to
-- operational squadons.
-
- As opposed to the Luftwaffe, who couldn't even do
- that, and simply allowed their operational strength
- to decline.

Yada-yada. Why couldn`t Goering go to a flight school and say: "Today you saw an airplane in a book. Tomorrow we will send you into battle without training." Obviously he could, but that would have been foolish.

He could still replenish fighting squadrons with other ones, as it was only a partition of the LW that was used up against Britain.

The RAF lost 28% of it`s fighter pilots in September.
The Jagdwaffe lost 22%. The British were loosing their pilots faster.

Most British pilots were very inexperienced and easy to shoot down. Germans could keep up the quality of pilots.



-- refilled your
-- depleted pilot strenght. On paper. In reality, you
-- have only replaced the fallen, experienced pilots
-- with human target drones with usually less than 10
-- flown hours on Hurricanes or Spitfires. They could
-- barely fly them or take off... How much 10 hours
-- worth?
-
- And yet they continued scoring at a better than 1:1
- rate against the Luftwaffe.

When, exactly? Much more Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot down than 109s. Even you can`t deny that.

Or, if you look at the total loss figures, the RAF lost some 1960 fighters to all causes (about 960 in combat) according to Deighton, plus additional 320 bombers in the meantime, according to Hastings. That`s 2280 in total.

The Luftwaffe lost some 1730 planes of all types to all reasons at the same time. The exchange ratio favoured the LW, even if you count German bomber losses but not British ones.



- No wonder, as the
- Luftwaffe had pilots who had flown every day for
- months, on long sorties, and never been rotated to
- quieter regions. That's one of the reasons why the
- 109s had their worst month of the Battle vs the RAF
- in October.


Yep, RAF fighter pilots were much more often rotated to "quiter regions", six feet under that is.



-- Something very
-- similiar to what the Luftwaffe had at hand in 1944,
-- however, even then they had 100 flying hours in 109s
-- or 190s instead of the 250-300 hours in the previous
-- years.
-
- The difference being the Luftwaffe got hammered in
- 1944, whereas the RAF won in 1940.

"Wars are not won by evacuations" - Winston Churchill

Similiarly, battles are not won by surviving only. The RAF was capable of nothing else: survival. It could not prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing Britain as it pleased in 1940-1941.

If we count mere survival as vistory, the Luftwaffe would have won in 1945: it survived the Allied air offense and had over 8000 planes in 1945, about 70-80% of them operational, 50% more than in 1944. But we all know that it`s survival was not enough to claim yourself a victor.




-
- The Luftwaffe carried out attacks relentlesly during
- the BoB. They kept no reserve, and committed almost
- all their fighters to the battle.


That`s ridiculusly false.



- In contrast, the
- RAF kept half their frontline fighters out of the
- battle at any one time, rotated squadrons, and kept
- a sizeable reserve. That's why they were in much
- better shape at the end than the Germans.

If loosing 90% of your experienced pilots and having nothing more than 10-hour rookies who didn`t even finish their training counts "better shape" in Britain...


-
-- So, as things stood in September 1940m, the RAF had
-- roughly the same number of planes and pilots as in
-- July, with the small exception that the quality of
-- the pilots was MUCH inferior, rendering the whole
-- Fighter Command inferior in it`s fighting
-- capabilities.
-
- In contrast, the Luftwaffe had less planes, and a
- lot less pilots than in July, and what pilots they
- had were tired.


Yet their fighting capabilities were not so much impared as the quality was kept up, unlike in the RAF, where brand new planes were flown by pilots who had troubles taking off and landing. Dogfigthing was well beyond their capabilities. Not to mention, RAF moral was all-time low by September.



-- Add to that pilot attrition rate was
-- about 50% higher than on the German side in
-- September.
-
- And the Luftwaffe pilot attrition was higher in July
- August and October.

Completely false.

In August, the LW lost they 15% of their fighter pilots, and in September they lost 21% of them.

The RAF lost 26% of it`s fighter pilots in August, and 28% in September.

According to David Baker.

Clearly, the RAF was figthing a battle that it was about to loose sooner or later.


-
- The Luftwaffe lost more 109 pilots killed and
- captured during the battle than the RAF lost Spit
- and Hurri pilots.


It doesn`t really mattered as if it was still a smaller percantage of the Jagdwaffe`s total strenght, than the RAF FC`s strenght.



- The RAf had more injured, but
- overall pilot attrition was similar.

You are making up things.


- It's easy to see the predicament the Luftwaffe were
- in. Their bombers required at least 2 escorts each,
- so the 650 odd Luftwaffe single engined fighter
- pilots available could only escort around 200
- bombers a day, assuming that all the available
- pilots flew every day.

So?


- No, they simply allowed their operational strength
- to decline. 676 pilots ready for duty just wasn't
- enough, even the 900+ they had started the battle
- with hadn't been enough.

Again you don`t count reserves, just 1st Line units.
Of course you count everything for the RAF.


-
-- In Den Leighton`s
-- book 'Fighters', it is described that some Hurricane
-- squadrons simply run away when they saw
-- Messerscmitts; the squadron commander threatened his
-- men that he himself will be the one who will shoot
-- them down if they don`t stand and fight. It wasn`t a
-- single case.
-
- Len Deighton writes good fiction.

Certainly, how could a respected aviation historian compete with Hop2002 himself? Author of... uhm, which book was that ?


- If the RAF
- fighters were running away, how were the Germans
- losing the battle so badly?

Loosing the battle? I could have swore that it was Britain bombed by hundreds of bombers every day in 1940.

-
- By the end of December, the number of Luftwaffe
- fighter pilots fit for duty had barely increased, to
- 711, which is understandable as the lower rate of
- operations would have allowed the sick to recover.
- However, the actual number of pilots had slightly
- declined yet again, to 915, even after the quiet
- months of November and December.
-

Is that the same period when German bombers bombed Britain every single night, with great accuracy and no practical losses ? IIRC London itself was bombed on 90 following nights during that time.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:51 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- That's because the FW wiped the floor with the Spit
- V.
- Evcen the Spit X failed to redress the balance,
- mostly as a result of mismanagement.
- Over the Dieppe beaches the 190 once again beat the
- Spit easily, including the Spit X.
- The Brits had underastimated the number of those
- foghters available as well as the fact that there
- was a newer faster version with emergency boost
- available.
- .
-

Is that a typo? The only Spitfire Mk X was of the PR type, a modified Mk VII, with no guns. Only 16 were built and they did not reach the the 2 PR units it was used in until May 1944. They also had a pressurized cabin.

Now, when did Dieppe happen?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:52 PM
Whether or not the A-4 was serially produced with MW50, I don't know. But Wolfgang Wagner's book...

The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank
Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot
Wolfgang Wagner
ISBN: 0764306448

...has a section entitled Fw-190A-4 with MW-50 and the book clearly states that the MW-50 system was introduced on the A-4.

Further, there is a section on the A-8 with the "improved" MW-50 system.

I'm inclined to believe that at least some A-4 and A-8 were produced with the MW-50 system.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/12/0301:58AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:55 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
-- The Brits had underastimated the number of those
-- foghters available as well as the fact that there
-- was a newer faster version with emergency boost
-- available.
-
- There was no faster variant than the one the British
- had tested. The 190A3 they tested at 1.42 ata,
- although in Luftwaffe service it had been derated to
- 1.35ata. The 190 might have been using 1.42 ata by
- Dieppe, but only a few early examples.
-

Hop convinently ignores that the A-3 the British tested was some 20-30mph slower than all the others at 1.42ata. Probably the plane was in very bad shape. This means that in reality, the gap was much bigger between than the British believed based on the ADFU tests.

It was throughly discussed here:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ubbframe.html

Go to "Aircraft and Vehicles", Thread listing Page2, and look for the the thread "190A vs. SpitVB".

It should be noted that Hop2002 saw those posts (he post there as Nashwan), yet continue to ignore the facts.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:59 PM
MiloMorai, yes , it was a typo.
I meant Spit IX.
Dieppe happened in August 1942.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Whether or not the A-4 was serially produced with
- MW50, I don't know. But Wolfgang Wagner's book...
-
- The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank
- Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot
- Wolfgang Wagner
- ISBN: 0764306448
-
- ...has a section entitled Fw-190A-4 with MW-50 and
- the book clearly states that the MW-50 system was
- introduced on the A-4.
-
- Further, there is a section on the A-8 with the
- "improved" MW-50 system.
-
- I'm inclined to believe that at least some A-4 and
- A-8 were produced with the MW-50 system.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

Fully agree. It seems that some A-4 Jabos probably used the MW-50 system, but it seems only in the low SC gear. I would believe this was to give a quick solution to their rear cylinder overheating, which was only solved with the structural modifications of the A-5.

On A-8, most of them were using Erhohte Notleistung, not MW-50, even though I have seen somewhere that there were some A-8s with MW... but it`s pretty much irrevelent, as the two systems gave almost identical performance boost.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:02 PM
I'll try and scan the sections and post them.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:06 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I'll try and scan the sections and post them.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

`Chimp, do you have some reliable docs on P-51D performance? There are half a dozen P-51B/C tests, but it`s hard to find something reliable with known conditions, especially regarding high altitude. The charts I have seen in AH seem to show speed dropping off too fast with altitude compared to P-51B.

I am asking this `cos I decided to make a little site about the plane Mr. Hopkins here hates the most. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Some comparisions with reliable data couldn`t hurt.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:18 PM
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/mw50_1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/mw50_2.jpg


Draw your own conclusions. Mine is that SOME A-4s were produced with MW-50, albeit maybe not a helluva lot.


BTW, this book was read and approved by Kurt Tank himself.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:21 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- `Chimp, do you have some reliable docs on P-51D
- performance? There are half a dozen P-51B/C tests,
- but it`s hard to find something reliable with known
- conditions, especially regarding high altitude. The
- charts I have seen in AH seem to show speed dropping
- off too fast with altitude compared to P-51B.
-
- I am asking this `cos I decided to make a little
- site about the plane Mr. Hopkins here hates the
- most. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Some comparisions with
- reliable data couldn`t hurt.

I've got an out-of-print book called "Mustang: The Story Of The P-51 Fighter" by Robert Gruenhagen. It's got a bunch of charts in the back. I'll see what it has.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/12/0302:27AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:33 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- Hop convinently ignores that the A-3 the British
- tested was some 20-30mph slower than all the others
- at 1.42ata. Probably the plane was in very bad
- shape. This means that in reality, the gap was much
- bigger between than the British believed based on
- the ADFU tests.
-
-

Interesting that a Obfw (Lt/FO) in a Stab unit would fly an a/c in such bad shape, in combat. What would the Feldwebel (Sgt) be stuck with then if the a/c of a Stab Obfw was in such bad shape?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:32 AM
back to the spitfire. i hope that the FM for the FB spit (LF mkIXe) will be that of the LF mkIXe not the early F mkIXc with the merlin 61. the LF mkIXe was the later mark and had the merlin 66 plus the pointed rudder, i dont know if it really had any effect on the performance but if it did i hope it is taken into consideration.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:52 AM
In reference to the ongoing BOB discussion...I found these neat little charts:

Numbers:

http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html


By aircraft type and pilot loss:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_britain_statistics.htm


Anyone know if they are close to being accurate?

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:07 AM
- That is not so. You count only first line fighters
- of the Luftwaffe, vs. all the RAF with it`s
- reserves.

I didn't mention aircraft, only pilots.

The RAF had reserves of both pilots and planes. Typically, a squadron had abour 2 pilots for every plane, to allow for leave, illness, training etc.

- In reality, the number of RAF Fighter
- planes were never more than 620-650 during BoB - the
- rest were in reserve stores, w/o fuel or pilots to
- fly them.

There was certainly fuel, iirc the RAF didn't start issuing 100 octane fuel until they had built up a reserve of 300,000 tons. About 22,000 tons was used during the BoB, and about 20,000 tons imported during the same time from the Middle East alone.

There were also piolts, the RAF had more than 1400 operational pilots by the end of September.

The difference was doctrine, the RAF believed in having more pilots than planes, and more planes than established strength.

- He could still replenish fighting squadrons with
- other ones, as it was only a partition of the LW
- that was used up against Britain.

It was over 90% of front line 109 strength. The figure of 676 pilots fit for duty is from all theatres, not just the BoB. The RAF figures are for pilots based in Britain only.

- The RAF lost 28% of it`s fighter pilots in
- September.
- The Jagdwaffe lost 22%. The British were loosing
- their pilots faster.

Only in September. And even then, at the end of September the RAF had over 1400 single engined fighter pilots, the Luftwaffe about 900.

- Most British pilots were very inexperienced and easy
- to shoot down. Germans could keep up the quality of
- pilots.

They still lost, though.

- When, exactly? Much more Spitfires and Hurricanes
- were shot down than 109s. Even you can`t deny that.

Yes, the Spits and Hurricanes also shot down large numbers of bombers though. Overall, the Luftwaffe lost more planes than the RAF.

