PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire's contribution to the war effort



DKoor
04-24-2007, 02:09 AM
Following too much "P-51D won teh war" threads, it's time for a change.
Time for truth; did Spitfire w0n the war or perhaps contributed more than P-51 or...?
Lately I can smell some serious anti-Spitfire bias growing up, so I thought this will be nice to show that most of us still respect that plane.

stathem
04-24-2007, 02:12 AM
Megile ftw.

He ties his flies much more subtly.

major_setback
04-24-2007, 02:23 AM
Morale booster if nothing else. Just ask any Englishman who lived through the war which warplane was the best...civilians too.

x6BL_Brando
04-24-2007, 02:46 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/brando6BL/Mine_is_bigger_than_yours_by_IanM.jpg

K_Freddie
04-24-2007, 02:53 AM
during the first half of the war it was the most important weapon Britain had, thanks to Mitchell's foresight. Although the hurrincane played and important role too, it was outclassed very quickly, so this gap had to be/and was plugged by the spit.
Without this plane the odds of operation sea-lion being launched would have been very high.

I don't fly the spit in game much, my baby's are the me109's and more so the FW190's..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Whirlin_merlin
04-24-2007, 03:13 AM
The Spitfire contributed nothing.

Those who flew, fixed, armed, built etc them contributed a hell of alot, often their lives.

Bewolf
04-24-2007, 04:25 AM
Amen.

Same to every other aircraft. Ppl that are so fixated on aircraft, no matter if red or blue, should consider their priorities in life. Though legit in principle, the dimensions this reaches on this forum can't be labelled healthy anymore.

DKoor
04-24-2007, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Megile ftw.

He ties his flies much more subtly. But I have more options, so my thread must be better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif or at least more accurate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
The Spitfire contributed nothing.

Those who flew, fixed, armed, built etc them contributed a hell of alot, often their lives. Yes but if they had flew some different aircraft (I wont name it *cough*) I guess we'd be all speaking different language now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's not the same if you fight a war with machine gun or a pistol... on this occasion I remembered what one British officer said about machine guns at the beginning of ww1: "machine guns are overrated" It didn't took long before he realized just how wrong he was.

John_Wayne_
04-24-2007, 05:37 AM
Insofar as the Spitfire gave Blakeslee, Gentile, Goodson and other U.S pilots a start before moving on to the war winning P-51, I would say that it's contribution is not inconsiderable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Fox_3
04-24-2007, 05:50 AM
Without the Spitfire and Hurricane, the US would have been hard pressed to mount the liberation of Europe from the east coast of America.

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 05:56 AM
Without the Spitfire and Hurricane, the US would have been hard pressed to mount the liberation of Europe from the east coast of America.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And in that sense, both the Spit and the Hurri played a decisive role in the war. As important to victory on the Western Front as the atomic bomb was to the Pacific campaign.

jasonbirder
04-24-2007, 06:35 AM
It's not the same if you fight a war with machine gun or a pistol... on this occasion I remembered what one British officer said about machine guns at the beginning of ww1: "machine guns are overrated" It didn't took long before he realized just how wrong he was.

But despite the Germans being superior at an operational and tactical level throughout the war, and having a far superior casualty ratio than all the Western Powwers...they still lost in the end...Because of the strategic & logistical situation (In this case principally driven by the Royal navy blockade & the Western powers economic superiority)
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things...

LStarosta
04-24-2007, 06:45 AM
The P-51 could escort to Berlin and back from New York.

What the problem is?

Brain32
04-24-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
The P-51 could escort to Berlin and back from New York.

What the problem is?
Bah Spitfire could escort from Melbourne, over Pacific, over South America, over Atlantic, to Leningrad to help the Russians and take the same route back:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2951036255

DKoor
04-24-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not the same if you fight a war with machine gun or a pistol... on this occasion I remembered what one British officer said about machine guns at the beginning of ww1: "machine guns are overrated" It didn't took long before he realized just how wrong he was.

But despite the Germans being superior at an operational and tactical level throughout the war, and having a far superior casualty ratio than all the Western Powwers...they still lost in the end...Because of the strategic & logistical situation (In this case principally driven by the Royal navy blockade & the Western powers economic superiority)
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course, but all that logic never stopped people from saying stupid things like that officer.

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 07:27 AM
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things...

Atomic bomb anyone?

Xiolablu3
04-24-2007, 08:03 AM
+1 at getting fed up with the anti Spitfire bias.

Great plane, amazing dogfighter, great climb, but not so fast compared to many other WW2 planes except in its Mk1 incarnation or until it got a Griffon engine. ALso its dive was poor which was a hindrance when trying to escape the enemy.

I love the plane, escpecially in 1943 in its MkVIII or MkIX variation but I much prefer the 109F4 to the MkV or the FW190 if there is one.

Fact is that its an amazing plane for new pilots or defensive work thanks to its amazing handling and manouvrability. But if the enemy doesnt dogfight then the Spitfire loses a lot of its potency. Therefore in the attack its not so good as almost any contemporary plane can escape simply by diving.

Great plane which doesnt deserve the slating it gets from some forum members who should know better. I am thinking maybe they have been shot down so often by them they get sick of it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

SPitfire is a great plane for 'reaction or instinctive' flying, and this is very common is new rookie pilots. Involves a lot of turning and burning and not a lot of thinking.

More experienced pilots see air combat much more like a game of chess, and the FW190, P47 and Tempest are much more adept at fighting this kind of fight than a Spitfire.

general_kalle
04-24-2007, 08:14 AM
i could write the same here as i did in the P51 tread but that would be waste of time so go read my Reply in the P51 tread.

please

LStarosta
04-24-2007, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
The P-51 could escort to Berlin and back from New York.

What the problem is?
Bah Spitfire could escort from Melbourne, over Pacific, over South America, over Atlantic, to Leningrad to help the Russians and take the same route back:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2951036255 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Touche'. You're right.

The Spitfire is so much better than the Bf-109 and Fw-190.

jasonbirder
04-24-2007, 08:59 AM
quote:
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things...


Atomic bomb anyone?

In World War2 maybe...but hardly proved decisive in conflicts since then has it...even when one side has it and the other doesn't

DKoor
04-24-2007, 09:40 AM
TBH when comparing real life with this game something looks wrong... IMO.
On WarClouds while flying 190D aircraft that I'm least worried about is, you can probably guess it - Spitfire.
Tempest, 47 even 51 they are all more dangerous (Tempest being most lethal) while I'm in 190D.

That is the part of the reason why I wrote this thread.
I flew the Spitfire for some time (not long tho) on WarClouds and one cannot say that plane isn't really something... in any kind of close fight it really excels, you feel like a real predator in it.

But... when I fly 190D, I don't quite get the same amusement like when I fly the Spit and get close up and personal vs few 109's.
But I do get much better results in 190.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Xiolablu3
04-24-2007, 09:51 AM
Agree 99% Dkoor with everything you say, except with your comment that the FW190 isnt as much fun.

Nothing like zooming down on a hapless plane and watching him disintegrate in 4x20mm cannon fire from a FW190A6 or A9.

faustnik
04-24-2007, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
TBH when comparing real life with this game something looks wrong... IMO.

Wrong? The Fw190 series had superior low-level performance to the Spitfires. Get some altitude and the Spit gains the advantage. What's the problem?

Or should the Spit be better in all areas *just* because it was won teh war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Disclaimer: If the above offends anyone's religious beliefs I apologize. I realize that the church of Spitfire has a large congregation on this forum.

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 10:03 AM
In World War2 maybe...but hardly proved decisive in conflicts since then has it...even when one side has it and the other doesn't

Thankfully, the atomic bomb hasn't been used since WWII. Their role is now to prevent conflicts between the powers that have them, through mutually assured destruction, rather than be used in a conflict scenario.

But in WWII they were very decisive. It wouldn't have mattered if the entire allied Pacific fleet had consisted of a couple of fishing trawlers from which balsa wood planes were thrown at the enemy. The atomic bomb ended WWII at a stroke.

MEGILE
04-24-2007, 10:04 AM
The Focke Wulf is good for killing P-38s.. makes a real mess of the paint job.

Killing FWs, in the Spitfire is just plain funny.
It's the look on their face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

ShrikeHawk
04-24-2007, 11:32 AM
It's really hard - in fact illogical - to point at one machine and say it won the war. Human blood and guts won the war. The question is better rephrased as "what machine aided the war effort most?" Well, I would say Liberty ships, Higgins boats, and the humble supply truck.

But all this is really only intellectual "playing". It's fun if you don't take it too seriously. So I'll jump in.

Comparing the Mustang to the Spitfire is a bit odd too, because they were used for very different purposes. The spitfire could not have been a long-range escort, period. But the Mustang would have been "almost" as good as the Spitfire at air superiority. I'm not sure if the 'stang had equal to performance to the Spit at low altitude. But I think not.

Thing is, the Spitfire was there at the start of the war and finished it. Killed or put out of action a lot of Germany's best pilots. By the time the Mustang arrived "in large numbers" in 1944 (wait for the soul to say 'wrong - it arrived in 1943...') the Spitfire had already established itself as a great air superiority fighter in Europe and Africa. Mustang was a newbie, and stood on the shoulders of Spitfires. So my vote goes to the Spitfire for a greater contribution.

DKoor
04-24-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things...


Atomic bomb anyone?

In World War2 maybe...but hardly proved decisive in conflicts since then has it...even when one side has it and the other doesn't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If Adolf got the nukes in ww2 I guess that he would kindly provide a big free tanning bed to many of his oppos.
Factor 4million UV protection creme would come really handy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I don't say that he would eventually won... but it'd be fishy.

jasonbirder
04-24-2007, 12:53 PM
Their role is now to prevent conflicts between the powers that have them, through mutually assured destruction

Like India and Pakistan perhaps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
04-24-2007, 01:02 PM
Ya'll listen up now ya hear...everyone knows i speak fluent Queens Engleesh...so ya'll now no the gard dahm sPitfure won teh waar...have a nice day now...ya hear! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without the Spitfire and Hurricane, the US would have been hard pressed to mount the liberation of Europe from the east coast of America.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And in that sense, both the Spit and the Hurri played a decisive role in the war. As important to victory on the Western Front as the atomic bomb was to the Pacific campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Iceland is a figment of my imagination?

or are you saying that the USA would have gotten involved in the war in Europe had Brtian fallen in 1940?

The first point is academic, the second one is very much your opinion!

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 03:00 PM
or are you saying that the USA would have gotten involved in the war in Europe had Brtian fallen in 1940?

If Britain had fallen in 1940 it would have made it much more difficult for the US to get into the western front campaign and/or have any real impact.