In October, the Luftwaffe lost almost exactly the same number of 109s as the RAF lost Spits and Hurris, plus the Luftwaffe also lost a lot of bombers.

- Or, if you look at the total loss figures, the RAF
- lost some 1960 fighters to all causes (about 960 in
- combat) according to Deighton, plus additional 320
- bombers in the meantime, according to Hastings.
- That`s 2280 in total.

Deighton's a good fiction writer.

The RAF "lost" around 1700 fighters to all causes, but that includes planes with minor damage from accidents etc sent to repair organisations.

The RAF lost around 900 Spits and Hurris in combat, the Luftwaffe around 650 109s in combat. The Luftwaffe also lost a large number of bombers.

Combat losses were far higher on the Luftwaffe side, the RAF losing about 80 planes to accidents for every 100 lost in combat. The Luftwaffe lost only 40 for every 100 lost in combat.

However, an RAF squadron could get a new plane by sending the old one off for repair, and drawing a new one from reserves. The Luftwaffe didn't have that luxury, repairs were carried out in squadron. That's why Luftwaffe serviceability fell so much, as low as 40% of front line fighters at some points, according to prof Richard Overy.
According to Luftwaffe quartermaster returns the figure was higher, varying between 70 and 80% for most of the battle. However, RAF serviceability was around 90% throughout. That's the advantage of having reserves.

- Yep, RAF fighter pilots were much more often rotated
- to "quiter regions", six feet under that is.

No, they went to Wales or Scotland or the Northern England, where the Luftwaffe rarely dared to venture.

Of course, the Luftwaffe lost many times as many dead during the battle, so much so that orders were that no more than 1 officer was to be in any plane.

- Similiarly, battles are not won by surviving only.
- The RAF was capable of nothing else: survival. It
- could not prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing Britain
- as it pleased in 1940-1941.

It did. The Luftwaffe all but stopped daylight bombing because of their losses. They stopped attacking radar stations because of the losses, they stopped attacking London by day because of the losses. They stopped attacking the North indaylight after 1 days attempt, the losses were so high.

- If we count mere survival as vistory, the Luftwaffe
- would have won in 1945: it survived the Allied air
- offense and had over 8000 planes in 1945, about
- 70-80% of them operational, 50% more than in 1944.

At the end of 1945, Germany was defeated and occupied. Throughout the last year of the war, the Allies bombed Germany at will. The Luftwaffe couldn't stop it.

At the end of 1940, the RAF was still in being, had a larger fighter force than the Luftwaffe, and had stopped the Luftwaffe's daylight campaign against Britain.

See the difference? The RAF continued, the Luftwaffe lost and all it's men were locked up in prison camps. Not quite the same thing, is it?

- But we all know that it`s survival was not enough to
- claim yourself a victor.

No, achieving your goals and stopping the enemy achieving theirs are what counts towards victory. The RAF's goals were to stop the Luftwaffe, which they did. The Luftwaffe's goals were to destroy the RAF and subdue Britain, which they failed at.

In 1944, the Luftwaffe's goal was to stop the bombing of Germany, which they completely failed to do.

- If loosing 90% of your experienced pilots and having
- nothing more than 10-hour rookies who didn`t even
- finish their training counts "better shape" in
- Britain...

By the end of the BoB, RAF fighter pilot strength had risen to 1800 pilots. The RAF lost about 500 pilots, including Blenheim and Defiant aircrew. tell me how 500 from more than 1800 is 90%?

Do they teach different maths, as well as different history, in your universe?

- Dogfigthing was
- well beyond their capabilities. Not to mention, RAF
- moral was all-time low by September.

And they still won.

- The RAF lost 26% of it`s fighter pilots in August,
- and 28% in September.

Source? RAF fighter pilot losses were a lot less than 50% for the whole of the Battle. I suspect you are using figures for losses as a percentage of aircraft strength.

For example, the RAF had about 650 fighters as established strength. They had about 1400 pilots as established strength.

28% of 1400 pilots would be 392 pilots in September, 364 in August, giving losses of about 750 in those two months alone.

However, 28% and 26% of 650 pilots would be about 350 pilot losses for August and September, which is about right. The RAF lost around 500 pilots (and Blenheim and Defiant aircrew) throughout the battle.

In short, your losses are as a percentage of established strength, not actual pilot strength.

Luftwaffe losses of 15% for August and 21% for September would be from an average of 950 or so pilots, so around 340 pilots.

- Clearly, the RAF was figthing a battle that it was
- about to loose sooner or later.

On the contrary, look at the figures. In early July, RAF front line strength 688 Spits and Hurris, 458 in reserve, 1200 pilots. Luftwaffe 1107 109s, 1126 pilots.

End of September, RAF front line strength 832 Spits and Hurris, 207 in reserve, about 1500 pilots. Luftwaffe 920 109s, 917 pilots.

Extrapolate that trend out, and it's the Luftwaffe that runs out of both planes and pilots before the RAF. That's why they gave up, after all.

- It doesn`t really mattered as if it was still a
- smaller percantage of the Jagdwaffe`s total
- strenght, than the RAF FC`s strenght.

At the start yes, but not by the middle or the end. By Spetember, the RAF had more pilots and more planes than the Luftwaffe, and could afford it's losses better.

-- The RAf had more injured, but
-- overall pilot attrition was similar.
-
- You are making up things.

No. The RAF had the advantage of fighting over home soil. They had few men taken prisoner. The Germans lost large numbers as prisoners, as well as their deaths and wounded. German deaths and captured was substantially higher than RAF deaths and captured. RAF wounded was substantially higher than German wounded. However, RAF wounded frequently returned, German captured never did.

- So?

So by the end of Spetember the Luftwaffe were no longer strong enough to win. They couldn't put up enough sorties to put real pressure on the RAF anymore.

-- No, they simply allowed their operational strength
-- to decline. 676 pilots ready for duty just wasn't
-- enough, even the 900+ they had started the battle
-- with hadn't been enough.
-
- Again you don`t count reserves, just 1st Line units.
- Of course you count everything for the RAF.

That is counting German reserves. They simply didn't have any.

look at the figures. Established strength at the end of Sept was 1132 109s. However, the Luftwaffe only had 920. They were 212 below establishment. If there had been reserves, they wouldn't have been below establishment.

- Is that the same period when German bombers bombed
- Britain every single night, with great accuracy and
- no practical losses ? IIRC London itself was bombed
- on 90 following nights during that time.

Total Luftwaffe tonnage dropped on Britain: 74,000. Total RAF tonnage dropped on Germany: 657,000.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:23 AM
-
- Then there is Biggs with the MKI and the MK22.
-

Latest picturs from Biggs are here http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/19.html

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:30 AM
Thanks for pointing me to those Cess_Wizard.

Must....have...Spitfire. The greatest plane ever built, along with the 190. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:32 AM
- Hop convinently ignores that the A-3 the British
- tested was some 20-30mph slower than all the others
- at 1.42ata.

It wasn't.

The RAF got figures of 329 mph at sea level, 392 mph at just over 17,000ft. The big difference is the critical altitude seems to have been much lower in the A3 the RAF tested, but the speed at sea level and 17,000ft is up there with the USAAF test of 190A5.

The USN got 334 at sea level, 386 at 15K, 401 at 20K. The USN test 190 was stripped and repainted before the test, and was also several hundred pounds lighter than the typical A5.

The RAF test gave similar figures, up to around 18,000ft. However, the USN plane had a critical altitude of around 22 - 23K, the RAF found a critical alt of less than 20K.

- It should be noted that Hop2002 saw those posts (he
- post there as Nashwan), yet continue to ignore the
- facts.

The facts are the RAF got 329 mph at sea level, 392 at 17,000ft. Those are similar figures to the US navy tests.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:35 AM
Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1063
Twin-engined fighters 151
Night fighters 572
Fighter-bombers 278
Ground-attack aircraft 352
Night harassment aircraft 305
Twin-engined bombers 840
Four-engined bombers 97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 210
Coastal aircraft 123
Transport aircraft 719
Kampfgeschwader 200 (misc. aircraft 65

Total 4928


Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 10 January 1945

Single-engined fighters 1462
Night fighters 808
Ground-attack aircraft 613
Night harassment aircraft 302
Multi-engined bombers 294
Anti-shipping aircraft 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 293
Coastal aircraft 60
Transport aircraft 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 206

Total 4566


Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 9 April 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1305
Night fighters 485
Ground-attack aircraft 712
Night harassment aircraft 215
Multi-engined bombers 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 309
Coastal aircraft 45
Transport aircraft 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 70

Total 3331

Source:
Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997.

Seems production could not keep up with losses.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:39 AM
Hop,

One of the biggest limiting factors for the BMW801D engine was the so-called "black box." At anything over 24,000 feet, the control unit began to loose servo-oil pressure at such a rate that the pilot barely had any control at all at 30,000 feet and over. This probably accounts for the problem encountered by the USN wherein the Fw-190A tested by them lost power at higher altitudes.

Here is a link to the NACA report on the subject, if you don't already have it:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:54 AM
Vo101_Isegrim, just out of curiosity, if you believe what you posted in reply to hop, what reasons can you give for the failure of the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF?

I'm curious because you paint a very bleak picture for the RAF, surely they should have lost the battle if they were in the condition as your post suggests, yet history records records them as doing the opposite? i.e. they won.

Regards

Rook.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:39 AM
go to http://www.coltec.ufmg.br/~moc/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4484#4484 if you want pictures of the spitfire in development.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:51 AM
gonzothe1 wrote:
- go to <a
- href="http://www.coltec.ufmg.br/~moc/phpBB2/viewto
- pic.php?p=4484#4484"
- target=_blank>http://www.coltec.ufmg.br/~moc/phpBB
- 2/viewtopic.php?p=4484#4484</a> if you want pictures
- of the spitfire in development.
-
-

Jeez - direct links to the ones I have already posted in the above link to Netwings :-)

www.netwings.org (http://www.netwings.org)
Home of the Il2 3rd Party Modellers
Home of the VEF Forums

Message Edited on 08/12/0301:55AM by Cess_Wizard

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 05:04 AM
I really think you guys are taking this WAY too far. What is the point of coming out with all these numbers and quotes? At the end of the day, the Spitfire was a fantastic plane, you cannot deny this, even if it was inferior to the 190.

I can see why some of you are worried about specifications, and how the aircraft will fly. But in all fairness, i dont care how it flies compared to the 190, i know i will take a lot of FW's down when i grace the skies with my spit! Like i said, the Spitfire was a great plane, even if it did have flaws, It is without question, one of the most famouse fighters of all time.

Lets just look forward to climbing into that cockpit, rather than worrying about how well its going to do against a FW190. If you have the skill to compensate for the difference in specs, you will walk away with victory everytime.

Bring on the 190's is what i say, and may god be with them! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 05:41 AM
Relax...it's coming........If you notice the stock skins on the P-51s in FB they are the colors of the US squadrons who actually flew on the eastern front with the exception of the missing 332nd. I am sure once Gib gets his P-38 done we will have tond=s of skins for it. I think the Spit IX is coming....probably in one of the add ons later.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 10:25 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- That is not so. You count only first line fighters
- of the Luftwaffe, vs. all the RAF with it`s
- reserves. In reality, the number of RAF Fighter
- planes were never more than 620-650 during BoB - the
- rest were in reserve stores, w/o fuel or pilots to
- fly them.

The number of aircraft fielded in RAF squadrons
increased during BoB. There were something like
half a dozen or more (I don't have the figures to hand
at the moment) squadrons available at the end of BoB
than at the beginning.

- The RAF lost 28% of it`s fighter pilots in
- September.
- The Jagdwaffe lost 22%. The British were loosing
- their pilots faster.

Maybe what you mean is that the losses in September
were equal to 28% of the organisational strength at
the beginning of September. However, it would appear
that even if there may have been a greater proportional
loss based on the TOE at the beginning of September,
the RAF appears to have been replacing its strength more
quickly, as evidenced by the expansion of the number
of squadrons and aircraft in those squadrons.

What I don't have (and this is where you may have a point)
is a figure for the number of pilots in those squadrons
in total. So it is possible that the number of aircraft
deployed in a larger number of squadrons may have increased
as the number of pilots decreased. However, I think it is
unlikely that the RAF would bother with the disruption
of creating more squadrons (with a diminishing pool of
fighters this would imply smaller groups of men in each)
if they were losing pilots so rapidly. It only really makes
sense in the context of an increasing number of pilots.
Not everything in war makes sense, of course.

- The Luftwaffe lost some 1730 planes of all types to
- all reasons at the same time. The exchange ratio
- favoured the LW, even if you count German bomber
- losses but not British ones.

In that case the German military production command
should have been tried for incompetence, since the
losses in aircraft were not replaced, and in the UK
they were more than replaced.

- Yep, RAF fighter pilots were much more often rotated
- to "quiter regions", six feet under that is.

The groups active had squadrons regularly rotated out
to less active areas (such as 10 Group). This occured
throughout the BoB. The pilots were alive when rotated
out, and the same ones were then rotated back in.

This may have meant that the combat experience of
some of the squadrons rotated in was less than that
of those rotated out, although the overall strategy
allowed pilots to have a relative break from intense
combat, and also shared the combat experience across
the RAF, giving an overall experience of combat to
a group of squadrons wider than those originally based
where the Luftwaffe attacks were strongest. It also
increased the survival chances of pilots who had
been in combat, and so left the RAF with a good pool
of combat hardened pilots for later in the war.

- Similiarly, battles are not won by surviving only.

Strategically survival of the RAF was what was required
to win. In very narrow terms of just BoB, it was a draw.
In terms of the wider war, it was a UK victory, in the
sense that it denied Germany the strategic advantage
sought. The UK was thus in the war to defend Greece,
thus requiring German aid of the Italian troops there,
delaying Barabarossa, and thus prevent Moscow being
captured in 1941. You could argue, with only a touch
of hyperbole, that BoB lost Germany the war.

- The RAF was capable of nothing else: survival. It
- could not prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing Britain
- as it pleased in 1940-1941.

This is highly inaccurate. It forced the Luftwaffe to
switch from day to night bombing. It could not use
medium bombers in daylight as it pleased.

[.. snip...]

- Loosing the battle? I could have swore that it was
- Britain bombed by hundreds of bombers every day in
- 1940.

It wasn't every day. There were sometimes periods
of a couple of days or more in which there were no
significant attacks, except by groups of circa 30
bombers on airfields. By the end of the BoB the
bombing was mostly relegated to 109s and 110s on
jabo missions, and medium bombers by night.


- Is that the same period when German bombers bombed
- Britain every single night, with great accuracy and
- no practical losses ?

The accuracy was mixed. The Luftwaffe did have the
great advantage of radio based navigation and target
finding. As Coventry shows, accuracy was sometimes
somewhat awry. (A friend of mine has an original
Luftwaffe map showing the target areas for Coventry,
which were largely untouched by the bombing).

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 10:31 AM
Zyzbot wrote:
- In reference to the ongoing BOB discussion...I found
- these neat little charts:
-
- Numbers:
-
- <a href="http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.htm
- l</a>

They seem at variance with other figures I have seen
which show an increase in the number of aircraft. But
it might be servicable aircraft, or some other derivation.

-
-
-
- By aircraft type and pilot loss:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_
- of_britain_statistics.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk
- /battle_of_britain_statistics.htm</a>
-
-
-
- Anyone know if they are close to being accurate?


For fighter types it shows August with 130 RAF pilots
killed, versus 30 Luftwaffe.

-
-

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:53 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- The RAF had reserves of both pilots and planes.
- Typically, a squadron had abour 2 pilots for every
- plane, to allow for leave, illness, training etc.


2 pilots for every plane? LOL! No wonder they had to drain training schools for people.

There`s a big gap between your dreams and reality, Hop.



- There were also piolts, the RAF had more than 1400
- operational pilots by the end of September.

And 90% of them having difficulty taking off...



- The difference was doctrine, the RAF believed in
- having more pilots than planes, and more planes than
- established strength.

Again, only according to you. The established strenght of the RAF-FC was about 1350 planes in Britain only, of which they usually had 1050-1100 planes including the reserves, and of which only around 600 was operational on a daily basis.


-
-- The RAF lost 28% of it`s fighter pilots in
-- September.
-- The Jagdwaffe lost 22%. The British were loosing
-- their pilots faster.
-
- Only in September. And even then, at the end of
- September the RAF had over 1400 single engined
- fighter pilots, the Luftwaffe about 900.
-

Yep, and out 1200 out of that 1400 you claim to exist didn`t even had training worthwhile to speak of. 1200 rookies + 200 veterans vs. ~900 well trained pilots, many of them already making 50-60 victories...



-- Most British pilots were very inexperienced and easy
-- to shoot down. Germans could keep up the quality of
-- pilots.
-
- They still lost, though.

Evacuation does not win a war, survival doesn`t win a battle.


-- When, exactly? Much more Spitfires and Hurricanes
-- were shot down than 109s. Even you can`t deny that.
-
- Yes, the Spits and Hurricanes also shot down large
- numbers of bombers though. Overall, the Luftwaffe
- lost more planes than the RAF.

The LW lost many planes to AAA as well, not just fighter, not to mention that those 1700-odd planes often qouted includes non-combat losses as well.

The British lost 1960 fighter aircraft to all causes, which is MUCH higher than the 5-600 (from memory) 109s the German losts to all causes.


- In October, the Luftwaffe lost almost exactly the
- same number of 109s as the RAF lost Spits and
- Hurris, plus the Luftwaffe also lost a lot of
- bombers.

Detailed source ? It seems every single author disagrees on that.


-
-- Or, if you look at the total loss figures, the RAF
-- lost some 1960 fighters to all causes (about 960 in
-- combat) according to Deighton, plus additional 320
-- bombers in the meantime, according to Hastings.
-- That`s 2280 in total.
-
- Deighton's a good fiction writer.

I didn`t know the Battle of Britain was a fiction. Please expand on this, I might add something new to my "Best of Hop" folder. Right now the champion is your theory "The Murmansk convoys were lauched only to lure Tirpitz out from it`s hide" theory.


-
- The RAF "lost" around 1700 fighters to all causes,
- but that includes planes with minor damage from
- accidents etc sent to repair organisations.

Hop2002 says 1700 fighters.

Aviation historian Deighton says 1960 fighters lost (destroyed, written off etc.) to all causes.


-
- The RAF lost around 900 Spits and Hurris in combat,
- the Luftwaffe around 650 109s in combat. The
- Luftwaffe also lost a large number of bombers.

No, combat losses of the 109s were much lower than 650. In July-September, the Luftwaffe lost 333 Me 109s in Combat. The rest were lost to non-combat reasons. As you said the British lost 900-odd figthers in combat. They were loosing 3 times as much. It`s the same ratio if you count all lossess, ie. ~650 vs. 1960.



-
- Combat losses were far higher on the Luftwaffe side,
- the RAF losing about 80 planes to accidents for
- every 100 lost in combat. The Luftwaffe lost only 40
- for every 100 lost in combat.

Source? Ted Hooton says 49% and 54% of all 109s lost were lost in combat, in July-August, and September.

Corresponding numbers for Hurricanes: 57% For Spitifires : 43%

Pretty much comparable on the whole.


-
- However, an RAF squadron could get a new plane by
- sending the old one off for repair, and drawing a
- new one from reserves. The Luftwaffe didn't have
- that luxury, repairs were carried out in squadron.

No, that`s completely wrong. Only the small scale repairs were done at the Gruppes (which are Wings, not squadrons...), the rest were done at large repair centers. New planes and pilots could be requested from the semi-operational Erganzungseinheiten, where also pilots who finished their class were continued to trained.

Hop, you know very little about the LW, you mixed up Wing-sized LW units with fighter squadrons etc. why invent these stupid theories all the time?



- That's why Luftwaffe serviceability fell so much, as
- low as 40% of front line fighters at some points,
- according to prof Richard Overy.

But this wasn`t the general case however. Sure it`s not hard to find single LW units with 40% strenght at some times.

However the RAF`s strenght was even poorer during the battle, out of the 1350 or so planes authorized, only around 1100 were present, out of which only 5-600 were servicable on a single day.



- According to Luftwaffe quartermaster returns the
- figure was higher, varying between 70 and 80% for
- most of the battle. However, RAF serviceability was
- around 90% throughout. That's the advantage of
- having reserves.

90% ? You have some very basic problems with your maths. The RAF had 1100 planes during the battle; on an avarge day, 5-600 were servicable as that. That`s hardly 90%, more like 50-60%.



-
-- Yep, RAF fighter pilots were much more often rotated
-- to "quiter regions", six feet under that is.
-
- No, they went to Wales or Scotland or the Northern
- England, where the Luftwaffe rarely dared to
- venture.

I imagine what dark horrors could lurk in Northern England. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Of course, the Luftwaffe lost many times as many
- dead during the battle, so much so that orders were
- that no more than 1 officer was to be in any plane.

I always believed the 109s was a single-seat fighter. Altough if you mean bombers, it is correct. It wasn`t much of a great idea to put officers to jobs which didn`t require it. It was a luxury, and was ceased with.


- It did. The Luftwaffe all but stopped daylight
- bombing because of their losses. They stopped
- attacking radar stations because of the losses, they
- stopped attacking London by day because of the
- losses. They stopped attacking the North indaylight
- after 1 days attempt, the losses were so high.
-

How much prevacaration ! The LW didn`t stop daylight bombing due to losses, they were actually shrinking by September per sortie, due to the heavy close fighter escort they got. They stopped the the daylight attacks as the wheater was bad by october, already bad enough in September to cancel many missions on a day. The large fighter and bomber formations could operated under poor visibility condtitions for obvious reasons, and thanks to their advanced electrical equipment, they could bomb just as accurately at night than in the day.

The comment on raids on radar stations wee stopped "due to losses" is just all out laughable. The Bf 110 of the special 210 test unit did a very good job through the battle in disabling those.

They "stopped bombing London due to losses". Wake up, London was being bombed from late August 1940 until May 1941, for almost an entire year on a regular scale. In particular, between October and December 1940, it was bombed on every single night for 90 days.

As for your comment on the "North raids", everyone knows that the single raid from Norway was never ment to be a bombing campaign, but a diversion. It yieldid heavy losses, but was successfull in it`s intent as it forced the RAF to station more fighter in the North, doing effectively nothing.



-
-- If we count mere survival as vistory, the Luftwaffe
-- would have won in 1945: it survived the Allied air
-- offense and had over 8000 planes in 1945, about
-- 70-80% of them operational, 50% more than in 1944.
-
- At the end of 1945, Germany was defeated and
- occupied.

True. Yet the LW was there till the last day and flying tenthousends of sorties every month until the politicians signed for peace.


- Throughout the last year of the war, the
- Allies bombed Germany at will. The Luftwaffe
- couldn't stop it.

And the Luftwaffe continued to bomb England until the last days and the British coudn`t stop it.


- At the end of 1940, the RAF was still in being, had
- a larger fighter force than the Luftwaffe, and had
- stopped the Luftwaffe's daylight campaign against
- Britain.


All RAF daylights raids were stopped in late 1939 after a few catasthropical sorties over Germany. So, by your standards again, the RAF "lost" in 1939. The RAF was incabaple of stopping the LW from bombing Britain through the war.

You want to count survival as a victory; the LW not only survived but expanded in 1945. They could not defeat it effectively until it was ordered to lay arms.

You also want to count victory on the basis of forcing to stop daylight raids. The RAF was forced to stop daylight raids in 1939.


It`s clear, that if your artifically lowered standards for victory = mere survival would be used all the times and equally, it would turn against you.

Which shows that your logical assertions are flawed. That`s the point.



- See the difference? The RAF continued, the Luftwaffe
- lost and all it's men were locked up in prison
- camps. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Hard to see when the LW lost (by your standards). It survived. That count as victory by you. It kept expanding. That counts as victory by you. It forced the enemy to cease daylight bombing, and at times even night bombing. That even exceeds your prequisitions for victory.

So it`s either the LW really won, or it`s just that your standards for victory are laughable and can be satisfied by both loosers and victors.



-- But we all know that it`s survival was not enough to
-- claim yourself a victor.
-
- No, achieving your goals and stopping the enemy
- achieving theirs are what counts towards victory.

And what the RAF did was mere survival. Not much of a goal, is it?


- The RAF's goals were to stop the Luftwaffe, which
- they did.

No, since the LW bombed Britain at will between 1939 and 1945.


- The Luftwaffe's goals were to destroy the
- RAF and subdue Britain, which they failed at.

Perhaps this is how they (would like to) see it in Britain, but it was more like to put pressure on the Brits so that they realize they can gain nothing in that war, and it would be better for them to stop it. The LW failed in applying enough pressure, the Brits (or more like Churchill) failed to grasp the reality.



- In 1944, the Luftwaffe's goal was to stop the
- bombing of Germany, which they completely failed to
- do.

In March 1944, after it`s defeat in the Battle of Berlin, the RAF Bomber Command was forced to cease all large scale operations over Germany due to it`s extremely high losses of more than 1000 heavy bombers in just a few months.


-
- By the end of the BoB, RAF fighter pilot strength
- had risen to 1800 pilots.

LOL, these superficial numbers. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif They keep growing and growing.



- The RAF lost about 500
- pilots, including Blenheim and Defiant aircrew. tell
- me how 500 from more than 1800 is 90%?

Tell me how it is 1800?

- Do they teach different maths, as well as different
- history, in your universe?

Do they teach self-dillusion in your universe?


-- Dogfigthing was
-- well beyond their capabilities. Not to mention, RAF
-- moral was all-time low by September.
-
- And they still won.