It is very unlikely that the allies could have held Iceland once Britain, with all its strategic strengths, was under Nazi control.

AKA_TAGERT
04-24-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Disclaimer: If the above offends anyone's religious beliefs I apologize. I realize that the church of Spitfire has a large congregation on this forum. LOL

XyZspineZyX
04-24-2007, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">or are you saying that the USA would have gotten involved in the war in Europe had Brtian fallen in 1940?

If Britain had fallen in 1940 it would have made it much more difficult for the US to get into the western front campaign and/or have any real impact.

It is very unlikely that the allies could have held Iceland once Britain, with all its strategic strengths, was under Nazi control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are missing my point entirely. You do not take into account that the US might just not have bothered

The USA might simply not have gotten involved in Europe then, or ever

You are taking it for granted that somehow, the US would have tried to conduct a war in Europe without a European base, a standpoint with which I disagree. Actually, it is boldly obvious that the attmept even to conduct a real campaign from Iceland would be laughable

Perhaps if the US had the need to get involved in Europe in that case, it would have been done from Africa. Or perhaps from the USSR- we had a very effective supply route there. I don't know which, or even if either would have been used. But changing the map of WWII Europe by denying the US a base of operations in England, and then assuming that this wouldn't chnage how events played out is not an argument that I would try to defend

You assume that this turn of events would still make the USA involved the same way it was, just someplace else. I wouldn;t be so sure about that. Even if Hitler declared war on the US after Japan did...now what is Hitler going to do? Use his abortive aircraft carrier to fly sorties off the US East Coast? We had a two ocean Navy

No, the onus would have been on the Axis. Japan's invasion of the West Coast was considered a possibility, but in hindsight it is extremely questionable this could have been done, what with their awful mismanagement of conquered countries and horrendous need for oil. germany would have done what? Shelled Washington, DC? This assumes the vaunted Ubootswaffe wipes the US Navy off the seas. germany's Mexican angle failed miserably. The US would just have pulled it's Carribean forces back to the east Coast and fought a Kreigsmarine that was 3500 miles from it's supply base

Care to take odds on the outcome of that battle? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ShrikeHawk
04-24-2007, 03:17 PM
It is very unlikely that the allies could have held Iceland once Britain, with all its strategic strengths, was under Nazi control.

There's an interesting thought: launching airstrikes from the Bunker Hill to strike at Kenley and Hornchurch Airfields...

crazyivan1970
04-24-2007, 03:20 PM
I wonder when you ppl will get tired of such topics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
04-24-2007, 03:21 PM
While your at it there's a pub in Sidcup that could do with a couple of thousand pounders.

XyZspineZyX
04-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
While your at it there's a pub in Sidcup that could do with a couple of thousand pounders.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 03:41 PM
No, the onus would have been on the Axis. Japan's invasion of the West Coast was considered a possibility, but in hindsight it is extremely questionable this could have been done, what with their awful mismanagement of conquered countries and horrendous need for oil. germany would have done what?

With Britain defeated, Africa and the ME would have fallen quickly to the Axis and they would have taken control of much of the world's oil supplies.

This would possibly have given them the edge they needed to defeat the USSR, especially if they could have disrupted US supply routes.

They would have then fortified Europe's Western Front and combined their offensive forces with the Japanese to attack the West Coast of the US.

With German efficiency they would have shot down the Enola Gay, buying them enough time to develop their own nuclear weapons which they would have launched from Iceland and Britain in next gen V2 rockets to decimate major US cities.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

That's why the Spitfire (and Hurri) won the war. Kind of.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-24-2007, 03:50 PM
A very probable scenario, provided the USA did nothing, Hux

Your entire post assumes the USA does...nothing, and neither does the USSR. You aslo assume harmony between the German and Japanese factions in the Axis on one hand, while also assuming the Germany takes over the direction of Japans' war efforts

I am sorry, Hux, but you can't seriously use that argument to rebut my post, can you? In adition to your other assumptions, you also assume a ready (if not instant!) and perfect integration of the Germano-Nippon pairing. What place in the Aryan World would the japanese hold?

Hux my man, I cannot concede your arguments as being probable. It is a list of "and then and then and thens". Your situation would not happen

Huxley_S
04-24-2007, 03:59 PM
Your entire post assumes the USA does...nothing, and neither does the USSR.

It assumed that the US finds itself in a "oops, we should have helped the Brits out really shouldn't we... yup!" kind of situation and that the USSR loses.

With the Axis in control of most of Africa and the ME, and the Japanese kicking butt in China it's a possibility.

The Germans and the Japanese were always playing the "Enemy of Mine Enemy is my Friend" type of deal. It makes sense that they would have continued along those lines against the US.

Later, when the Nazis started shovelling them all into gas chambers their leaders could have all committed Seppuku.

It's a scenario http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

HellToupee
04-24-2007, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not the same if you fight a war with machine gun or a pistol... on this occasion I remembered what one British officer said about machine guns at the beginning of ww1: "machine guns are overrated" It didn't took long before he realized just how wrong he was.

But despite the Germans being superior at an operational and tactical level throughout the war, and having a far superior casualty ratio than all the Western Powwers...they still lost in the end...Because of the strategic & logistical situation (In this case principally driven by the Royal navy blockade & the Western powers economic superiority)
Just goes to show how insignificant, individual weapon systems and tactics are in the great scheme of things... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually in that sense spitfire played a significant roll, malta was one of the key factors in the allied victory in the desert, without the spitfires victory over malta, bombers would not have been able to operate submarines wouldnt be able to base there, rommel got no fuel at el alamein because submarines and bombers sunk all the tankers.

HellToupee
04-24-2007, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
TBH when comparing real life with this game something looks wrong... IMO.
On WarClouds while flying 190D aircraft that I'm least worried about is, you can probably guess it - Spitfire.
Tempest, 47 even 51 they are all more dangerous (Tempest being most lethal) while I'm in 190D.


well thats because the 190D is a much later aircraft, spit 9 merlin 66 is march 1943, vs d9 late 44, XIV early 1944 would be a more dangerous match.

Closer match to real life would be g6 and fw190a5-8 vs mk9.

DKoor
04-25-2007, 05:49 AM
I haven't checked it, but I'm quite sure they had 25lbs on WarClouds... what is the production year of that aircraft?
Also is there any other Spitfire 1944 production year in game?

And... the scenario you described... it's just laughable. I mean it'd practically be kicking butt in one direction only. It is quite doubtful would the A5 & A8 be even capable of running away from Spitfire, about G6 that is just target not being able to do anything.

Just as it is now - FW-190D is far superior to most aircraft on server.
The only thing 190D has is its speed. Without it it's just a target like the rest on less maneuverable aircraft are.
If the Mk.XIV is capable of negating D9's speed, then it'd be butchering again. FW must have speed advantage to be successful and I don't mean dive speed or something, but top speed.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2007, 01:29 PM
I enjoy Fw190A6 vs Spitfire IX, the FW190A6 can hold its own with a good pilot


Fw190 can dive faster
FW190 is faster
Fw190 can roll faster
Fw190 has better guns


Spitfire can climb faster
Spitfire can turn sharper



I admit its not that easy, but its quite doable and great fun.

I would MUCH MUCH rather be facing a Spitfire IX in a FW190A6 than a La5FN.

There are a lot of maps with this historical planeset on UKded servers (FW190A6/A8 vs SPitfire IX) and the FW190A6 always has a much better KD ratio and holds its own very well.

Remember guys, that once the Spitfire XIV and 25lbs mkIX are around in any numbers, most of hte time the Germans should have a few Me262 to play with. Or at least they should if the maps are at all historical and balanced.

faustnik
04-25-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I enjoy Fw190A6 vs Spitfire IX, the FW190A6 can hold its own with a good pilot.

Definately! That's a great matchup.

DKoor
04-25-2007, 02:26 PM
One thing spoils the party tho for FW players, and that's 190 inability to regain energy as anywhere near fast as Spit in any kind of maneuver xept high speed dive and climb.
Ever tried to maneuver (of any kind) vs Spitfire 9 in FW?
He'll make a full circles around you and still be able to own you in 10s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Spit for the win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
04-25-2007, 02:53 PM
I agree DKoor, slow down at all in the 190 and you're screwed. If you stay fast and have a good team working though, you can still win with speed and firepower.

DKoor
04-25-2007, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I agree DKoor, slow down at all in the 190 and you're screwed. If you stay fast and have a good team working though, you can still win with speed and firepower. Yeah, get the wolfpack up and 190's will usually prevail. They can soak up some Hispano love + they have more cannons (firepower) and that is, IMO, what usually prevails in team vs team fights. Drag and bag is something that should be perfected by every online pilot especially those flying in 190.

Zoom2136
04-26-2007, 07:37 AM
Drag and Bag....

Only good if you are being chast by a sinlge n00b... that is not using voice comms...

As soon as Spits are flying in pairs (or more) and all using comms... 190s be afraid.... be very afraid... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
04-26-2007, 07:38 AM
The only thing that can shoot down a Spitfire is a captured Spitfire.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Zoom2136:
Drag and Bag....

Only good if you are being chast by a sinlge n00b... that is not using voice comms...

As soon as Spits are flying in pairs (or more) and all using comms... 190s be afraid.... be very afraid... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sorry mate but thats just rubbish. Pairs of FW190s using comms are just as dangerous.

Even two Spitfires cannot catch a FW190, so that means the FW190 dictates the battle.

I am talking about FW190A6 too.

I am surprised by your comments, what servers are you flying on where the Spitfire rules over the FW190? I usually see the FW190 with the much better KD ratio and it easily holds its own on all the servers I have seen vs the Spits.

The FW190 is not just limited to running, its just limited to staying fast. As long as you keep fast and keep your moves long and drawn out, it can pull a lot of manouvres vs Spitfires. Just be sure to use your speed to always enter the fight with an advatage. ie dont try and engage a higher Spitfire.

You have the speed to dictate the fight - use it.


UKdedicated3 Stats

Fw190A6 KD ratio over Spitfire IXc = 1.40
Spitfire IXc KD ratio over FW190A6 = 0.71

Ukdedicated1 Stats

FW190A6 KD ratio over Spitfire IXc = 1.60
Spitfire IXc KD ratio over FW190A6 = 0.61

I cant do UKded2 because the stats dont allow plane searches but I expect its around the same figure.

Fw190A6 SEEMS TO DO BETTER than the Spitfire IX in Historical situtaion servers. Its just a fact.

CHeck for yourself here :-
http://www.il2hq.com/stats2/aircraftmatchups.php

faustnik
04-26-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Fw190A6 owns the Spitfire IX in Historical situtaion servers. Its just a fact.