If you get your butt kicked all through from the German bay till London, that`s hardely a victory.



-
-- The RAF lost 26% of it`s fighter pilots in August,
-- and 28% in September.
-
- Source? RAF fighter pilot losses were a lot less
- than 50% for the whole of the Battle. I suspect you
- are using figures for losses as a percentage of
- aircraft strength.

Baker, and no for the latter part.


-
- For example, the RAF had about 650 fighters as
- established strength.

No, established strenght of the RAF was 1350 fighters. It`s simple math, one only have count how many Fighter squadrons were in Britain.


- They had about 1400 pilots as
- established strength.

Last time it was 1800 pilots... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- 28% of 1400 pilots would be 392 pilots in September,
- 364 in August, giving losses of about 750 in those
- two months alone.
-
- However, 28% and 26% of 650 pilots would be about
- 350 pilot losses for August and September, which is
- about right. The RAF lost around 500 pilots (and
- Blenheim and Defiant aircrew) throughout the battle.
-
- In short, your losses are as a percentage of
- established strength, not actual pilot strength.


No, losses are for actual pilot strenght.



- Luftwaffe losses of 15% for August and 21% for
- September would be from an average of 950 or so
- pilots, so around 340 pilots.
-
-- Clearly, the RAF was figthing a battle that it was
-- about to loose sooner or later.
-
- On the contrary, look at the figures. In early July,
- RAF front line strength 688 Spits and Hurris, 458 in
- reserve, 1200 pilots. Luftwaffe 1107 109s, 1126
- pilots.
-
- End of September, RAF front line strength 832 Spits
- and Hurris, 207 in reserve, about 1500 pilots.
- Luftwaffe 920 109s, 917 pilots.

Now which one? 1200, 1400, 1500 or a horde of 1800 pilots ?

It seems that while trying to develop new alternative realities, you got confused. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Besides, REAL fighter command strenghts were in the end of Sept:

Fighter Command Servicable aircraft, as at 900 hours, 30th September 1940:

Blenheim: 45
Spitfire: 218
Hurricane: 403
Defiant: 13
Gladiator: 8
--------------
Total: 687



-
- Extrapolate that trend out, and it's the Luftwaffe
- that runs out of both planes and pilots before the
- RAF. That's why they gave up, after all.
-

Perhaps in one of your alternate realities...



- At the start yes, but not by the middle or the end.
- By Spetember, the RAF had more pilots and more
- planes than the Luftwaffe, and could afford it's
- losses better.


By September, the RAF could only replenish it`s lost pilots by taking students from flights schools before that completed their training. That was the only way they could keep up with losses, at least in numbers, regardless of quality. By when these poor souls would be lost in combat, there would be no more reinforcments, no more pilots to fly the planes. This was obviously the signs of the RAF reached the final bounderies of it`s endurance.



-
--- The RAf had more injured, but
--- overall pilot attrition was similar.
--
-- You are making up things.
-
- No. The RAF had the advantage of fighting over home
- soil. They had few men taken prisoner. The Germans
- lost large numbers as prisoners, as well as their
- deaths and wounded. German deaths and captured was
- substantially higher than RAF deaths and captured.

Only if you count German bomber crews as well.


- RAF wounded was substantially higher than German
- wounded. However, RAF wounded frequently returned,
- German captured never did.

Still irrevelent, as the RAF, with all these advantages to aid it, lost a higher percantage of it`s pilots than the Germans.


- So by the end of Spetember the Luftwaffe were no
- longer strong enough to win. They couldn't put up
- enough sorties to put real pressure on the RAF
- anymore.

In your universe, perhaps. In reality, the famous qoute from Mallory was "We need a sort of miracle", or something like that.

In fact, the RAF was about the be bled dry.



--- No, they simply allowed their operational strength
--- to decline. 676 pilots ready for duty just wasn't
--- enough, even the 900+ they had started the battle
--- with hadn't been enough.

Correction: the LW had 917 fighter pilots in the end of September.

Source: You



--
-- Again you don`t count reserves, just 1st Line units.
-- Of course you count everything for the RAF.
-
- That is counting German reserves. They simply didn't
- have any.

No, you are completely wrong and have absolutely no idea on the topic you are speaking of.

After all, how can one take it seriously? You can`t even tell the difference between a Gruppe and a Staffel!


-
- look at the figures. Established strength at the end
- of Sept was 1132 109s. However, the Luftwaffe only
- had 920. They were 212 below establishment. If there
- had been reserves, they wouldn't have been below
- establishment.

Being somewhat under of established strenght i nothing sort of extraordinary, reinforcements always come with a bit of delay.

Turning your logic agaiasnt you, does it means that the Typhoon squadrons that were considerably below est. str. in late 1944, ie. 3-4 planes actually being there instead of 20, means that the RAF didn`t have reserves any more?



-- Is that the same period when German bombers bombed
-- Britain every single night, with great accuracy and
-- no practical losses ? IIRC London itself was bombed
-- on 90 following nights during that time.
-
- Total Luftwaffe tonnage dropped on Britain: 74,000.
- Total RAF tonnage dropped on Germany: 657,000.
-

Yep, through the entire war. Naturally, you somehow forgot that the LW dropping the vast majority of it`s bombs on the Eastern Front, ie. in only between June 1941 and April 1944 a total of 756,773 tons.

Which explains why Britain got bankcrupt in the war and why there was food rationing there until 1949... plowing up fields in Germany with tons of bombs because you can`t even hit targets as big as cities isn`t much of a great idea. Especially with a smaller economical basis. Britain could surely use better, more realistic leaders than Churchill and Harris in that war.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hop,
-
- One of the biggest limiting factors for the BMW801D
- engine was the so-called "black box." At anything
- over 24,000 feet, the control unit began to loose
- servo-oil pressure at such a rate that the pilot
- barely had any control at all at 30,000 feet and
- over. This probably accounts for the problem
- encountered by the USN wherein the Fw-190A tested by
- them lost power at higher altitudes.
-

I don`t think it was a limitation, it was more like a design feature. Think a little bit: oil pressure does not drop with altitude automatically. It isn`t connected to outside air pressure. I would tend to believe that they regulated the unit`s working by decreasing the oil pressure, as above 5800m (static) the BMW`s supercharger was no longer able to maintain optimal boost pressure.

Describing the Kommandogereat as a "limiting factor" is a bit funny you know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:21 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- The number of aircraft fielded in RAF squadrons
- increased during BoB. There were something like
- half a dozen or more (I don't have the figures to
- hand
- at the moment) squadrons available at the end of BoB
- than at the beginning.

Yes that`s true, but the bottleneck, as always and as with every airforce was pilots.

-
-- The RAF lost 28% of it`s fighter pilots in
-- September.
-- The Jagdwaffe lost 22%. The British were loosing
-- their pilots faster.
-
- Maybe what you mean is that the losses in September
- were equal to 28% of the organisational strength at
- the beginning of September. However, it would appear
- that even if there may have been a greater
- proportional
- loss based on the TOE at the beginning of September,
- the RAF appears to have been replacing its strength
- more
- quickly, as evidenced by the expansion of the number
- of squadrons and aircraft in those squadrons.

Keep in mind that the increase of numbers of aircraft does not neccesarily mean the increase of pilots. Though I believe the number of servicable aircraft, by definiation, MAY be connected to pilot strenght. I am not sure wheter "servicable aircraft" is the same def. as if like "battle ready" with German tanks, which latter meant a servicable, fueled, filled up with ammo, AND CREW tank.

As one gets in deeper with statistics, sooner or later has to realize that it`s all about (incompatible) defininitions of the statistical qualities.


-
- What I don't have (and this is where you may have a
- point)
- is a figure for the number of pilots in those
- squadrons
- in total. So it is possible that the number of
- aircraft
- deployed in a larger number of squadrons may have
- increased
- as the number of pilots decreased. However, I think
- it is
- unlikely that the RAF would bother with the
- disruption
- of creating more squadrons (with a diminishing pool
- of
- fighters this would imply smaller groups of men in
- each)
- if they were losing pilots so rapidly. It only
- really makes
- sense in the context of an increasing number of
- pilots.
- Not everything in war makes sense, of course.
-
-- The Luftwaffe lost some 1730 planes of all types to
-- all reasons at the same time. The exchange ratio
-- favoured the LW, even if you count German bomber
-- losses but not British ones.
-
- In that case the German military production command
- should have been tried for incompetence, since the
- losses in aircraft were not replaced, and in the UK
- they were more than replaced.


Yes, and this actually happened, see the suicide of Ernst Udet. Altough one should keep in mind that other than the mismanagment of Udet, the high leadership didn`t really wanted to strain the economy (they were, at that time, fighting a war that was almost completely won), and also that the re-tooling and preperations of the production of the 109F was just happening, ie. it reached frontline units in early October 1940 for the first time.



-
-- Similiarly, battles are not won by surviving only.
-
- Strategically survival of the RAF was what was
- required to win. In very narrow terms of just BoB, it was a draw. In terms of the wider war, it was a UK victory, in the
- sense that it denied Germany the strategic advantage
- sought. The UK was thus in the war to defend Greece,
- thus requiring German aid of the Italian troops
- there,
- delaying Barabarossa, and thus prevent Moscow being
- captured in 1941. You could argue, with only a touch
- of hyperbole, that BoB lost Germany the war.

It`s quite a hyperbole I must say. I would agree that it kept the UK in the war, but how much of a victory was that? I think it`s quite clear, looking on the whole of events, that it was simply not possible at the actual technological levels, to completely wipe off an airforce just in 3 months, if there was a industrialized country was behind it. From that point, if the LW`s best aim could be to put pressure on the Brits to sign the peace threaty based on the actual status quo. Knowing Churchill, this wasn`t a possibility even if the RAF would cease to exist...

On Greece delaying Barbarossa: I don`t think so, IMHO that`s just another popular "what-if". In April and May Russian roads were still like swamps, the "rasputica" was still raging. Starting offensive in May would only meant that the Wehrmancht would have bogged down on the Soviet border in the mud... it was seen as unpractical to launch any operation until the springtime reign of mud ended, ie. see the dates of ALL major summer offensives from both sides, they are always in late June - early July (Barbarossa, Bagration, the Blue offensive, Bagration itself on the same date as Barbarossa etc.).


-- Is that the same period when German bombers bombed
-- Britain every single night, with great accuracy and
-- no practical losses ?
-
- The accuracy was mixed. The Luftwaffe did have the
- great advantage of radio based navigation and target
- finding. As Coventry shows, accuracy was sometimes
- somewhat awry. (A friend of mine has an original
- Luftwaffe map showing the target areas for Coventry,
- which were largely untouched by the bombing).

Keep in mind that the goal with Coventry was to bomb down the aircraft industry, and not the city itself, as popular myth says. It quite logical that because of that, industrial parts of the city was most effected, and the rest received bombs onyl accidentaly, by bombers who missed their targets. Of course there are no 100% results, even today. Bombs concentrated on points which KG 100 marked with firebombs.BTW, that map would be very interesting.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:22 PM
Wilco_-151- wrote:
- I really think you guys are taking this WAY too far.
- What is the point of coming out with all these
- numbers and quotes? At the end of the day, the
- Spitfire was a fantastic plane, you cannot deny
- this, even if it was inferior to the 190.


Hop will rip your head off for that last sentence. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:33 PM
Already pointed out a few times but somehow it doesn't sink in really hard but the nearest to completion is the Spitfire MKXIV "Clipped wing" version, not the MKV, nobody even started on the MKV yet.

So you guys can keep on and on about how the FW190 should be able to gun down the MKV down in flames on every occasion but the it's the MKXIV "Clipped wing" version you most likely see enter Forgotten Battles land first.

I for one will feel fairly confident to go up against a FW190 in an MKXIV.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:48 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Hop convinently ignores that the A-3 the British
-- tested was some 20-30mph slower than all the others
-- at 1.42ata.
-
- It wasn't.

It was. It was throughlty proven at Aces High forum, however you refuse to accept it, because it ruins many of your theories ("Spit is always better than anything no matter what")

It`s easy to see. In the ADFU trials, at 1.42ata the 190 was reported to have approx. the same speed as the Spit IX at +15lbs at 21000 ft.

If one looks at the 4thfightergroup site, the mentioned plane (BF274) could do 378 mph or so at 21000ft.

At 2000ft, it was found to be 7-8mph faster than the SpitMkIX, which could do 312mph. That means the British A-3 did about 320mph at 2000ft, and around 310mph at SL.

-
- The RAF got figures of 329 mph at sea level, 392 mph
- at just over 17,000ft.

In an other test, maybe. More likely not, knowing you. However we speak about the comparison of with Brtiish fighters, in which the 190 did approx. 310 or so mph at SL at 1.42ata, whereas in other tests:


USAAF test of EB-104, at 8535lb (=A-3 T-O weight) it did 340 mph.

USN test of the same plane, but slightly different weight and conditions, at 8690lbs, did 334mph at 200ft.
(However, report notes that this was with 2min acceleration only, and max. speed was most likely not developed.)

Finally, FW`s own specs for the A-5 at 4000kg, gives it as 565kph (350mph) at SL at 1.42ata.

The difference between the ADFU tested A-3 at 1.42 and other tests at SL is no less 25mph, and sometimes as big as 40mph.



- The big difference is the
- critical altitude seems to have been much lower in
- the A3 the RAF tested, but the speed at sea level
- and 17,000ft is up there with the USAAF test of
- 190A5.

The big difference is that it was 25-40mph slower than all other tested airplanes. That could very well effect it`s critical altitude, as it lost a lot of dynamic power above rated altitude.



-
- The USN got 334 at sea level, 386 at 15K, 401 at
- 20K. The USN test 190 was stripped and repainted
- before the test, and was also several hundred pounds
- lighter than the typical A5.

No, why are you saying things that are so much untrue?

The USN test specifically says it was loaded for "typical fighter configuration". It gives the weight at 8690 lbs, which 3945kg, whereas A-5 is given as 4000kg in German papers.
USN report also notes that the wheel well fairings were missing.



-
- The RAF test gave similar figures, up to around
- 18,000ft. However, the USN plane had a critical
- altitude of around 22 - 23K, the RAF found a
- critical alt of less than 20K.
-
-- It should be noted that Hop2002 saw those posts (he
-- post there as Nashwan), yet continue to ignore the
-- facts.

- The facts are the RAF got 329 mph at sea level, 392
- at 17,000ft. Those are similar figures to the US
- navy tests.


No, these are your usual distortions. Fact is that in the fighter vs. fighter test, the A-3 didn`t make more than 310mph, which was well below every single other test by 25-40mph, including the USN`s (which, BTW, mentions that level speed tests were done only for a duration of 2 mins acceleration, under which maximum speed was most likely not developed).

In brief, if the British based their opinion with the combat evalutions of ADFU, they very much underestimated the capabilities of a 190A.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 01:50 PM
Hello EPP_Gibbs,

I note your post that begins:

"In the long text about the why's and werefore's of Adolf Gallands quote, there lies more of the classic Battle of Britain Myth which goes like this.."

I believe you may be referring to MY post, Mr. EPP_Gibbs.

If so, I also believe that the paragraphs in my post that caused you to respond the way you did were these:

"Thanks mainly to the constant pressure of attacks on airfields and pilot fatigue/losses, RAF Fighter Command reached crisis point and came close to breaking. But, and this is a crucial 'but', the Germans DIDN'T REALIZE THIS!

Luftwaffe intelligence repeatedly assured themselves that the RAF must be down to their last few fighters (very wrong) and that soon resistance would crumble (almost right - if they had kept up the pressure on airfields)."

I believe I can adequately answer you post, but before I do so could you please confirm that these WERE the paragraphs in question?


Awaiting your prompt reply,

panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:54 PM
According to a great few here, all German fighters were superior to their British counterparts and therefore anytime a Spit went up against a 190 they were shot down, you know, because the British and Canadians and Americans etc. had such inferior pilots compared to mighty Germany, which is why us Allies lost the war....wait a minute.....

Fact that people are throwing around numbers and bitsching about which plane is better is one of the biggest wastes of time and effort I have yet to see on an internet forum. Seeing as no one here has access to a Spit and 190 they can jump in and test all these "numbers" against in actual combat, why don't you just take your pent up pro-Axis/pro-Allies energy and take it online?

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 03:13 PM
2+2=5

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 03:29 PM
EPP_Gibbs

You there?

panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 03:42 PM
OOB for Jafu 2 and 3

Aug. 13 1940 - single engine

910 of which 712 were servicable

Strength Summary

26 Jagdgruppen had 976 of which 853 were servicable


Sept. 7 1940 - single engine

787 of which 507 were servicable

Strength Summary

27 Jagdgruppen had 831 of which 658 were servicable


Battle of France May 10 1940

29 Jagdgruppen (on hand/servicable)

West - 1266/897
Norway - 51/34
Reich - 49/39

Total - 1366/970

Seems the LW had trouble getting replacement a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

For more detail and the reference source

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/Aug40.html#13Aug



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 04:00 PM
That German quatitative superiority was a myth created by the Allied, not by the Germans - Milo./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 04:02 PM
nt



Message Edited on 08/12/0304:05PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 05:03 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Yes that`s true, but the bottleneck, as always and
- as with every airforce was pilots.

As has been previously noted, the RAF tended to have
more pilots than planes, although there were some difficult
times when the available number of pilots in Fighter
Command dipped below 1000 (although this was still in
excess of the number of single engined fighters available).

The supply of pilots _was_ a bottleneck, as observed
by the scouring of other commands for qualified pilots
with fighter experience.

- Keep in mind that the increase of numbers of
- aircraft does not neccesarily mean the increase of
- pilots.

If at that particular point that the number of squadrons
was expanded was quite so critical that such an expansion
would have taken place. Creating a new squadron typically
involved stripping some experienced personnel from
an existing squadron to form the core of the new one. It
would be personnel from a unit rotated out of the front
line, but even so it isn't something you'd want to be
engaging in if you have a critical pilot problem.

The only way I can see it making sense is if you
are prepared to reduce the number of pilots per plane
(a smaller over ratio of pilots) because you have more
than enough planes, and want to reduce the number of hours
per unit time that the airframes fly, giving more time
for repairs, etc. This would effectively give you more
servicable aircraft at any one time (absolute number not
proportion). But then that implies that servicable airframes
are the bottleneck, not pilots. If pilots were the bottleneck at this point, then you'd just put more
airframes into the reserves for each group, or increase
the number deployed to each squadron.

- Though I believe the number of servicable
- aircraft, by definiation, MAY be connected to pilot
- strenght. I am not sure wheter "servicable aircraft"
- is the same def. as if like "battle ready" with
- German tanks, which latter meant a servicable,
- fueled, filled up with ammo, AND CREW tank.

Since the RAF tended to have multiple pilots per plane,
then it would imply that the number of servicable aircraft
would be close to the number of battle ready. There might
be instances in which there was a temporary pilot shortage
in a particular squadron, giving an imbalance, though.

- As one gets in deeper with statistics, sooner or
- later has to realize that it`s all about
- (incompatible) defininitions of the statistical
- qualities.

It's quit an issue/


- Yes, and this actually happened, see the suicide of
- Ernst Udet.

Good point.

- Altough one should keep in mind that
- other than the mismanagment of Udet, the high
- leadership didn`t really wanted to strain the
- economy (they were, at that time, fighting a war
- that was almost completely won),

I think there was a problem endemic before the
war even began, or perhaps it was assumed that
the war would be won very easily, as there was
a problem covering loses in Poland before Norway
and France, and then covering the loses in France
before the Battle of Britain.

I have read that one of the problems for the Luftwaffe
was a lack of production of spares such that comparatively
lightly damaged aircraft were broken up for spares. In
the RAF, a damaged plane was sent to the rear areas for
a rework. The USA produced vast quantities of spares - you
can still obtain spares, fresh from the packet, even now.


-- delaying Barabarossa, and thus prevent Moscow being
-- captured in 1941. You could argue, with only a touch
-- of hyperbole, that BoB lost Germany the war.
-
- It`s quite a hyperbole I must say.

It's not my idea, but has been (sometimes not entirely
seriously) suggested by a number of historians. Of course
you can never really pin a defeat on a single cause - there
are multiple causes. After all, if the Italians had
defeated the British alone in Greece in 1941, then Barbarossa could have started on time. And even if
Barbarossa had been on time, there is no guarantee that
it would have been successful.

- there was a industrialized country was behind it.
- From that point, if the LW`s best aim could be to
- put pressure on the Brits to sign the peace threaty
- based on the actual status quo. Knowing Churchill,
- this wasn`t a possibility even if the RAF would
- cease to exist...

There was pressure on Churchill at various times in
an attempt to unseat him, though.

- On Greece delaying Barbarossa: I don`t think so,
- IMHO that`s just another popular "what-if". In April
- and May Russian roads were still like swamps,

May was the original start date for Barabarossa, though.

- Keep in mind that the goal with Coventry was to bomb
- down the aircraft industry,

I know. Those are the exact targets marked on my
friend's map. I am well aware that the city itself
was not a target.

- as popular myth says. It quite logical that because
- of that, industrial parts of the city was most
- effected,

Well, since I used to live in the area, I can tell
you that the industrial targets were only lightly
damaged! The biggest damage was in the medieval areas
of the city, whereas the industrial areas were more
on the edges. One of the few targets near the centre,
as far as I remember, was the Alvis works, which was
struck, but not knocked out. (That's based on what my
friend said - he did some research after he aquired
the map, but I don't remember all the details).

However, it must be noted that the destruction of
the medieval parts of the city started in the 1930s,
and can't be entirely blamed on the Luftwaffe.

- BTW, that map would be very interesting.

I'll drop him a line. He moved to France just
over a year ago, so I am not sure if he has
all of his collection with him, or if some is in
storage.

There are all sorts of inexplicable instances of
lack of bombing of some cities, such as Rugby (not
far from Coventry), an important rail hub. Also,
Coventry-born Frank Whittle was developing the
jet engine at the GEC works right next to the rail
lines. (First at Lutterworth, the new GEC Whittle
Institute or whatever it is called, then Rugby, then
the aircraft research place at Cranfield, I think).

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 06:30 PM
What are you yapping about?


KIMURA wrote:
- That German quatitative superiority was a myth
- created by the Allied, not by the Germans -
- Milo.


You should also check the bibliography, lots of German language books from German publishers listed.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 11:16 PM
- 2 pilots for every plane? LOL! No wonder they had to
- drain training schools for people.
-
- There`s a big gap between your dreams and reality,
- Hop.

It remains a fact. The RAF had far more pilots than planes, by design. In total, nearly 3000 pilots and aircrew flew combat missions during the BoB for Fighter Command. That includes some Blenheim and Defiant crewmen, but not that many. In total, well over 2000 pilots took part in the Battle for FC, and 544 aircrew were lost from that 3000 figure.

- And 90% of them having difficulty taking off...

Of course they did Isegrim. Got a source?

- Again, only according to you. The established
- strenght of the RAF-FC was about 1350 planes in
- Britain only,

No, you don't seem to understand the term "established strength"

Established strength is the number of aircraft squadrons are supposed to have. They can have more or less, and reserves can be held, but established strength remains the same.

The RAF had an established strength of 680 or so Spits and Hurris at the start of the battle, around 830 towards the end of the battle, peaking at about 950. Actuall strength was higher, with never less than 150 or so planes in reserve.

- of which they usually had 1050-1100
- planes including the reserves, and of which only
- around 600 was operational on a daily basis.

No, established strength was 680 - 950, depending on time. Actual numbers available was never less than 1000 - 1100, and that only counts aircraft with squadrons, and those in the serviceable reserve, ie it doesn't count those with the repair organisations.

- Yep, and out 1200 out of that 1400 you claim to
- exist didn`t even had training worthwhile to speak
- of. 1200 rookies + 200 veterans vs. ~900 well
- trained pilots, many of them already making 50-60
- victories...

200 veterans? There were probably more than 200 Polish and Czech veterans, not counting the rest of FC. Got a source for your claims?

And as for "~900 well trained pilots", less than 700 of them were fit to fly.

- Evacuation does not win a war, survival doesn`t win
- a battle.

You win a battle by achieving your goals. What goals did the Luftwaffe achieve during the Bob? The RAF's goal was to survive, and not cede air superiority to the Luftwaffe. They achieved it. The Luftwaffe's goal was to destroy the RAF, so their bombers could bring Britain to it's knees. The RAF won, the Luftwaffe lost. Incidentally, which historians support your view of the Luftwaffe winning the BoB?

- The LW lost many planes to AAA as well, not just
- fighter, not to mention that those 1700-odd planes
- often qouted includes non-combat losses as well.

And the RAF lost many planes to bomber's defensive guns. Luftwaffe combat losses were much higher than the RAF's.

- Detailed source ? It seems every single author
- disagrees on that.

Really? Which ones? Every time you post on the BoB, you don't give figures for October.

- Right now the champion is
- your theory "The Murmansk convoys were lauched only
- to lure Tirpitz out from it`s hide" theory.

You can file that one with the quotes you made up, because you wished I had said them. I said the Murmansk convoys were used as bait, that's not the same as saying their primary purpose was bait.

- Aviation historian Deighton

Deighton has written 28 spy fiction novels, a cookery book, and two books on WW2 history. He trained as an artist and photographer, worked as an illustrator, photographer, waiter and art director for an ad agency before taking up writing spy novels.

- No, combat losses of the 109s were much lower than
- 650. In July-September, the Luftwaffe lost 333 Me
- 109s in Combat.

There you go, ignoring October again.