If the A6 is "owning" the Spit IX, the problem is sitting right on top of the seats of the Spits. The IX is (and was) a very good plane, and certainly not limited to T&B. The fight should be very even, given good pilots on both sides.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Fw190A6 owns the Spitfire IX in Historical situtaion servers. Its just a fact.

If the A6 is "owning" the Spit IX, the problem is sitting right on top of the seats of the Spits. The IX is (and was) a very good plane, and certainly not limited to T&B. The fight should be very even, given good pilots on both sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah OK, sorry, you got me, I was exaggeratting. Guilty. Edited the post to change it...


But you have to admit, Faust, that the Fw190 always seems to have much better stats than the Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe its because new guys are more attracted to flying Spits because they are so easy on the rookie pilots, and the epxerienced guys prefer the FW190? I am not sure tbh.

By the way, where has your old sig gone wit the FW190 in it? Although your new one is nice, I miss it badly...

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 10:18 AM
UKdedicated3 Stats

Fw190A6 KD ratio over Spitfire IXc = 1.40
Spitfire IXc KD ratio over FW190A6 = 0.71

Ukdedicated1 Stats

FW190A6 KD ratio over Spitfire IXc = 1.60
Spitfire IXc KD ratio over FW190A6 = 0.61

190 pilots do well in dogfight servers because they don't 'mix it up' with the other aircraft, they just BnZ until they get a kill.

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... clunk clunk... bang... zoom! Yay I'm so kewl!

If you can get a height advantage over a 190 pilot in your Spit, sneak up and ambush them, you can almost smell the poo in their pants.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

faustnik
04-26-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

But you have to admit, Faust, that the Fw190 always seems to have much better stats than the Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, I don't think those stats have any relavent meaning. Noobs are more likely to think they can just jump into a Spitfire and own with T&B. They don't realize that they need to pay just as much attention to energy management as the Fw190 guys do. This tends to shift the pilot skill to novice direction for the Spits.

The Fw190 has a reputation, deserved or not, as a difficult plane. This tends to shift the curve on pilot skill to the better. It also leads to the tendency to fly in a more conservative manner, which greatly reduces losses.

All you need to a slight shifting of the pilot skill curves to greatly skew stats. If you switched pilot groups, they would be the other way around.

horseback
04-26-2007, 10:50 AM
Also should factor in that there are people out there who have been flying some version of Maddox' FW 190 or Me 109 online since 2002 or even earlier. There have been no truly radical changes in FM throughout this period, just incremental changes, so they've largely been able to maintain their skill levels with small adjustments.

We didn't get a Spit V until the release of AEP or thereabouts, and the Mk IX/VIII until some time after, and there were some pretty big changes in the FMs over that period, particularly with the introduction of the 4.0X FMs.

Add the 'noob-friendly' reputation that the Spitfire has in this game, and it will be studiously avoided by a large percentage of the skilled pilots looking for a challenge...

cheers

horseback

WOLFMondo
04-26-2007, 10:56 AM
I've always liked the A6 vs IX match up, its a very historical match up too and you can see where all the pilot stories come from in regards to IX's vs 190's with this match up.

Makes a very fun 2 vs 2 match up.

MrMojok
04-26-2007, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
190 pilots do well in dogfight servers because they don't 'mix it up' with the other aircraft, they just BnZ until they get a kill.

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... clunk clunk... bang... zoom! Yay I'm so kewl!


Once again, the 190 is a wuss for not fighting the Spitfire's fight. It's not fair unless the 190 pilot engages in endless turning circles with the Spit, right?

Of all the whining that goes on in these forums and the chat lobbies, this is the absolute worst.

"I don't care that it's a WWII air combat sim. DON'T fly your plane the way the Germans did in WWII. Slow down and turn with us."

HAHAHAHAHA!

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Also should factor in that there are people out there who have been flying some version of Maddox' FW 190 or Me 109 online since 2002 or even earlier. There have been no truly radical changes in FM throughout this period, just incremental changes, so they've largely been able to maintain their skill levels with small adjustments.

We didn't get a Spit V until the release of AEP or thereabouts, and the Mk IX/VIII until some time after, and there were some pretty big changes in the FMs over that period, particularly with the introduction of the 4.0X FMs.

Add the 'noob-friendly' reputation that the Spitfire has in this game, and it will be studiously avoided by a large percentage of the skilled pilots looking for a challenge...

cheers

horseback

Good points Horseback, the real Spitfire also has a reputation for being a very 'noob freindly' aircraft.

Some Luftwaffe pilots who test flew the Spitfire reported it as 'Childishly simple' to fly.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Good points Horseback, the real Spitfire also has a reputation for being a very 'noob freindly' aircraft.

Some Luftwaffe pilots who test flew the Spitfire reported it as 'Childishly simple' to fly.

The Fw190 was known for the same quality.

DKoor
04-26-2007, 11:28 AM
IMO most of WW2 fighters were pretty easy to fly. Why? Because of thousands and thousands of those who did it successfully. Whether they became prey of a more skilled hunter or they were good & lucky themselves and survived - that's another matter.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Not so sure. 109s had a bad rep for rookies.

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 11:39 AM
It's not fair unless the 190 pilot engages in endless turning circles with the Spit, right?

You have the right to fly it any way you please. I'm just saying that's why the stats for the 190 on dogfight servers show what they show.

They get a higher kill ratio on online servers because they spend most of their time out of range of the rest of the aircraft.

If when flying the Spit IX you can be bothered to climb to 7000m it usually isn't too much of a problem to take the 190 out. Which sometimes you feel obliged to do when one is hovering around.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DKoor
04-26-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Not so sure. 109s had a bad rep for rookies.
I guess it's all reasonably doable even first time (take off and landing)... 109 got that rep because of its fragile gears. But then again I can imagine n00bs trying to land at +250km/h bumping all over the runway - so that's kinda no wonder.

I think that aircraft performance & design quality is far greater factor than being noob friendly.

In a way I can support even opposite PoV, but only relatively speaking - because they aren't equally easy to fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW good to see yer old sig back, I kinda liked that more than pzfaust soldier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Not so sure. 109s had a bad rep for rookies.


HURRAY~@!!! Your cool old sig is back!!

Best sig on the foum!!

Manu-6S
04-26-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
190 pilots do well in dogfight servers because they don't 'mix it up' with the other aircraft, they just BnZ until they get a kill.

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... miss.... zoom... catch me!

Boom... rat at at... clunk clunk... bang... zoom! Yay I'm so kewl!

If you can get a height advantage over a 190 pilot in your Spit, sneak up and ambush them, you can almost smell the poo in their pants.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Yes, when I see a couple of spits with altitude advantage in fron of me I go away: there's no way you can kill them if they are smart: if they just keep BnZing, first or late they can ambush enemy planes (even FW190 is he's climbing at 350).

But I agree that flying FW190, Spits are not dangerous compared to P51 and Tempest. All you have to do is trying to not be ambushed or caugth a slow speed.

The difference is that even with altitude advantage the Anton CAN'T sustain more than 2 pass in the fight... if you try to insist using vertical manouvres you will find the spit on your tail... it's a thing that I noted with SpitV against F4 too, after the 4.08... before the Spit would take advantage position in 2-3 loops (imo), now in 1.5 loop he's on your six or just in firing position.

I repeat that I'm complaing this not only as 190's and 109's pilot, but as Spit's pilot too: I'm always suprised of what this plane can do...

I've never seen SpitV so dangerous for 109F (G2 is another matter) than today... I really must use the same tactics of FW190 except for heavy elevators and poor firing power.

Manu-6S
04-26-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not fair unless the 190 pilot engages in endless turning circles with the Spit, right?

You have the right to fly it any way you please. I'm just saying that's why the stats for the 190 on dogfight servers show what they show.

They get a higher kill ratio on online servers because they spend most of their time out of range of the rest of the aircraft.

If when flying the Spit IX you can be bothered to climb to 7000m it usually isn't too much of a problem to take the 190 out. Which sometimes you feel obliged to do when one is hovering around.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual I agree with him: if FW190 have better stats is because they can kill Spitfire who are TnBing with 109 at lower alt, or at the apex of a loop, when they are slow and can't turn at all.

Dogfight server are made so (above all the server with aids like F6): coops or airwars are another things...

I remember one poster some time ago who posted his track where he made 7 kills on a row with his FW190 against Spitfire, to demostrate how powerful is the FW190 (I think it was 4.02 version): I quite laughed seeing it, because he never went higher than 3000m and always killed Spitfires who were chasing another planes... he was lucky that no red pilot in that map decided to fly at his altitude...

faustnik
04-26-2007, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HURRAY~@!!! Your cool old sig is back!!

Best sig on the foum!!

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
04-26-2007, 12:29 PM
Sorry mate but thats just rubbish. Pairs of FW190s using comms are just as dangerous.

Even two Spitfires cannot catch a FW190, so that means the FW190 dictates the battle.

I am talking about FW190A6 too.

I am surprised by your comments, what servers are you flying on where the Spitfire rules over the FW190? I usually see the FW190 with the much better KD ratio and it easily holds its own on all the servers I have seen vs the Spits.

SAF_Zoom is one of the best Spitfire pilots I had the opportunity to fly with and against, his achievements with Spitfires in a form of stats are very close to mine and I can assure you that is well, well above average http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Stats don't tell sh1t about plane performance, just about the average "Joe" that chooses to fly a certain plane, Spitfires low K/D has A LOT to do with it's n00b plane reputation, it's plane and simply most commonly flown by new guys, and guys that simply never learned anything.
Many people have no clue how to fly a Spitfire, I often laugh behind my revi, look I'm laughing again: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 12:51 PM
I didnt mean to imply that Zoom wasnt a good pilot, I was just surprised at his comments and wondered what servers he was flying on?

Maybe when he is around Spitfires DO own! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I tend to see FW190's doing better when I fly, but admittedly I havent got the game installed right now, been playing STALKER and X3 for a while.

I like to see a well flown Spitfire, I suck at flying them these days, doing much better in 109F4's and FW190's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I really miss the top speed of these planes when I fly a Spit. I like to be able to disengage when the fight goes against me and I find this hard to do in a SPitfire because of its low top speed.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I quite laughed seeing it, because he never went higher than 3000m and always killed Spitfires who were chasing another planes... he was lucky that no red pilot in that map decided to fly at his altitude...

I know what you mean Manu, BUT he could always escape from a Spitfire which came to his altitude simply by diving and heading back towards his base. The SPitfire would either have to give up or get shot down by one of his teamates. Admittedly had it been a P47 or P51 who came to his alt, he might have been in trouble, but not a Spitfire.