Luftwaffe and RAF losses are distorted by the availabilty of replacement aircraft. The RAF always had a reserve, so new planes could be had from stores, and the old ones sent back for repair and overhaul. The Luftwaffe had no reserves, so sending a plane off for repair wasn't an option.

That shows also in the serviceability rates.

- Source? Ted Hooton says 49% and 54% of all 109s lost
- were lost in combat, in July-August, and September.

No October again?

Hooton gives 675 109s and 110s lost in action 1st July to 6th Oct, 78 in accidents.

Wood and Dempster give the figures as 726 109s and 110s to enemy action, 106 on operations but not due to enemy action, and 80 in accidents, for a total of 912 to all causes.

Hooton gives 792 RAF day fighter losses to enemy action, 82 in accidents


Wood and Dempster give the RAF losses as 1st July to 3rd Oct as 889, including Defiants and Blenheims.

Very, very different from your claims of 1900, aren't they?

truth is, RAF wastage was around 1700 fighters during the BoB, but that includes planes sent for overhaul, repairs, relegated to training duties etc.

- As you said the British lost 900-odd
- figthers in combat. They were loosing 3 times as
- much.

No, the RAF lost 900 odd fighters of all types, including Blenheims and Defiants, the Luftwaffe lost 800 odd (inc October), in combat. Total fighter Command losses, to all causes, were around 1000 - 1100. Total Luftwaffe fighter losses, all causes, were 900 - 1000.

- No, that`s completely wrong. Only the small scale
- repairs were done at the Gruppes (which are Wings,
- not squadrons...), the rest were done at large
- repair centers. New planes and pilots could be
- requested from the semi-operational
- Erganzungseinheiten, where also pilots who finished
- their class were continued to trained.

You seem to be missing the point. Suppose a Spit sustained damage, and would have taken 5 days to repair. The squadron had a choice of having the mechanics work on it for five days, and for those five days they would be one plane down. Or they could register it as a loss, a lorry would come and pick it up, and a nice WAAF would fly a replacement in for them.

If a 109 took five days to repair, the squadron could try to repair it, get the group to repair it, or send it back to Germany for repair. Whatever they did, they were still going to be without a plane, because there were no reserves, and production was so slow. Repairing in house meant they'd get their plane back quicker, which was the exact opposite to the RAF's position.

- Hop, you know very little about the LW, you mixed up
- Wing-sized LW units with fighter squadrons etc. why
- invent these stupid theories all the time?

Huh? Day to day repairs were done by the staffel, which is what I was reffering to.

As to inventing stupid theories, bear in mind you are trying to argue the Luftwaffe won the BoB. Just how stupid is that?

- However the RAF`s strenght was even poorer during
- the battle, out of the 1350 or so planes authorized,
- only around 1100 were present, out of which only
- 5-600 were servicable on a single day.

There were never 1350 planes authorised. Autorised stregth never went above 950 or so, and most of the time was a lot lower.

Planes in storage were not "authorised strength". They were not meant to be flown, they didn't have pilots or squadrons allocated. They were replacements for lost or damaged aircraft.

The RAF was always up to authorised strength, at least on paper. As soon as a plane was reported lost, a replacement was allocated, even if it took a day or two to arrive. for the Luftwaffe, as soon as a plane was lost, they went in a queue to get allocated a new plane, and that queue got longer throughout the BoB.

That's why authorised strength was over 1100 planes, and actual strength was around 900 planes. They were 200 or more planes below authorised strength, whereas the RAF was always at least 150 - 400 planes above authorised strength.

- 90% ? You have some very basic problems with your
- maths. The RAF had 1100 planes during the battle; on
- an avarge day, 5-600 were servicable as that. That`s
- hardly 90%, more like 50-60%.

Source? RAF figures show otherwise.

Again you don't seem to understand the concept of established strength. If 800 planes are with squadrons, and 300 sitting as a serviceable reserve, no more than 800 can be ready for operations.

Even then, squadron establishment was 16 - 20 aircraft, but no more than 12 were expeted to fly at any one time.

The RAF had 43 squadrons of Spits and Hurris at the start, 53 at the end of the battle. That means they could expect to have 12 * 43 - 53 planes available at any one time, or about 600.

- I imagine what dark horrors could lurk in Northern
- England.

Ask veterans of Luftflotte 5, who lost 21 planes in their first day's raid against the north. They gave up after that.

- How much prevacaration ! The LW didn`t stop daylight
- bombing due to losses, they were actually shrinking
- by September per sortie, due to the heavy close
- fighter escort they got.

They were still too high, and the heavy escort and declining number of escorts meant the numbers of bombers able to attack in one day was too limited.

If you can only raid with heavy esscorts, and you can't get enough escorts, then that's a defeat, isn't it?

- They stopped the the
- daylight attacks as the wheater was bad by october,
- already bad enough in September to cancel many
- missions on a day.

And the 1700 lost planes, and thousands of dead aircrews, had nothing to do with it, of course?

For your information, that describes Britain's weather throughout the summer, as well.

- The large fighter and bomber
- formations could operated under poor visibility
- condtitions for obvious reasons, and thanks to their
- advanced electrical equipment, they could bomb just
- as accurately at night than in the day.

Of course they could, Isegrim. If the beams weren't jammed that night, that is. Even then, accuracy was fairly poor.

- The comment on raids on radar stations wee stopped
- "due to losses" is just all out laughable. The Bf
- 110 of the special 210 test unit did a very good job
- through the battle in disabling those.

Really? How many holes in the radar coverage were opened up? Only a couple of radar stations were seriously damaged by air attack throughout the battle, at heavy cost.

- They "stopped bombing London due to losses". Wake
- up, London was being bombed from late August 1940
- until May 1941, for almost an entire year on a
- regular scale. In particular, between October and
- December 1940, it was bombed on every single night
- for 90 days.

At night. The daylight attacks were halted, apart from a few fighter bomber attacks. Berlin was of course bombed far more heavily, and the Luftwaffe never managed to put a stop to that.

- As for your comment on the "North raids", everyone
- knows that the single raid from Norway was never
- ment to be a bombing campaign, but a diversion. It
- yieldid heavy losses, but was successfull in it`s
- intent as it forced the RAF to station more fighter
- in the North, doing effectively nothing.

Oh, where to start?

Luftflotte 5 was ordered in to action because the Luftwaffe had claimed so many fighters, Luftwaffe "intelligence" thought the RAF had stripped the north of defences.

As to the RAF transferring aircraft north, sorry but they didn't.

13 Group, which covered the north, had 14 squadrons in July, 15 in August (a Defiant squadron was moved from 11 group), 14 in September.

- And the Luftwaffe continued to bomb England until
- the last days and the British coudn`t stop it.

Really? When they tried again in 44, it was contemptuously known as "the baby blitz" in Britain, so innefectual was it.

- So, by your standards again, the RAF "lost" in 1939

I think that's a fair assesment in anyone's book.

- The
- RAF was incabaple of stopping the LW from bombing
- Britain through the war.

They made it so costly the Luftwaffe only did so sporadically after 42. It would be hard to define British bombing of Germany as "sporadic", wouldn't it, with almost 10 times as many bombs dropped.

- You also want to count victory on the basis of
- forcing to stop daylight raids. The RAF was forced
- to stop daylight raids in 1939.

They restarted them later in the war. The Luftwaffe didn't, in fact they couldn't even get reliable recce photos of Britain after 1943.

- Hard to see when the LW lost (by your standards). It
- survived. That count as victory by you.

No. The IRaqi air force survived the first Gulf war, and that was hardly a victory. Now if the Iraqi air force had inflicted more losses on the allies than it sustained, and the allies had given up the air campaign, I would count that a victory. The RAF did those things during the BoB, the Luftwaffe failed then, and failed again agaisnt the USAAF.

- So it`s either the LW really won, or it`s just that
- your standards for victory are laughable and can be
- satisfied by both loosers and victors.

So you really believe the Luftwaffe won the BoB? The whole war as well?

- In March 1944, after it`s defeat in the Battle of
- Berlin, the RAF Bomber Command was forced to cease
- all large scale operations over Germany due to it`s
- extremely high losses of more than 1000 heavy
- bombers in just a few months.

No, in March 1944 BC was retasked for D Day support. Just as the Luftwaffe was supposed to be tasked for Sealion support. Again, the RAF succeeded, the Luftwaffe failed.

- Tell me how it is 1800?

Sorry, those are simply the figures. The RAF awarded a clasp to the air campaign medal for those who flew operational sorties in fighters during the BoB. around 3000 men were elligible. 500 or so killed, leaves another 2500 who flew during the battle. 1800 of those still available at the end isn't much of a strech for you, is it?

- Baker, and no for the latter part.

Well, we know the exact number of pilots killed, it's 544 including Blenheim and Defiant crew, for the entire battle.

- No, established strenght of the RAF was 1350
- fighters.

No, established strength was 650 - 950 or so, depending on period.

- It`s simple math, one only have count how
- many Fighter squadrons were in Britain.

Yes, lets.

At the start of the battle, the RAF had 43 Spit and Hurricane squadrons. At the end, they had 53.

688 (established strength) divided by 43 at the start is 16 planes per squadron, which is about right. If you count all planes available, then there were 458 in reserve, for a total of 1146. That would make a squadron's established strength 26.5 planes, which is simply wrong.

By the end, there were 848 aircraft established strength, in 53 squadrons. Again, 16 planes per squadron.

-- They had about 1400 pilots as
-- established strength.
-
- Last time it was 1800 pilots...

1800 by the end of October, the end of the Battle. 1400 during September.

- No, losses are for actual pilot strenght.

So you claim 54% of 1400 pilots lost in August and Sept? That's 756 in August and Sept alone, so probably 1000 plus for the whole battle. Actual Spit and Hurri pilot losses were less than 500 throughout the battle.

-- End of September, RAF front line strength 832 Spits
-- and Hurris, 207 in reserve, about 1500 pilots.
-- Luftwaffe 920 109s, 917 pilots.
-
- Now which one? 1200, 1400, 1500 or a horde of 1800
- pilots ?

Huh? Figures I have are 1400 pilots in Sept, rising to 1800 by Oct. I presume it was a sort of gradual rise, so around 1500 by the end of Sept.

- Besides, REAL fighter command strenghts were in the
- end of Sept:
-
- Fighter Command Servicable aircraft, as at 900
- hours, 30th September 1940:
-
- Blenheim: 45
- Spitfire: 218
- Hurricane: 403
- Defiant: 13
- Gladiator: 8
---------------
- Total: 687

Sounds about right. Note I was giving aircraft on hand for both RAF and Luft, not serviceable.

The figure of 832 Spits and Hurris on strength, and 621 serviceable sounds about right, bearing in mind there were another 200+ in reserve.

- By September, the RAF could only replenish it`s lost
- pilots by taking students from flights schools
- before that completed their training. That was the
- only way they could keep up with losses, at least in
- numbers, regardless of quality. By when these poor
- souls would be lost in combat, there would be no
- more reinforcments, no more pilots to fly the
- planes. This was obviously the signs of the RAF
- reached the final bounderies of it`s endurance.

Source? The RAF certainly hurried men through flight school, but most of these wwere then sent to quieter areas, like the north, to gain experience.

- German deaths and captured was
-- substantially higher than RAF deaths and captured.
-
- Only if you count German bomber crews as well.

No. The RAF lost fewer Spit and Hurri pilots killed and captured than the Luftwaffe lost 109 pilots killed and captured. The RAF had less than 10 Spit and Hurri pilots captured.

-- So by the end of Spetember the Luftwaffe were no
-- longer strong enough to win. They couldn't put up
-- enough sorties to put real pressure on the RAF
-- anymore.
-
- In your universe, perhaps. In reality, the famous
- qoute from Mallory was "We need a sort of miracle",
- or something like that.

It was Dowding, on the 7th of September. Last time I checked, there were 30 days in September, not 7.

However, even on the 7th the comments have to be taken in to context. Dowding knew fighter command was suffering, what he didn't know was how badly the Luftwaffe was suffering.

- In fact, the RAF was about the be bled dry.

In fact, the RAF recovered from that point on, whilst the Luftwaffe continued to decline for another 2 months or more.

---- No, they simply allowed their operational strength
---- to decline. 676 pilots ready for duty just wasn't
---- enough, even the 900+ they had started the battle
---- with hadn't been enough.
-
- Correction: the LW had 917 fighter pilots in the end
- of September.
-
- Source: You

Note the "ready for duty" bit? There's a difference between pilots on the payroll and pilots fit to fly,

- Being somewhat under of established strenght i
- nothing sort of extraordinary, reinforcements always
- come with a bit of delay.

But they didn't come for the Luftwaffe, not without a long delay. By the end of December, strength had declined futher, to 829 109s, with only 586 serviceable. Pilot strength was 915, 711 fit for duty.

Truth is, the Germans weren't producing enough fighters to make up losses, the RAF were.

- Turning your logic agaiasnt you, does it means that
- the Typhoon squadrons that were considerably below
- est. str. in late 1944, ie. 3-4 planes actually
- being there instead of 20, means that the RAF didn`t
- have reserves any more?

I've never seen a Typhoon squadron that low, and I'd be interested in how long they remained in that state. I don't know the state of Typhoon reserves, so it's possible there weren't any.

However, the Luftwaffe were at least 200 aircraft below established strength throughout Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec 1940. They were without reserves.

- Yep, through the entire war. Naturally, you somehow
- forgot that the LW dropping the vast majority of
- it`s bombs on the Eastern Front, ie. in only between
- June 1941 and April 1944 a total of 756,773 tons.

I also left out all the bombs the RAF dropped on the Germans in France, the Low Countries, Italy, the Balkans, Norway, at sea, and on the Japanese. Shall I count those too? It was well over 1,200,000 tons.

- Which explains why Britain got bankcrupt in the war
- and why there was food rationing there until 1949...
- plowing up fields in Germany with tons of bombs
- because you can`t even hit targets as big as cities
- isn`t much of a great idea.

Tell the people of Berlin, Hamburg etc the RAF couldn't hit cities. Tell the crew of the Tirpitz whilst you're at it.

- Especially with a
- smaller economical basis. Britain could surely use
- better, more realistic leaders than Churchill and
- Harris in that war.

Choice was surrendering to the Nazis, losing half our population as slave labourers and in concentration camps, or fight back. I think they made the right choice, somehow. There's hundreds of thousand of Jews alone who survived in Britain because we stood up to Hitler. In fact, the number of Jews alone who would have been murdered is probably higher than Britain's total causalties during the war.

Germany lost. That they did well out of the peace is due to the generosity of the western allies. Germany was not generous to the countries it conquered.

BTW, didn't you grow up under communist dictatorship because your country lost the war, just like millions of Germans? I'm glad I didn't.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:48 AM
- It`s quite a hyperbole I must say. I would agree
- that it kept the UK in the war, but how much of a
- victory was that? I think it`s quite clear, looking
- on the whole of events, that it was simply not
- possible at the actual technological levels, to
- completely wipe off an airforce just in 3 months, if
- there was a industrialized country was behind it.

After 3 months of the USAAF campaign against the Luftwaffe in 1944, the Luftwaffe largely stopped defending against the USAAF raids, who bombed at will.

- From that point, if the LW`s best aim could be to
- put pressure on the Brits to sign the peace threaty
- based on the actual status quo. Knowing Churchill,
- this wasn`t a possibility even if the RAF would
- cease to exist...

If the RAF had ceased to exist, Churchill would have been replaced. Lord Halifax would have tried to cut a deal at that point.

On Greece delaying Barbarossa: I don`t think so,
- IMHO that`s just another popular "what-if". In April
- and May Russian roads were still like swamps, the
- "rasputica" was still raging. Starting offensive in
- May would only meant that the Wehrmancht would have
- bogged down on the Soviet border in the mud... it
- was seen as unpractical to launch any operation
- until the springtime reign of mud ended, ie. see the
- dates of ALL major summer offensives from both
- sides, they are always in late June - early July
- (Barbarossa, Bagration, the Blue offensive,
- Bagration itself on the same date as Barbarossa
- etc.).

On the other hand, if they had knocked Britain out, Germany would have had access to foreign supplies of strategic supplies, and have had a stronger military. Even the 350 Ju52s lost in Crete would have made a big difference in keeping the front supplied, not to mention the diversion of resources away from the U Boat campaign.

- Keep in mind that the goal with Coventry was to bomb
- down the aircraft industry, and not the city itself,
- as popular myth says.

Wrong. The Germans coarsened the beam settings before Coventry, so the British knew beforehand it was going to be an area attack.

- It`s easy to see. In the ADFU trials, at 1.42ata the
- 190 was reported to have approx. the same speed as
- the Spit IX at +15lbs at 21000 ft.

Okay

- If one looks at the 4thfightergroup site, the
- mentioned plane (BF274) could do 378 mph or so at
- 21000ft.

Okay

As I said, it was running okay up to around 17,000ft, but it's critical altitude was way lower than other 190s, probably due to a fault. It's speed at lower alts was fine.

- At 2000ft, it was found to be 7-8mph faster than the
- SpitMkIX, which could do 312mph. That means the
- British A-3 did about 320mph at 2000ft, and around
- 310mph at SL.

Isegrim, the AFDU compares planes, they do not do accurate speed tests, anymore than they dyno test engines.

Lets compare it to the other planes as well, shall we?

At 2000ft, they found that "there was little to choose between the aircraft in speed, the Typhoon being slightly faster".

The report says the Typhoon was tested at 3700rpm, 7lbs boost.

At 3700rpm,7lbs boost, the A&AEE in 1942 found the Typhoon did 349.5 mph at 2000ft.

The 190 would have been somewhere over 345 mph at 2000ft then. Of course, if the Spit was 7 - 8mph slower, it did 338 at 2000ft, but we know it didn't.

The AFDU flew planes against each other, not against the stopwatch. That was the A&AEE's job, and they got 329mph at sea level for the 190, and 392 at 17,250ft.

- In an other test, maybe. More likely not, knowing
- you.

Well, go by the same AFDU test then, which showed the 190 to do 345 at 2000ft.

- However we speak about the comparison of with
- Brtiish fighters, in which the 190 did approx. 310
- or so mph at SL at 1.42ata, whereas in other tests:

No, you are simply reading too much accuracy in to the AFDU test. Why not take the 345 mph figure they showed in comparison to the Typhoon?

- USAAF test of EB-104, at 8535lb (=A-3 T-O weight) it
- did 340 mph.
-
- USN test of the same plane, but slightly different
- weight and conditions, at 8690lbs, did 334mph at
- 200ft.

Which ties in quite nicely with 345 at 2000ft for an A3, doesn't it? Especially as the USN stripped and repainted the plane before the test.

- (However, report notes that this was with 2min
- acceleration only, and max. speed was most likely
- not developed.)


I suspect that could explain the differences in the AFDU tests as well. If one fighter pulled away from another, they guessed the speed difference. For performance figures, the A&AEE ran properly instrumented tests.

- Finally, FW`s own specs for the A-5 at 4000kg, gives
- it as 565kph (350mph) at SL at 1.42ata.
Yes but nobody matched FW's own tests, did they? Not suprising, the preperation they gave the planes.

- The difference between the ADFU tested A-3 at 1.42
- and other tests at SL is no less 25mph, and
- sometimes as big as 40mph.

When compared to the Spit, not when compared to the Typhoon. In fact, the difference between the two figures achieved by the Spitfire and Typhoon comparisons is 25 - 30mph.

- The big difference is that it was 25-40mph slower
- than all other tested airplanes.

But it's not. It achieved 329 mph at sea level, 345 at 2000ft, 392 mph at 17,250ft. It's only slower above 18,000ft, due to a much lower critical alt.

-- The USN got 334 at sea level, 386 at 15K, 401 at
-- 20K. The USN test 190 was stripped and repainted
-- before the test, and was also several hundred pounds
-- lighter than the typical A5.
-
- No, why are you saying things that are so much
- untrue?

Sorry, 140 pounds.

It was stripped and repainted, though.

- No, these are your usual distortions. Fact is that
- in the fighter vs. fighter test, the A-3 didn`t make
- more than 310mph, which was well below every single
- other test by 25-40mph,

In one of the tests, in another it did 345 at 2000ft.

- In brief, if the British based their opinion with
- the combat evalutions of ADFU, they very much
- underestimated the capabilities of a 190A.

In brief, you are continuing to use AFDU tests, which were meant to compare aircraft, instead of A&AEE tests, which were meant to evaluate aircraft. However, you take the imprecise figures from the AFDU, and use them in preference to the precise figures from the A&AEE.

Remember how you claimed the 109 could develop 1550 hp at 23,000ft, and based it all on a single sentence in a paragraph headed "Brief description of Aircraft", and then concocted some fantasy about RAF staff geting shot if they'd got the figure wrong?

- In brief, if the British based their opinion with
- the combat evalutions of ADFU, they very much
- underestimated the capabilities of a 190A.

No, they based their opinions on the AFDU evaluations, but they based their facts on the A&AEE tests. Sadly, you seem determined to do it the other way around.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:49 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hop,
-
- One of the biggest limiting factors for the BMW801D
- engine was the so-called "black box." At anything
- over 24,000 feet, the control unit began to loose
- servo-oil pressure at such a rate that the pilot
- barely had any control at all at 30,000 feet and
- over. This probably accounts for the problem
- encountered by the USN wherein the Fw-190A tested by
- them lost power at higher altitudes.
-
- Here is a link to the NACA report on the subject, if
- you don't already have it:

Thanks, I'll look at that. It might explain why the A3 the RAF captured was so slow at altitude, despite being OK at lower levels.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:50 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- Deighton has written 28 spy fiction novels, a
- cookery book, and two books on WW2 history. He
- trained as an artist and photographer, worked as an
- illustrator, photographer, waiter and art director
- for an ad agency before taking up writing spy
- novels.


I think he wrote the book "Pump Your Way To Bigger Manhood In 30 Days." I know he used to read palms.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:36 AM
heh skychimp



this is a qoute from my grandad who used to fly typhoons


p-47? haha just another american rattletrap aircraft

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:41 AM
Panther sir, I'm here. It's just that all this stuff is making my head go round and round.

The only bit I was referring to in your post was the reference to the widely held myth that Fighter Command came 'Close to Collape'. It didn't.

Attempting to gain air superiority over SE England cost the Luftwafffe 1,887 aircraft. Stopping them cost Fighter Command 1023 aircraft. While this fight was going on, Bomber Command lost 376 aircraft interfering with invasion preparations, and Costal Command lost 148 doing both. Total aircraft losses for the RAF as a whole were 1547. Looking at both sides in total, the Luftwaffe only lost 20% more than the RAF.

In the airfighting, however, the Luftwaffe as a whole was directly confronted by Fighter Command which destroyed all but a handfull of the 1887 aircraft the Germans lost, achieving an overall kill ratio of 1.8 to 1. That is not a narrow margin of victory. The Luftwaffe never came close.

The victory was decisive because not only had Fighter Command survived, but it ended the battle stronger than it ever had been.

6th July : Operational strength of 1259 pilots
2nd Nov : Operational Strength of 1796 pilots, a 40% increase.

It had seriously mauled the Luftwaffe. In a lecture held in Berlin on Feb 2 1944 the Intelligence Officer for KG2 Haupt. Otto Bechtle showed that from August to December 1940 German figter strength had declined 30% and Bomber Strength 25%

Like I said, many believe that the Luftwaffe came close during the end of August/beginning of Sept but in fact all their effort achieved very little. The only sector station to go down was Biggin Hill, and only for a few hours. 11 group's efficiency was impaired and Park was vocal about that because he wanted to make the point that it did matter wether interceptions were made before or after bombing, and also because of his anger with 12 group for not protecting his airfields.

Dowding was more objective and agreed that damage to the airfields was serious and that it was beginning at one time to materially affect the efficiency of fighter operations..but..he pointed out that 13 airfields in 11 Gruop were attacked a total of 40 times in 3 weeks, but Manston and Lympne were the only two that were unfit for day flying for more than a few hours, and althouth the scale of the attacks initially exceeded the capacity of the repair organisation, this was rapidly strengthened.

The Luftwaffe did indeed shoot down more fighters than it lost, 1023 RAF downed for the loss of 873 fighters of both types (223 Bf110 and 650 BF109). Assuming broadly that75% of British losses were down to Bf109's (it's difficult to to exact) the single seaters shot down about 770 Spits and Hurris giving them a favourable kill ratio of 1.2 to 1. But what many people seem to overlook is that their only targets were British fighters, whereas Fighter Command were concentrating on Bombers. The German fighters probably did as well as could be expected, handing out more punishment than they took, but were not as successful as the British who got an overall kill ratio of 1.8 to 1. The problem was that it wasn't nearly good enough. the 5:1 kill ratio set for them by Osterkamp in July was never remotely within reach.

The problem for the LW 109's was that the performance margin they had over the Hurricane was too small to allow the sort of massacres it needed, and the Spitfire became an obsessive worry to them. They started with the advantage of greater experience, and better tactics, but as the battle progressed and more and more RAF Squadrons gave up vic formations and old tactics the advantage was eroded.

They performed better against Hurricanes than Spitfires but not by much, and the Spitfire achieved a better claims to loss ratio, about 30% better than the Hurricane.

A Swiss historian of the battle sums up it's position in the history of air warfare thus: 'Fighter defence here achieved a qualitative peak of striking power and efficiency which is unique in the history of air warare, and will probably remain so.'

In the summer of 1940 the RAF dealt the LW a body blow from which, as Osterkamp observed, it never recovered and heralded a decline. In spite of impressive victories in Russia during 1941, it was never again to be as strong, relative to it's enemies, as it was in July 1940, and by 1943 was in serious trouble. In the first half of 1944 the Mustang defeated it in it's own skies. The German crews lost in 1940 were all highly trained, and standards steadily declined. Despite terrible attrition rates almost half the 107 German fighter pilots to claim 100+kills (mainly in the east), were veterans of the battle. Only 8 joined their units after mid 1942.