To me it sounds like he was just a clever pilot who knew his plane well and picked his targets well.

Remember, You dont HAVE to dogfight at all. The FW190 excells at the tactics he used.

You shouldnt laugh, he got 7 planes with no danger to himself and saved 7 of his teamates.

DKoor
04-26-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I remember one poster some time ago who posted his track where he made 7 kills on a row with his FW190 against Spitfire, to demostrate how powerful is the FW190 (I think it was 4.02 version): I quite laughed seeing it, because he never went higher than 3000m and always killed Spitfires who were chasing another planes... he was lucky that no red pilot in that map decided to fly at his altitude... I think I have that track.... being track freak and all that. He got his gunnery right so it ended up in Spitfire slaughter.
He also got some serious skills as well. But... the "he was lucky" part of your statement is true. We may say that he wisely selected targets, but no doubt - factor of luck played a big role too.
Once when Spitfire appears on FW tail it can't do much but to dive - shallow dive because E should not be wasted in vain. Turn & climb of any kind aren't really option.
But that all is true if we are talking about Anton.

Once when Dora kicks in, party can start again.

Manu-6S
04-26-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I think I have that track.... being track freak and all that. He got his gunnery right so it ended up in Spitfire slaughter.
He also got some serious skills as well. But... the "he was lucky" part of your statement is true. We may say that he wisely selected targets, but no doubt - factor of luck played a big role too.
Once when Spitfire appears on FW tail it can't do much but to dive - shallow dive because E should not be wasted in vain. Turn & climb of any kind aren't really option.
But that all is true if we are talking about Anton.

Once when Dora kicks in, party can start again.

Yes, he's gunnery skill was really good, I noted that too; it was the more interesting thing of the track.

Xiola, of course the FW190 can escape, but escaping he could not kill 7 spit (who could still keep flying around finishing their preys): ONE single Spit can force an FW190 to escape and an escaping (diving) FW190 in not more a threat.

One single Spit at 4000m could safe the life of 7 mates, who didn't look behind themself as every pilot should do.

Now multiply all by 5 and you find 5 Spit high with all the FW190s under them, inoffensive Antons... of course with 5 FW190 the history should change, but here I'm talking about experts against experts.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 01:59 PM
Not really because the FW190 can simply fly toward his base and the Spit will either have to disengage or be shot down. He will not catch the FW190.

Then the FW190 can simply gain height and return, now forcing the Spitfire to retire.

One Spitfire could not chase a single FW190 for all that time, and even if he did he would be left behind or shot down for sure.

I agree the Spitfire is better up high, but any FW190 can escape a Spitfire providing he sees him coming.

The FW190 could simply disenage and come back even higher than the Spitfires. The point I am trying to make here is that a FW190 can escape a Spitfire any time he wants (if he sees it before he gets killed)) providing he has enough height to dive.

A Spitfire however must fight it out.

I know its not all simple as I am making out, but I feel very safe from Spitfires in a FW190A6 providing I see them. Before I uninstalled the game, I hadnt been shot down by a SPitfire whilst in a FW190 for about 6 or more months, and I had shot down hundreds of Spitfires. P47's, Tempests and Mustangs are a different story however.

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 02:10 PM
I agree the Spitfire is better up high, but any FW190 can escape a Spitfire providing he sees him coming.

In dogfight servers this is often not the case though. 190 pilots are usually so cocky that they are always looking down, picking out targets to pounce on. It's usually very easy to sneak up on them. It's just that most non-190 pilots on dogfight servers can't be bothered to spend the 20 minutes they need to gain that much altitude, unless a skilled 190 makes it necessary for them to 'take out the trash' as it were. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
04-26-2007, 02:18 PM
Wow, we really got off topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

***************

For a serious answer, the RAF would have made do with another plane. It would have been rough, but, I bet the Hurris would have held their own in BoB. It was determined RAF pilots that made the difference.

After BoB, the Spitfire didn't do too much, as far as overall LW attrition. It was the 8th AF that came in and changed the picture in the skies over Western Europe.

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 02:40 PM
Want to know what would have happened if there had been no Spitfires?

Now you can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_177387.jpg

http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_177386.jpg

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=162234

hop2002
04-26-2007, 03:17 PM
After BoB, the Spitfire didn't do too much, as far as overall LW attrition. It was the 8th AF that came in and changed the picture in the skies over Western Europe.

USAAF aerial fighter kills awarded Europe: 7,422
RAF aerial fighter kills awarded Europe: 10,736

Manu-6S
04-26-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
In dogfight servers this is often not the case though. 190 pilots are usually so cocky that they are always looking down, picking out targets to pounce on. It's usually very easy to sneak up on them.

rNot if you have the magic F6.


Originally posted by Huxley_S:
It's just that most non-190 pilots on dogfight servers can't be bothered to spend the 20 minutes they need to gain that much altitude, unless a skilled 190 makes it necessary for them to 'take out the trash' as it were. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

One of my tipical flights in Anton lasts at least something like 35-40 minutes without landing...

ploughman
04-26-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After BoB, the Spitfire didn't do too much, as far as overall LW attrition. It was the 8th AF that came in and changed the picture in the skies over Western Europe.

USAAF aerial fighter kills awarded Europe: 7,422
RAF aerial fighter kills awarded Europe: 10,736 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, considering how late the Yanks were, that's a pretty impressive tally.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 03:38 PM
The LW was maintaining control in the West until the 8th AF and US daylight bombing raids overwhelmed them. The heavies themselves were responsible for a lot of LW fighter losses.

Of course, the Church of Spitfire obviously has a different version of history.

MEGILE
04-26-2007, 04:03 PM
Hate to break the heart of some Foke pilots around here... but Spitfires did actually score a few kills... and on focke wulfs no less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Sacré bleuuu

faustnik
04-26-2007, 04:05 PM
Sure they did, your point?

hop2002
04-26-2007, 04:30 PM
The LW was maintaining control in the West until the 8th AF and US daylight bombing raids overwhelmed them.

Can I quote Williamson Murray, a historian employed by the USAF to write a history of the air war?

From January through June 1943, the
average monthly attrition rate for all aircraft was 13 .6 percent . For combat aircraft,
the statistics were even more depressing: the bomber attrition rate was 16 percent
per month and for fighters it was 19.9 percent ."' Crew losses were no less
significant and more dangerous. While one can replace aircraft, crew replacements
and skill level became increasingly difficult to maintain . This was the fourth
straight year in which heavy attrition had taken place . It is, therefore, remarkable
that the Germans maintained the level of tenacity and competence that they showed
throughout the year. While pilot losses for most aircraft types are difficult to
determine because crew loss reports included all flying personnel, the situation with
regards to single-engine aircraft indicates what was happening to the force
structure . For the first three months of 1943, fighter pilot losses ran at a fairly
constant rate of between 6 percent and 9 percent per month. However, as a result of
heavy fighting in Tunisia, pilot losses climbed to over 12 percent in May and by
July were 16 percent . Thus, in the first half of the year, fighter pilot losses equalled
67 percent of the crews present at the beginning of the year.


This attrition was only a foretaste of what happened in July and August. In those
two months, the Luftwaffe fought three great air battles and on each one of the three
fronts the Germans lost more than 1,000 aircraft . In combat units, the attrition
rate reached a level that no military force could long sustain . Fighter losses were
31 .2 percent for July and 36 percent for August, while bomber losses were 27 .3
percent in July and 32 percent in August .
As with the January through June
period, only fighter pilot losses are readily attainable. They are clear enough: In
July, the Germans lost 16 percent of single-engine fighter pilots available on July 1 ;
in August, they lost 15 .6 percent . The impact of the pressure exerted by three
different fronts forced the Germans to shut the air war down somewhere. Given the
threat posed by the American bombers, there was no other alternative but to defend
the Reich. Thus, the air war in the east and in the Mediterranean, with one final
gasp in September to meet the invasion of Italy, became subsidiary theaters for the
Lufwaffe. Allied air forces dominated the skies over and behind these two fronts,
and the German soldier would see little of his air force for the remainder of the war.


By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent

Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet .

Did the Luftwaffe decline accelerate as the USAAF got into the fight? Of course. But was the Luftwaffe "managing"? Not according to Murray, or the statistics.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

Did the Luftwaffe decline accelerate as the USAAF got into the fight? Of course. But was the Luftwaffe "managing"? Not according to Murray, or the statistics.

So, you are saying the LW was not able to maintain control of airspace over Western Europe from 1941 through 1942? Considering that Jg26 and Jg2 were holding down French airspace alone, I disagree.

From your quote:

Given the
threat posed by the American bombers, there was no other alternative but to defend
the Reich. Thus, the air war in the east and in the Mediterranean, with one final
gasp in September to meet the invasion of Italy, became subsidiary theaters for the
Lufwaffe.

The situation changed when the 8th AF arrived, and fully collapsed when USAAF long range escort were able to reach German airspace. The LW was simply not able to sustain the pilot attrition.

I don't discount the efforts of the RAF, far from it, I just dislike the pervasive attitude that the "Spitfire won teh war" as much as my UK friends dislike the "P-51 won teh war" attiude.

leitmotiv
04-26-2007, 04:58 PM
Read Caldwell's JG 26, probably the most distinguished work on the air war in the West during the 1941-1943 period. Like it or not, JG 2 and, especially, JG 26 kicked RAF posterior at this time. Caldwell carefully cross-checked JG 26's claims against RAF losses, and came to the conclusion their record was largely verifiable, while the RAF's was largely not. This is an objective fact. RAF offensive fighter operations between 1941 and 1943 were not brilliant, as any RAF historian will tell. RAF fighter pilots hated the rigid, predictable planning. The Germans were almost always allowed an altitude advantage. When they were not, they did not play---simple as that. The Germans played a brilliant defensive game, and the RAF played a dumb offensive game. At this stage of the war the Spitfire's primary contribution was aluminum to the German war machine.

DKoor
04-26-2007, 05:13 PM
I protest.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I protest.

Me thinks thou doest protest too much!

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 05:24 PM
RAF offensive fighter operations between 1941 and 1943 were not brilliant, as any RAF historian will tell.

But by then the Americans had joined the war. RAF fighter operations between 1940 and 1941 were what counted and they did a good job when it mattered most.

faustnik
04-26-2007, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
RAF fighter operations between 1940 and 1941 were what counted and they did a good job when it mattered most.

Definately! The RAF held the line.

leitmotiv
04-26-2007, 05:33 PM
France was seeded with the bodies of a many RAF fighter pilots between the start of the cack-brained Leigh-Mallory (AOC Fighter Command) Spitfire Offensive and the Americans taking up their share of the fighting in Jan 1944. 1941-1943 was a nightmare for them as anyone would know who bothers to study RAF offensive fighter operations of this period. A good start is Terrain's THE RIGHT OF THE LINE.

Huxley_S
04-26-2007, 05:38 PM
France was seeded with the bodies of a many RAF fighter pilots between the start of the cack-brained Leigh-Mallory (AOC Fighter Command) Spitfire Offensive and the Americans taking up their share of the fighting in 1944. 1941-1943 was a nightmare for them as anyone would know who bothers to study RAF offensive fighter operations of this period. A good start is Terrain's THE RIGHT OF THE LINE.

If what you are saying is that the RAF played a better defensive game than an offensive one then you are of course correct.

However, the Battle of Britain was DECISIVE in the outcome of WWII and, had it not have been a British victory, there are an almost infinite number of paths that history could have followed. Lots of them really bad ones.

MrMojok
04-26-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not fair unless the 190 pilot engages in endless turning circles with the Spit, right?

You have the right to fly it any way you please. I'm just saying that's why the stats for the 190 on dogfight servers show what they show. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for my snarky response; I've kind of gotten used to some people complaining about "run-90s". I see that you weren't.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2007, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The LW was maintaining control in the West until the 8th AF and US daylight bombing raids overwhelmed them. The heavies themselves were responsible for a lot of LW fighter losses.

Of course, the Church of Spitfire obviously has a different version of history.

Indeed. Lately the prominent CoH priest developed a new version of history in which it was actually the FW 190 equipped Gruppes that were suffering at the hands of those Mk Vs, but it barely comes as a surprise after, well, let's put it as a 'long learning curve' instead of more straightforward description of an uncontrollable downward spiral. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If anyone bothers to look up the actual losses of the Luftwaffe in the West, the losses and sorties of the RAF Fighter Command had flown in 1941-1942, the picture unrevealed is that of a rather insignificant to both sides, both in losses and especially it's effect on the air war. The figures are readily available online.

Regardless of loss ratios being heavily in favour of the LW, the whole 'air war in the West' in 41-42 was nothing more than occasional skirmish, a petty border war between fighters. If one looks up the actual number of offensive RAF sorties flown, he will find that compared to the efforts -measured in number of sorties - made in the summer months of 1940 by the RAF, the nubmer of sorties flown in 1941 or 1942 was rather insignificant. In the typical month of either 41 or 42, they would fly as many sorties as during an entire week or a very busy day during the Battle of Britain. And this easy, weekend air duel between the gentlemen pilots on the two sides of the Channel could have gone on forever at this pace - which is why the 'Kanalgeschwader' battles are so interesting for many historians along with the African air war, it was fought on small scale in a rather static enviroment, a bit like the dogfights of the Great War. Victory in the air, at least not in 1941-42, was not decided by an ugly, unhuman war of attrition, a 'materialschlacht, by wheter the hordes of bombers can be produced faster than the defenders being able to shoot them down. Victory in the air was a battle between men and their maschines, like on jousting field. It was skill that counted first and foremost.

As you've righly put it, the whole thing did not change until the USAAF appeared on the scene and brought a far more agressive spirit, and the escalation of the air war in the West during 1943.

Aaron_GT
04-27-2007, 02:21 AM
The heavies themselves were responsible for a lot of LW fighter losses.

Lots of LW losses? Yes.

A significant proportion of the losses? No.

It was escort fighters that shot down the fighters, on the whole, and USAAF heavies were very vulnerable when not escorted. What was effective was the need to divert LW aircraft production and deployment to defence of the Reich, plus the diversion of artillery manufacture to AAA. This meant less equipment on the Eastern front in 1943 and early 1944 which meant the USSR getting a much easier ride. Interference with oil supply, refining, and storage was very important.

To be honest the USAAF might well have been better off taking many of the guns and power turrets out of the B17s, allowing them to go faster and higher, or carry greater tonnage. It might have reduced (or at least not increased) losses, especially if escorted, and reduced crew losses. Crew morale would have been low as a result, though. It was suggested that armament be stripped out of RAF night bombers too, and indeed occasionally the mid upper turrets were removed from Lancasters and Halifaxes in service, and the Free French air force very often did this.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2007, 02:26 AM
You can't really compare RAF night bombers, which basically operated all alone, and 95% of the cases were attacked from behind and/or below. Under such circumstances, upper turrets indeed made rather little sense, except for observation perhaps.

This is something radically different from being subjected to slashing figther from all possible directons (simply because they can easily see you), and have the possible bonus of mutual fire support.

Besides, increasing the speed of a heavy bomber makes rather little sense. How much removing an upper turret made the Lanc faster - 20 km/h maybe? What's that, 450 max or so, a it more? In the daylight, it won't even run away from an early war fighter, and during most of the mission, it will have to stagger along at slow speed to conserve fuel, OR have either drastically reduced radius of action or reduced bombload. And in the end, it will be caught just the same easily by the fighter. On a night bomber it may have made some sense, since night fighters with their radar and gun arrays were rather slower, and you could also hope that if it misses you may have a chance of a quick sprint and disappear under the cover of darkness and it would loose contact.

A single engine fighter during the daylight however would just line up for another attack run.

luftluuver
04-27-2007, 04:14 AM
Looks like the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">unarmed</span> Mosquito has to be mentioned.

DKoor
04-27-2007, 04:33 AM
Mosquito is one of my favs in game.... of course in game, not being constructed of delta wood™ means as durable as any cardboard packaging.

Aaron_GT
04-27-2007, 04:55 AM
You can't really compare RAF night bombers, which basically operated all alone, and 95% of the cases were attacked from behind and/or below.

It was just another point of reference that I thought would be of interest.


Under such circumstances, upper turrets indeed made rather little sense, except for observation perhaps.

Partly you are correct and was one of the reasons why it was felt that it was not necessarily sufficiently useful, although the Fraser Nash turrets had a good ability to depress the guns should there be a fighter below and to the side. But from below and behind it was not useful. Some felt that the rear turret wasn't that useful either it wasn't always easy to spot a nightfighter against dark landscape until it had already used its guns (which might be schrage musick). The Lancaster was designed to have ventral armament, but the original turret was much like the ventral turret of the B25C and so hard to sight and so often was not fitted. Some mounted a flexible .303 or .50 in the protrusion that eventually became the location for H2S. Some fitted 20mm cannon. With the advent of H2S there wasn't really any space for decent ventral armament. A ball turret would have been better.


Besides, increasing the speed of a heavy bomber makes rather little sense.

It's not just about speed but a combination of factors affecting overall weapon efficiency. Less armament means less crew lost should a plane be shot down. A little more speed means it is harder to make an attack due to relative closing speeds (especially true at night due to visibility) and thus fewer attacks can be made. Attacks other than stern will be subject to higher deflection or higher closing speeds. The reduction in weight allows either more fuel (range), a higher bomb load (fewer sorties per target) or the abililty to fly higher. In the case of the Lancaster although its ceiling was relatively low (23,000 feet) it achieved its highest cruise speeds at the higher end of its altitude range, so there is some multiplication of factors possible.


How much removing an upper turret made the Lanc faster - 20 km/h maybe?

I would imagine it might be twice that.


In the daylight, it won't even run away from an early war fighter, and during most of the mission, it will have to stagger along at slow speed to conserve fuel, OR have either drastically reduced radius of action or reduced bombload.

Hence the potential benefit of removing heavy turrets and crew... it would be able to carry more fuel and have to conserve less.

Bear in mind, though, the requirement was to drop a certain tonnage of bombs on targets with the minimum cost, and the costs included machines, fuel, crew resources, etc. A higher loss rate of aircraft if at a lower loss rate of crew resources might actually make sense. If the relatively small increases in speed meant that the loss rate per ton dropped did not change with a lowering of loss rate per crew member killed or gallon of fuel used then it would be of advantage. Plus there would be a saving on the cost of installing the turret equipment and guns, leaving more for the infantry, ball bearings for tank turret rings and the like.

ploughman
04-27-2007, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It was suggested that armament be stripped out of RAF night bombers too, and indeed occasionally the mid upper turrets were removed from Lancasters and Halifaxes in service, and the Free French air force very often did this.

Freeman Dyson performed an analysis for BC in which he pretty much recommended removing the defensive armament as you suggest for the reasons you outlined.

Here's (http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17724) a interesting interview with Dyson about some of his work with BC during the War.

Aaron_GT
04-27-2007, 05:33 AM
Freeman Dyson performed an analysis for BC in which he pretty much recommended removing the defensive armament as you suggest for the reasons you outlined.

I was reusing his arguments - just couldn't remember his name so thanks for that, Ploughman!

Xiolablu3
04-27-2007, 12:41 PM
It was more like a stalemate in the West as the numbers balanced out quite well between the RAF and the Luftwaffe.

Once the USAAF arrived it pushed the odds far in favour of the Allies and hence overwhelmed the Luftwaffe.

Just as the Luftwaffe lost 3 times as many planes as the RAF during the Battle OF Britain, so the RAF lost 3 times as many planes when they went onto the offensive after 1941.

You had two forces, the RAF and the Luftwaffe cancelling each other out in the West , until the USSAF arrived.

MB_Avro_UK
04-27-2007, 01:52 PM
Hi all,

My perspective on the Spitfire v 190 debate.

1. Assuming the plane-set is correct..how would the two compare at an equal altitude and speed ?

2. How would they compare if the Spitfire had superior altitude? The Spitfire can B&Z http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The discussion seems to assume that the Spitfire would be below the Fw 190 and unaware of the bounce http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif.

This happens in dogfight rooms because as has been mentioned here, a huge proportion of new guys jump into a Spitfire and T&B at low level without looking skywards.

To have the altitude advantage and see the enemy first 'almost' guarantees a kill in most fighters...maybe I should try it in a Gladiator?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
04-27-2007, 03:32 PM
1. Assuming the plane-set is correct..how would the two compare at an equal altitude and speed ?

Which altitude and which speed! Who knows what excess power loading they might have. At high speed and high altitude the 190A will be gasping.

The 190A4 and above should, on average, BnZ better as it has less surface area per unit mass so it should bleed energy less quickly, but in a sustained climb that power loading is going to come into play.

The 190A is going to have the edge in armament, even given the sychronisation, unless it has the outer cannon removed and/or the Spitfire is a Vc with all four cannon or a IXe with .50s. Heavier armament should make the BnZ a bit easier.

But if you look at the figures from some US tests of various aircraft the difference in dive performance is often smaller than you'd imagine.

Roll is likely to be with the 190A if less if the Spitfire has clipped wings.

Too many variables!