The human cost of the Battle of Britain was strongly imbalanced because many of the German aircraft lost were multi-crew bombers. The LW lost 2698 airmen, Fighter Command 544.

Isegrim, I've never heard so much rot. What are you going to do for an encore? Argue that black is white and white is black, then get yourself killed on the next zebra crossing?


"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:30 AM
Hiya EPP_Gibbs,

Thanks for getting back to me. I agree with MOST of what you say, but I think there are one or two aspects of the equation that have yet to be considered, in relation to the 'Myth' business.

I've just got home from work and will now have tea, bath the kid etc... so no time right now, but you do deserve a proper reply. Please be patient, I'll be back later this evening (it's presently 6.30 pm here).

In the meantime, thanks, you post was a good read -

back soon!

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:36 AM
Looking forward to fly the Spitfire when it's released for the game. It's the #1 plane i miss the most in IL-2/FB. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://home.online.no/~gunn-al/vikingmask.jpg

Viking Power!
http://kickme.to/viperviking

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:06 PM
It always makes me smile when I read a thread like this, it's better than I remember history being at school.
We get a nice wide cross section of opinions, some backed up by truths half truths and some by wild stories. That all said and done, isn't great that we get this colourful interaction going.

(IMHO) <------ you've got to love these, I think I'd enjoy flying the Spitfire Mk1 through to Mk22 in their relative time zones against their relative opposition. I'd certainly enjoy skinning them.
If all the flight models were as accurate as can be, it would be an interesting stand off between patriotic pilots of all nations.

Eastern Pilots in Yaks and Laggs
Germans in 109's and 190's
Americans in P39's through to P51's
British in Spitfires and er er er Hurricanes<---wings clipped *sob, not that I flew it much, I hated being called a noob.

So . . . give us an idea as to when we will see this beautiful aircraft in FB?
Just an idea mind, don't jump down my throat saying you'll get it when it's finished, like you did when I asked a similar general question a while back please.
An idea to the nearest month would be fine by me.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:15 PM
Hiya EPP_Gibbs, I'm back!

Among other things, I'd just finished reading hop2002's awesomely large post and others of his nearly as big (and I was worrying that I would be long winded myself, when I actually got around to making this post!)

No offence, hop2002 - what you presented was very good, but hey, phew! It must've been SOME effort!

Anyway, on with the business at hand....

The Battle of Britain was something that neither side wanted and during its course, neither side really knew just how, or to what extent, the other was suffering.

You begin by saying that the 'classic Battle of Britain myth' goes like this:

"Fighter Command was close to collapse towards the end of August and the beginning of September due to relentless pressure by the Luftwaffe against the airfields, and that it would have collapsed had they not switched to London"

You then go on to say "This is not true. Fighter command at no time came close to collapse. Under pressure, yes, collapse, no."

First I would like to draw attention to my precise wording. I said "...RAF Fighter Command reached crisis point and came close to breaking....." and then, in the next paragraph "Luftwaffe intelligence repeatedly assured themselves that...... soon resistance would crumble (almost right - if they had kept up the pressure on airfields)."

Notice 'breaking' (not 'collapse') and 'almost right - if.... (not 'right - if....)

No doubt, you will think I'm nit-picking over the difference in words, but please bear with me. The difference is subtle but important, in the following context:

I consider what the Luftwaffe needed to do.

The minimum requirement was to first gain and then maintain air superiority over a sizeable section of the Channel and the South-East corner of England.

They were also hoping that in the process, they could destroy Fighter Command or at least render it relatively ineffective as a fighting force 'in toto'.

On one hand, it should be noted that achieving the first goal would by no means guarantee the second - at least, not in the short term.

Even if the RAF was forced to withdraw its Kent based squadrons further North, it could still offer considerable resistance, provided:

*There were sufficient Pilots and Aircraft

*Adequate supply was maintained

*Command, Control, and infrastructure remained reasonably intact through the remainder of Britain

*The will to resist still held

And I believe that these conditions could have been met, at least for a while.

On the other hand, being forced to pull squadrons back would swing the tactical balance more in favour of the Luftwaffe, over the SE coastal area and the vital Channel approaches.

In fact, it was precisely such a partial withdrawal that the Germans had considered, as one of the hoped-for outcomes of their attacks on the British airfields.

Though not on its own a death blow, it would have been a very serious reverse of fortune for the RAF and possibly the beginning of an irreversible decline.

Had it happened, it would have been the first solid evidence of the 'breaking' of Fighter Command. I believe that if the Luftwaffe had persisted much longer with the attacks on airfields, there was a POSSIBILITY of it happening.

But attacking airfields wasn't all they were doing. In fact, there was considerable diversity in the targeting, even during the period when attacks on airfields were at their height.

Consider then, what might have happened had the Luftwaffe concentrated more fully, even exclusively, on airfields. Under these conditions, I feel that the POSSIBILITY would have become a PROBABILITY.

You said:

"It is incredibly difficult, even now, to render an airfield unserviceable...." and "Even if airfields were damaged beyond repair, the Squadrons would simply have dispersed to the numerous rough grass airstrips, plentiful in number, in the area. Exactly the sort that many Luftwaffe units were operating out of in France."

This argument looks OK as far as it goes, but it's really not as simple as that.

By 1940, what the British had carefully set up (thanks in no small part to Dowding) was the finest Air Defence System in the World. Apart from radar and associated technology, it involved a finely tuned and tightly interwoven structure of command and communications. For its day, it was highly advanced and had been honed to near perfect efficiency. This system, as much as anything else, would be a crucial factor in defeating the Luftwaffe.

The downside of this system was the vulnerability of many of its vital elements and the challenge of quickly repairing/replacing, when damaged, the facilities that enabled command, control and communications. Had the British been compelled to consistently attempt repairs on a larger scale, they would have fallen behind and the system would have begun to fail.

Some of the elements of the system operated at, or in conjunction with the airfields themselves and in particular, the facilities at sector stations were vital. It is true that in one or two instances, when ops rooms were put out of action, the British were able to set up emergency facilites. But it wasn't easy and they would have been in trouble if it happened too often.

The difficulty of quickly replacing or moving such set-ups was at least part of the reason why the RAF fought so tenaciosly to keep their established airfields operational. Hard as it might have been, moving lock, stock and barrel would have been harder and taken longer.

Finding strips for Hurricanes and Spitfires to take off from and land on would have been one thing. Maintaining effective command, control, communications and supply - at the level required by Fighter Command - would have been another - especially if squadrons had to keep shifting. It would not have been a truly viable option.

As it was, there were times when the efficiency of the system began to be impaired. Under greater pressure, for longer, it could have dropped to a dangerous low.

Finally, we need to consider the tactical effects of the Luftwaffe's 'switch to London'.

Most of the airfields suffering serious attack were closer to the Luftwaffe bases than London. Some were very much closer, less than half the distance.

During attacks on these airfields, the British fighters had less warning time and almost always, the German fighters had the advantage of height. This, combined with the effects of attacks on the fields, their facilities and their personnel, put those squadrons and the British defence in this area, very much 'on the back foot'.

But when the main weight of the German attacks changed to London, the 109s were flying to the limit of their range and could only spend a brief time over the target. In addition, the British fighters gained a lot more than just the benefit of having the pressure taken off their fields.

There was now more warning and the time available for intercept was much longer. The extra time also allowed larger formations of RAF fighters to be assembled and 12 group squadrons could now play a more effective role. This not only considerably helped the British defence, it also increased the relief for 11 group.

In addition, it was now possible for the Hurricanes and Spitfires to join battle from a much more favourable height.

In any event, switching to London was a huge blunder for the Luftwaffe. Whatever you might assess as the German chances of success up until then, those chances dropped to zero when the Luftwaffe turned on London. There can be no question that it was a critical turn of events in the battle.

And you've already heard my views on what might very well have happened, had the Luftwaffe not just kept up, but perhaps even intensified the attacks on airfields.

These views, or something similar to them, are shared by many notable military aviation historians and have been written into many books. In fact, I've read quite a number of references on this very subject and they all more or less agree. I could quote from one or two of them, but should I really have to?

As for your subsequent post, apart from anything already covered, I find nothing of contention in it - in fact, I thought it was very good.

There are other issues, mainly relating to aircraft and pilot numbers, where I think things have also not been properly considered (even if the figures posted are essentially correct), but I'm getting tired so I'll leave that for another day.

Guess now, I can join the 'long winded' club!

Enough for tonight - it's getting late



Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:41 PM
Excellent - this lots saved me from having to read any books for a while /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:26 PM
Josf, you are absolutely right in your earlier comment about the Spitfire V. The Spit V took a caning from the early FW190s. In fact, the RAF Air STaff issued a directive on 13th November 1941 halting all but essential RAF Operations over Northern Europe. This led to the development of the Spitfire IX

There was little to pick between the Fw190A's and the IX. In tests with captured aircraft vs the IX the results were:
At 2,000ft the FW was 7-8mph faster
At 5,000ft speeds were equal
At 8,000ft, the IX was 8mph faster
At 15,000ft the IX was 5mph
At 18,000 ft the FW was 3mph faster
At 21,000 ft performance was similar and the Spitfire better at higher altitudes
The FW190 dived fast and had a superior rate of roll
The IX had a smaller turning circle.
Source: Ministry Tests, reported in Spitfire The History (Morgan and Shacklady)

As a result, the IX was upgraded to take 150 octane fuel and increased boost.

There were never any British concerns over the superiority of the IX and subsequent Marks of Spitfire wrt the FW190 for the rest of the war. Alex Henshaw, the Castle Bromwich test pilot wrote "The difference between the old Merlin III series [engine] and the one now fitted in the Spitfire Mark IX was immense. The two-stage blower with its after-cooler between the supercharger and the cylinders put it ahead of the latest German designs and gave us a lead we never surrendered" (Sigh for a Merlin)

This data suggests that the Spitfire IX would probably have faired well in a dogfight with any FW190 due to it's superior turning circle, though the evidence suggests that the Luftwaffe pilots frequently used their superior diving ability as an effective general defensive approach (James Goodson - Tumult in the Clouds).

I would welcome the appearance of a Spitfire in the game. There were over 1300 of them delivered to the Soviet Union ( http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html)

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:56 PM
Just to add some info to the Battle of Britain debate. During the Battle my Grandfather was a test pilot. Although apparently he thought about joining the battle he never actually did and was considered at that point to be doing a more valuable job. I would have though that if things were really bad then all pilots would have been drafted to the front.

The Spit MK.V was indeed inferior to the FW.190. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But just as the Hurricane was inferior to the 109E. It doesnt mean that the Spit MK.V cant shoot down a 190 though, they did and they will do in game, if a pilot doesnt fly his aircraf tto its strengths.

The Battle between 190 and SpitMK.IX. I personally believe these aircraft were more or less on a par with each other. Just as the 109E and Spit MK.I developed throughout the period of battle they fought in these two aircraft did as well. So yes there were periods when 190 was slightly stronger as was the case with the MK.IX. As Jeffrey Quill said himself the 190 was a formidable opponent. He however felt the Spit IX was marginally the better aircraft. As I am sure some German experts would say in relation to the 190.

The Spit MK.XIV was in my opinion the first time the Spit pulled a clear lead on its opponents. Up till that point it was marginal and largely dependent upon opinion to which was the better plane but I always feel that apart from the period when 190 and MK.V faced off the Spit was if not the best in the world very close to being the best Air to air fighter. The MK.XIV produced a staggering performance, in terms of overall top speed it was equalled by other piston engine aircraft but not until later.

People often cite the Mustang as being the most important fighter of the war. I disagree. The Spitfire in my opinion was the most important fighter of WWII. It was the only allied Fighter to be produced and remain in front line service throughout the entire war. IT was the first fighter to offer the 109 a better than equal fight, which when stacked with the advantages of fighting over home soil and radar and of course the rugged Hurricane was to make it a winner. The fact that the RAF survived the BoB in my opinion layed the foundation of the defeat of Germany. For not only did it at last help Britian to make the Americans believe, something that can never be underestimated, it allowed the British to believe as well. In later service it again kept the RAF on equal terms with the Luftwaffe. Eventually achieveving the fastest recorded speed for a piston engine aircraft. Yes the Mustang had range but as Jeffrey Quill said that the Spitfire could if the will had been there been made to do the same mission. Look at the Range of late Seafires to show how Spitfire could eventually achieve long range to there amazing set of assets. She was a lady throughout her service who combined speed, agility and sheer beauty to a greater degree than any of her opponents. But she was a fighter, her area of dominance was in that realm, not in air to ground attack where planes like the Typhoon excelled.

On a Side note My grandfather served with 74 squadron he handed out along with other 74 survivers the Malan memorial sword in 1966.