HellToupee
04-27-2007, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


So, you are saying the LW was not able to maintain control of airspace over Western Europe from 1941 through 1942? Considering that Jg26 and Jg2 were holding down French airspace alone, I disagree.

Controll would suggest they were inflicting unstainable losses on the RAF like in the bob, fighters and fighter bombs could basically roam where they pleased. Plus they were already launching 1000bomber raids in 1942.

Blutarski2004
04-28-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Plus they were already launching 1000bomber raids in 1942.



..... Technically true, but Bomber Command had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel equipment-wise. It was a pretty motley assortment of planes that made up a 1,000 plane raid in 1942.

Aaron_GT
04-28-2007, 03:12 AM
It was all the four engined bombers, Wellingtons, Hampdens, and almost everything in OTUs. Not sure if any Whitleys were used.

Manu-6S
04-28-2007, 04:25 AM
Yesterday I got PKed flying FW190 in Spitsvs109s server (full difficulty): I was cruising at 4500m chatting with one of my mates on TS (he was not ingame) about all things different from planes and a Spit LF sneaked behind me. One single burst and I was PKed (a frequent death flying FW190...). My fault, I was not concentrate.

SA is the primary target of a pilot, if you have not you die also in a faster plane. Surely if I had the magic F6 key that Spit would never ambushed me.

In some missions before I found one good pilot who never chased me but keep his altitude: I was flying a Dora but he was untouchable, always higher then me, and since he was flying a Spit9 I can't make more than one pass before he was on my six: I keep my speed always high to not let him closing to me.

But in the same server I found also pilots flying Spits who were succesful but I guess that in another plane they wuold die very quickly: my friend on comms was flying a G14 and was really pissed by the facts that those Spits did lots of mistakes BUT they could always regain energy even turning... (spit-cheats, yes), he fought more than 15 minutes with two of them and at last he was downed. Really, I believe he's one of best pilot in Il2 community (not joking) but he was complaing about to be killed by pilots who don't know how to energy fight but still succesful thanks the plane they fly.

In conclusion: I really believe that Spitfires' contribution to the war has been really high, above all before the US intervent, BUT Oleg's Spitfire are really a joke. Maybe a "fatique" factor could limit them, turning and turning, but the real issue here is their energy retention: I understand that historycally their lift was great because of lower wingloading, but Spits' FM is SO different from all the other planes (except La5FN and La7) what I have the right to complain about their performance.

Really if SoW's Spits will be like these ones, I will change hobby.

shiffty89
04-28-2007, 04:31 AM
you cannot say which fighter won the war base on this game. It was the people who flew the planes built them and services them and vectored. I am a red flyer and i have to say the spit "in this game" does see to overperform. Iv neer flown one i real life but it seems hard to belive that a noob an shoot down an ace in a 109 in real life and after makin all those mistakes. I hope in SOW the flighmodle and Damage modle will be correct and we can clearly or atleast have some inckelling of what it was like.

Monty_Thrud
04-28-2007, 04:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Manu-6S
04-28-2007, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
BUT they could always regain energy even turning... (spit-cheats, yes), he fought more than 15 minutes with two of them and at last he was downed. Really, I believe he's one of best pilot in Il2 community (not joking) but he was complaing about to be killed by pilots who don't know how to energy fight but still succesful thanks the plane they fly.

regain energy to what? spit dosnt accelerate in turns, unless u give altitude, but then i can do the same thing in any plane. All tests on energy retention havnt shown the spit to be much differnt to other fms.

A 190 in a shallow turn will not bleed energy, a spit can turn tighter for same e loss but thats because its got high power load and much lower wing load. Dont know how to energy fight and still be successful? sounds like turn fighting vs inferior turning planes, try dogfighting zeros in 47s, well same result.


Maybe a "fatique" factor could limit them

this would limit everyone actually, and more so ppl flighting at high speed since g forces are much higher.

faustnik
04-28-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:


A 190 in a shallow turn will not bleed energy, a spit can turn tighter for same e loss but thats because its got high power load and much lower wing load.

This is very true. In 4.08 the Fw190 retains energy very well through shallow maneuvers.

********************

HellToupee,

I'm not saying that JG26 and JG2 were inflicting unsustainable losses on the RAF, but, they were doing a lot of damage. The Fw190s were simply superior to Spit Vs in performance and in a better tactical position.

The Spitfire, as great a point defense interceptor as it was, was still limited in range like the LW fighters. It was the 8th AF that forced the LW into a position it could not sustain.

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 02:52 PM
were simply superior to Spit Vs in performance and in a better tactical position.

which is why they made the mk9s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



The Spitfire, as great a point defense interceptor as it was, was still limited in range like the LW fighters. It was the 8th AF that forced the LW into a position it could not sustain.

but by the time they could do that the LW was already suffering losses it couldnt sustain on all fronts, west east med etc and were greatly outnumbered.

Spitfire range as it was could still cover much of france including many of the bases bombers operated from.

LStarosta
04-28-2007, 02:58 PM
I'm no cartographer, but I do not believe that Berlin lies in France.

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I'm no cartographer, but I do not believe that Berlin lies in France.

no one said it did.

But that whole dday business and much of the land war in europe happened in france http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LStarosta
04-28-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I'm no cartographer, but I do not believe that Berlin lies in France.

no one said it did.

But that whole dday business and much of the land war in europe happened in france http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tru dat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
04-28-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">were simply superior to Spit Vs in performance and in a better tactical position.

which is why they made the mk9s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



The Spitfire, as great a point defense interceptor as it was, was still limited in range like the LW fighters. It was the 8th AF that forced the LW into a position it could not sustain.

but by the time they could do that the LW was already suffering losses it couldnt sustain on all fronts, west east med etc and were greatly outnumbered.

Spitfire range as it was could still cover much of france including many of the bases bombers operated from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LW losses in the West were never more than it could sustain in France from 1941 though 1942. The RAF was simply not able to do enough damage, and were on the losing end of the small scale battles over western France. The Spit IX was a big improvement over the Vb, but, never achieved superiority over the Fw190 units, at best reaching a level of parity.

LW losses in the West rose sharply and continued to rise after the 8th AF began operation. The US heavies operated above the full throttle height on the Fw190 and put the LW fighters at a disadvantage against the turbosupercharged USAAF fighters. The P-51 further worsened the LW situation, by allowing escorted raids to hit any in the Reich. The P-51 was not only long-legged but, superior in performance to the LW fighters at most altitudes, something the Spitfire was not.

As I said before, the Spitfire was a great short range fighter, but, past BoB, it's impact on the LW was not as great as the heavy bomber/long range escort combo that the 8th AF introduced.

Aaron_GT
04-28-2007, 07:01 PM
LW losses in the West were never more than it could sustain in France from 1941 though 1942. The RAF was simply not able to do enough damage, and were on the losing end of the small scale battles over western France.

A couple of factors in this are that operations abroad gained importance in 1941 and 1942, plus the emphasis was seen as being bombers as soon as BoB was over. In fact Dowding had to fight just prior to WW2 to get as many fighters as he did rather than even more bombers.

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
LW losses in the West were never more than it could sustain in France from 1941 though 1942.


The DAF was performing far more effectively than the LW in the desert despite inferior equipment, the axis attempts to pacify malta were defeated when it was reinforced with spitfires.


The RAF was simply not able to do enough damage, and were on the losing end of the small scale battles over western France. The Spit IX was a big improvement over the Vb, but, never achieved superiority over the Fw190 units, at best reaching a level of parity.

spit IX had superior performance at altitude to the 190 and superior all round performance to the 109 especially the g6 which it outclassed.



LW losses in the West rose sharply and continued to rise after the 8th AF began operation. The US heavies operated above the full throttle height on the Fw190 and put the LW fighters at a disadvantage against the turbosupercharged USAAF fighters. The P-51 further worsened the LW situation, by allowing escorted raids to hit any in the Reich. The P-51 was not only long-legged but, superior in performance to the LW fighters at most altitudes, something the Spitfire was not.

Which spitfire which p51, p51b/c entered service around december 1943, spit XIV Jan 44 which was also superior to LW fighters at most altitudes.



As I said before, the Spitfire was a great short range fighter, but, past BoB, it's impact on the LW was not as great as the heavy bomber/long range escort combo that the 8th AF introduced.

And the P51 was a great long range escort fighter, but i would argue its effect was not as great as it came at the tail end of the war when defeat for germany was assured.

faustnik
04-29-2007, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
spit IX had superior performance at altitude to the 190
Only at high altitude, the Fw190 was superior at mid-low altitude. The Fw190 was always superior in dive and roll, just as the Spit was in climb and turn. The Spit achieved parity at best, nothing more. The Merlin 66 dodn't even enter widespread use until late '43 by which time the 8th AF was the biggest threat to the LW in the ETO.



Which spitfire which p51, p51b/c entered service around december 1943, spit XIV Jan 44 which was also superior to LW fighters at most altitudes.

The Spit XIV disn't have the range to use it's performance against the LW, the P-51 did. The XIV's performance was used against the V1 threat.



And the P51 was a great long range escort fighter, but i would argue its effect was not as great as it came at the tail end of the war when defeat for germany was assured.

The P-51 is not as important as the overall 8th AF bomber/escort combination. This combination allowed the USAAF to gain control of the skies over Western Europe.

******************

Your posts bring me right back to my original point, that there are those who look at the Spit as more of a religious symbol than a fighter, and whose opinions are more of a belief system than a study of fact.

HellToupee
04-29-2007, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The Spit XIV disn't have the range to use it's performance against the LW, the P-51 did. The XIV's performance was used against the V1 threat.

seemed to have the range to be the first allied plane that shot down a jet :P



The P-51 is not as important as the overall 8th AF bomber/escort combination. This combination allowed the USAAF to gain control of the skies over Western Europe.


The whole af bomber/escort didnt really work untill the p51, the p47 also did not have the range to go all the way unescorted bombers suffered unsustainable losses, do not forget spitfires also escorted the bombers on the in and out legs.



Your posts bring me right back to my original point, that there are those who look at the Spit as more of a religious symbol than a fighter, and whose opinions are more of a belief system than a study of fact.

what fact? that the only airwar was over berlin? I dont think of it as a religious symbol, however i dont think of it as the spectator as some want ppl to belive and that the usaaf heavies came in and won the war it all by themselfs.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Check the dates of many of those pilot reports, seems to me spits were still encountering and shooting down the enemy.

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 04:01 AM
I disagree with the statement 'the Spitfire XIV didnt have the range to fight the Luftwaffe.

See a few of the Combat reports right up to 1945 here :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Just to pick a couple of the Spit XIV reports, Oct 1944 Armed Recce over Nijmegan (right on the German border), Dec 1944 - Armed Recce over Dulmen, Ham and Muster (Inside Germany) for example.

It was always on front line bases usually around 60 miles from the front - some closer, some a bit further away.

Lets say a Spit XIV with small drop tanks (Which I believe they usually carried - read combat reposrt on Spitperformance, a lot of times they say they forgot to jettison the tank) has a combat range of 400 miles, thats 340 miles behind enemy lines, thats a looong way into enemy territory, especially if you are looking foir a fight and not escorting bombers at 20,000 feet. As soon as France was invaded airfields were opened up on the front line.

Also, if a stalemate had occured on the West front, the Axis was getting hammered in Africa in mid 1942. I know its a side show, but beating Rommel was a big propaganda coup. (Done with a lot of US Shermans,Codebreaking and bombing of Axis transports)
And Stalingrad in the East - 1942 'The beginning of the end'

tomtheyak
04-29-2007, 04:58 AM
Contribution to the war? I think you have to break down to Mks:

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk I</span> - without either this a/c or the Hurricane the BoB would have been lost. War winning contribution; VERY high.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk II</span> - tail end of BoB, kept units awaiting Mk V vaguely competitive till mid 1941.
War winning contribution; low.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk V</span> - over channel the kill-to-loss ratio is 3 to one the Jagdwaffes favour. However, it could be argued that the 'offensive spirit' that is attempting to be fostered and the tactical lessons learned is of value. However, losing fighters and pilots cannot been seen as a war winning contribution.
Thing is a lot of people forget about the battle over Malta and the Desert Campaign where the arrival of the Spitfires certainly helped turn the air war against the Luftwaffe; these campaigns may well have turned out very differently otherwise.
War winning contribution; low in NWE, high in Med.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk VI + VII</span> - High alt variants little used in their designed role. War winning contribution; low.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk VIII</span> - arguably the definitive Merlin 60 series fighter by the time units come into action in Italy and the Far East much of the critical work is done, there is still much ground pounding and some air action to see.
War winning contribution; medium.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk IX + XVI</span> - the 2nd most produced of Spitfires, this stop gap a/c is the crux of RAF air ops and planning in daylight over the channel from 1943. It is the only RAF a/c that during its tenure can compete or beat it's equivalents on the Luftwaffe roster. Its arrival in numbers coincides with a re-evaluation of the tactics and strategies in Allied planning, where the value of Ramrod and Rodeo operations takes precedent over Circuses and Rhubarbs, and we also see the arrival of radar controlled fighter sweeps that commenced in the late summer of 1943. They keep the Jagdwaffe off the backs of the Typhoons, Marauders, Mitchells and Bostons. Into 1944 the Spitfire IX units take an ever increasing toll on their Jagdwaffe counterparts, the events following D-day see an even greater attrition to Luftwaffe units in the area plus the 2nd TAF a/c are also involved in armed reconnaissance and CAS. Air action for RAF Spitfire units in Autumn of 1944 does die off as the Jagdwaffe focus on the big fights against the 8th Air Force bomber campaign. Into 1945 and although the Luftwaffe's latest front line types do have performance advantages there just isn't enough of them with skilled pilots to counter the vast Allied air armada.
War winning contribution; high.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk XII</span> - specialised low altitude interceptor, by the time it entered service the main Jaboi threat had practically disappeared and the a/c was primarily used for escort at heights which did not best suit its optimum performance.
War winning contribution; low.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Spitfire Mk XIV</span> - Arrives in numbers in time to help counter the V1 threat; in and off itself not a particularly war winning feat (but tell that to a populace getting doodlebugs dropped on them!).
By the time units are cleared for the 2nd TAF in the Autumn of 1944 the activity of the Luftwaffe is low in its range of ops. With no clearance for ordinance either, it cannot be used for mud-moving. As the fight moves into Germany the Mk XIV units start to see some action, but by this point it's a done deal.
War winning contribution; low.

The various PR mks of Spitfire I have deliberately left out, but then their strategic value is hard to quantify.

It's interesting that Faustnik uses 'church of the Spitfire'; it does point to that lasting psychological impact the the Spitfire in particular left on it's enemies, the populace and the pilots obliged to fly it. Whether accurate or otherwise, I get the impression that Sun Tzu would probably interpret it as a war winning contribution on that merit alone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Truth is could the Allies have won without the Spitfire in the inventory? Who knows. Even if the Hurricane alone had managed to win the BoB alone, the need for for an a/c of the Spitfires performance would have been identified, but given the time needed to develop new a/c to combat operational status its doubtful we'd have seen any such a/c till 1943/44 by which time who knows what might have occurred?

Did the Spitfire win the war by itself? Of course not, that's ridiculous. But I have a feeling.... no, actually scratch that, I know that without it things would have been very different.

But then that could be argued for any combat a/c of its type....

Kurfurst__
04-29-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
It's interesting that Faustnik uses 'church of the Spitfire'; it does point to that lasting psychological impact the the Spitfire in particular left on it's enemies,

Lasting what...? Don't mix the post-war British hyping of the aircraft with what the enemy really thought of it. The Spitfire's fame is rather due to the relentess post-war mythicizing, than it's actual achievements. I'd even say the fighter Spitfires contributed next to nothing, the PR versions were probably far more important as far as real war effort go.

"there are those who look at the Spit as more of a religious symbol than a fighter, and whose opinions are more of a belief system than a study of fact."

Nothing describes the phenomenon better. Some people had read so much post-war hyping on the plane that they expect it to be some kind angel of death, which kills with a mere gaze. If I look at it's combat report, I can find nothing that supports this. I've yet to find a larger period of time when the Spitfire actually could hold an even loss rate vs. LW fighters. Certainly it did not enjoy such in the BoB, even less in 1941 or 1942, or over the Desert. One just wonders that how did that big contribution manifested. I'd say that as far as British combat aircraft go, the Typhoon and Hurricane was probably FAR more important.

John_Wayne_
04-29-2007, 09:52 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/ErnstStavroBlofeld.jpg

Come in Mr Furst, I've been expecting you...

A very quick google on 'Spitfire snobbery' turns up some period myth-building by Lufty aircrew...

'Even German pilots were said to suffer from "Spitfire snobbery" – at least one Hurricane pilot, when meeting with German airmen he had personally shot down, found the Luftwaffe pilot quite convinced he had been shot down by a Spitfire! The Spitfire did perform better against the Bf 109, accounting for 180 of the around 330 Bf 109s shot down by the two types of British fighters.'


'The Spitfire was still the more glamorous machine, and there was a certain "Spitfire snobbery", then and later. It even affected the Germans. A Hurricane pilot who spoke with a Luftwaffe prisoner whose Bf-109 he had shot down found the German completely insistent that he had been shot down by a Spitfire instead.'

I'm sure an unbiased historian of your repute could find more if he were to look.

I suppose, like the swastika, the Spitfire's importance could be taken as symbolic. I guess you can learn a lot about a person by the myths he buys into.

faustnik
04-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Contribution to the war? I think you have to break down to Mks:


Very interesting summary Tommy, I like it.


It's interesting that Faustnik uses 'church of the Spitfire'; it does point to that lasting psychological impact the the Spitfire in particular left on it's enemie

Spitfires were definatley feared and respected by the LW throughout the war. In close combat they were simply deadly. It's not the capability of the Spitfire that I'm doubting. The crowd that thinks it was the best at everything and was the reason the Allies won the air war in the ETO is what I doubt. The Spitfire was an element in that victory, but, just a part of the picture.

DKoor
04-29-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Contribution to the war? I think you have to break down to Mks:


Very interesting summary Tommy, I like it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1, very interesting observation indeed.

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
It's interesting that Faustnik uses 'church of the Spitfire'; it does point to that lasting psychological impact the the Spitfire in particular left on it's enemies,

Lasting what...? Don't mix the post-war British hyping of the aircraft with what the enemy really thought of it. The Spitfire's fame is rather due to the relentess post-war mythicizing, than it's actual achievements. I'd even say the fighter Spitfires contributed next to nothing, the PR versions were probably far more important as far as real war effort go.

"there are those who look at the Spit as more of a religious symbol than a fighter, and whose opinions are more of a belief system than a study of fact."

Nothing describes the phenomenon better. Some people had read so much post-war hyping on the plane that they expect it to be some kind angel of death, which kills with a mere gaze. If I look at it's combat report, I can find nothing that supports this. I've yet to find a larger period of time when the Spitfire actually could hold an even loss rate vs. LW fighters. Certainly it did not enjoy such in the BoB, even less in 1941 or 1942, or over the Desert. One just wonders that how did that big contribution manifested. I'd say that as far as British combat aircraft go, the Typhoon and Hurricane was probably FAR more important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lmao http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...

Yeah the Luftwaffe really thought it was a mediocre fighter didnt they?

'Spitfire Snobberry' in the BOB',

Check out Ralls first sighting of the Spitfires on the Eastern front and what his Commander said to him after he reported it.

'I wrote a summary of the battle, in which I noted the appearance of the Spitfires on the Eastern front. My group commander asked me for the time being not to discuss what had happened. ˜Perhaps you were mistaken, Rall? All this will only alarm your comrades.' I responded that it was more likely that tomorrow we would encounter a large number of Spitfires in our sector of the front.'


The Spitfire was easily the most important British fighter of the war, to say anything else is just ridiculous, and thats not coming from someone who likes hte plane over all others.

To compare losses betwen JUST FIGHTERS in the BOB is ridiculous, the RAF fighters targets were the bombers primarily, they were there to stop the bombing of RAF stations or London. Compare the Luftwaffe losses with the RAF losses in BOB instead if you want a comparison.

Throughout the MkV period the RAF DID suffer large losses because both the FW190 and the BF109F were superior, thats obvious - but the Mk1 was on par with the Bf109E, and the MkIX superior to the Bf109G6 which was its contemporary.

The MkXIV was just way ahead of the Bf109 at the end of the war. But of course the Me262 was ahead of the XIV.

We all know the 'Church Of Bf109'/'CHurch of Luftwaffe' will dispute this but whatever...

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Contribution to the war? I think you have to break down to Mks:


Very interesting summary Tommy, I like it.


It's interesting that Faustnik uses 'church of the Spitfire'; it does point to that lasting psychological impact the the Spitfire in particular left on it's enemie

Spitfires were definatley feared and respected by the LW throughout the war. In close combat they were simply deadly. It's not the capability of the Spitfire that I'm doubting. The crowd that thinks it was the best at everything and was the reason the Allies won the air war in the ETO is what I doubt. The Spitfire was an element in that victory, but, just a part of the picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


The thing is that its NOT alll hype about what a beautiful plane the Spitfire was. Just watch any of the modern pilots flying their SPitfire and listen to what they say about it.

I dont disagree that there is not a lot of 'legend building' going on with the plane in the UK, but you have to admit, that most people who have had a bit of time in a Spitfire say its the nicest/best handling Warbird they have flown. You just have to check out a few, such as the Eagle squadrons attitude when they had to change over to P47's from MkV's.

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 12:20 PM
Just found this wicked MArk Hanna flying a Bf109 video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPPPuL9fg

You can imagine how intense a dogfight between these 2 would be :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLd57T3rnEE


Look how they climb and turn, they seem to love being thrown around.

Aaron_GT
04-29-2007, 12:56 PM
One of the things that adds to the Spitfire mystique is the fact that Mitchell died whilst struggling to complete the work. It adds a certain heroic tragedy to it. Add the iconic film of Mitchell in their too and it is no surprise that the Spitfire became a legend. It was also the beginning of something whereas the Hurricane was really the end of the Hart-Hind-Fury line, just in monoplane form.

WOLFMondo
04-29-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


The Spit XIV disn't have the range to use it's performance against the LW, the P-51 did. The XIV's performance was used against the V1 threat.


XIV's were usually just a few miles behind the lines at 2nd TAF airfields, like almost all 2nd TAF aircraft and had plenty of contact with the enemy. XIV's got over 400 confirmed kills.

Brain32
04-29-2007, 01:14 PM
The MkXIV was just way ahead of the Bf109 at the end of the war.
I wander by what account? You see it's exactly posts like that that raise all the dust, that is simply BS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Ofcourse if you like one other guy that has a site loves to compare captured 109G6 in unknown condition with spanking new and prepared SpitMkXIV then you are apsolutely right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

faustnik
04-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:


The Spit XIV disn't have the range to use it's performance against the LW, the P-51 did. The XIV's performance was used against the V1 threat.


XIV's were usually just a few miles behind the lines at 2nd TAF airfields, like almost all 2nd TAF aircraft and had plenty of contact with the enemy. XIV's got over 400 confirmed kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not doubting that the XIV saw plenty of action. The LW's hand was forced by the 8th AF before D-Day, that's my point. The XIV must have been a fantasic fighter to have supporting the front lines, it had everything you could ask for in a short range air-superiority fighter.

faustnik
04-29-2007, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The thing is that its NOT alll hype about what a beautiful plane the Spitfire was.

I fully agree! Again, I'm not debating the quality of the Spitfire, just the dual standard that exists on this forum. "P-51 won teh war" has become a common derisive remark thrown at fans of US planes, but, the "Spitfire won the war" attitude doesn't receive the same criticism.

DKoor
04-29-2007, 02:02 PM
By its war significance, Spitfire was no.1 allied fighter IMO. It was present and doing a good job on most WW2 fronts.
P-51? It was an excellent fighter, but somehow, judging only by performance (not counting range) P-47 would be my choice out of probably most late war ETo fighters if I had to fight for real.
Greatest chances to survive being the primary reason.

horseback
04-29-2007, 02:21 PM
One thing I have to take issue with here. There is a clear assumption that once ONE
Squadron started operating a type or model of aircraft on the front lines, all other operational models of that aircraft suddenly metamorphized into that more advanced model.

The first Spit IXs were rare as hens' teeth for almost a year; the first squadrons operating it began on the Channel in spring of 1942. BUT the Mark V was still the most numerically important Mark along the Channel and in the Med until we were deep into 1943.

In the meantime, the three USAAF fighter groups started operating the P-47 by late spring of '44 over the same general range as the Spitfire, and German fighter loss rates started climbing and their victory rates started dropping precipitously. At the very least, it was a 'tipover' point; the Allies' opertional tempo had suddenly doubled, and the Channel Front geschwadern had not.

Similarly, the Mk XIV was first operational in early 1944, but in terms of numbers and contribution, it was not remotely as important as any Merlin version of the Mustang. It was supplied to only THREE OPERATIONAL SQUADRONS until September of 1944, and it remained relatively rare until the war was practically over.

There is no denying that the Mk XIV was very close to being a world-beating point-defense fighter/interceptor at all altitudes, but it wasn't available in useful numbers until very late in 1944/early '45. The Mk XIV was vastly less common than the Mk XVI, which just coincidentally had its Packard Merlin engine being produced in huge numbers in America.

Comparing it to the Merlin Mustang, which had more than twice as many examples in combat service on its very first operational day, and expanded that numerical lead exponentially throughout the war, is neither valid or smart.

It's a lot like comparing the wartime values of the King Tiger and the Sherman; the King Tiger may have been vastly better, but it could not be produced in time and in sufficient numbers to have a meaningful impact on the war.

cheers

horseback

ploughman
04-29-2007, 02:46 PM
Quite horse. A year or more ago Kurf demonstrated that even by December 1944 there were only about 120 XIVs in operational service in the ETO.


Personally, I think the 109 won the war, but that's another thread entirely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
04-29-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Personally, I think the 109 won the war, but that's another thread entirely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With a brick ducktaped on its tail? No can do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
04-29-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
One thing I have to take issue with here. There is a clear assumption that once ONE
Squadron started operating a type or model of aircraft on the front lines, all other operational models of that aircraft suddenly metamorphized into that more advanced model. Valid for all types, all years & all possible variants. Yes that includes P-51 too.


The first Spit IXs were rare as hens' teeth for almost a year; the first squadrons operating it began on the Channel in spring of 1942. BUT the Mark V was still the most numerically important Mark along the Channel and in the Med until we were deep into 1943. .....take note at the dates....


In the meantime, the three USAAF fighter groups started operating the P-47 by late spring of '44 over the same general range as the Spitfire, and German fighter loss rates started climbing and their victory rates started dropping precipitously. At the very least, it was a 'tipover' point; the Allies' opertional tempo had suddenly doubled, and the Channel Front geschwadern had not. .....in what meantime? Late spring 1944 is not the "meantime" in that context, it's around four years of -Spitfire fighting there- short.


Similarly, the Mk XIV was first operational in early 1944, but in terms of numbers and contribution, it was not remotely as important as any Merlin version of the Mustang. It was supplied to only THREE OPERATIONAL SQUADRONS until September of 1944, and it remained relatively rare until the war was practically over. If allied forces had to wait for P-51 to arrive then they'd be screwed. Completely. In the meantime -while we had to wait for those- Spitfire was outhere kicking butt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


There is no denying that the Mk XIV was very close to being a world-beating point-defense fighter/interceptor at all altitudes, but it wasn't available in useful numbers until very late in 1944/early '45. The Mk XIV was vastly less common than the Mk XVI, which just coincidentally had its Packard Merlin engine being produced in huge numbers in America. .....we are stuck with Mk.XIV here due to "unknown" reasons....


Comparing it to the Merlin Mustang, which had more than twice as many examples in combat service on its very first operational day, and expanded that numerical lead exponentially throughout the war, is neither valid or smart. ....we are somehow still stuck to spring.1944 - april.1945.... wow.


It's a lot like comparing the wartime values of the King Tiger and the Sherman; the King Tiger may have been vastly better, but it could not be produced in time and in sufficient numbers to have a meaningful impact on the war.

cheers

horseback Who cares about that comparisons?

HellToupee
04-29-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
One thing I have to take issue with here. There is a clear assumption that once ONE
Squadron started operating a type or model of aircraft on the front lines, all other operational models of that aircraft suddenly metamorphized into that more advanced model.

The first Spit IXs were rare as hens' teeth for almost a year; the first squadrons operating it began on the Channel in spring of 1942. BUT the Mark V was still the most numerically important Mark along the Channel and in the Med until we were deep into 1943.

Pervious models of planes were always more numerically important for some time after new planes entered service, even the 190s raf faced were not around in large numbers they didnt produce a whole lot more than the raf procduced mk9s in 42.



In the meantime, the three USAAF fighter groups started operating the P-47 by late spring of '44 over the same general range as the Spitfire, and German fighter loss rates started climbing and their victory rates started dropping precipitously. At the very least, it was a 'tipover' point; the Allies' opertional tempo had suddenly doubled, and the Channel Front geschwadern had not.

Yes when it becomes 2 powerful airforces vs 1 that itself is tipping ove the scales reguardless of planes used.



Similarly, the Mk XIV was first operational in early 1944, but in terms of numbers and contribution, it was not remotely as important as any Merlin version of the Mustang. It was supplied to only THREE OPERATIONAL SQUADRONS until September of 1944, and it remained relatively rare until the war was practically over.

yes in terms of numbers it was far less common, as was the merlin mustangs numbers non existant till the end of 43, XIV is just part of the overall spitfire contribution to the war.




Comparing it to the Merlin Mustang, which had more than twice as many examples in combat service on its very first operational day, and expanded that numerical lead exponentially throughout the war, is neither valid or smart.


well no its comparing planes that entered service/production around the same time, not the fault of the plane that Britians production potential wasnt was great.



It's a lot like comparing the wartime values of the King Tiger and the Sherman; the King Tiger may have been vastly better, but it could not be produced in time and in sufficient numbers to have a meaningful impact on the war.


well no its nothing like it, they entered service years apart and overall there were more spits produced than 51s.

Point with the XIV that its contribution was being the only ac to have competitive performance from 1939-43 serving in nearly all theaters and always had variants with competitive performance with latest types right up untill jetfighters.

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 08:24 PM
Heinz Knocke was still flying a battered Bf109E in March 1942 when he crashed into the snow, and he had been on many fighter sorties by then.

Its true of all types I guess that the older types stay in service, especially if you are trying to fight on 3 fronts

Luftwaffe Russia/France/(Africa/Greece/Malta))

RAF - France/(Burma/Japan)/(Africa/Greece/Malta)

(Obviously missing out the Canadians, Aussis/NZ/Hungarians/ROmanians and all the Allies of each Air Force)

There can be no doubt that during 1941-42 the Spitfire V was outclassed by the Bf109F4-G2 and FW190A varients until the arrival of the MkVIII and IX in numbers. I know various measures were taken to try and bring the MkV up to par, but it still never reached the level of the Luftwaffe in this period.

There were still quite a few (boosted+clipped) MkV squadrons covering low level on DDday.

I am certainly not denying that the RAF (AND its Spitfires) got battered by the LW between 1941-42 in this period, thanks to its better planes performance, and the RAF having to learn hard lessons when switching to the offensive. Now rather than the RAF climbing to 15,000feet and waiting for the Luftwaffe to attack, the Luftwaffe was waiting for them... Hence comparable percentage losses with the Luftwaffe in the BOB. Around 3-1 I think?