PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire I superior to Bf-109E



XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:36 AM
The Discovery Channel did a pretty decisive study on the two...I'm wholly convinced that the Spit was a superior weapon.

Anyone else catch the show?




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:36 AM
The Discovery Channel did a pretty decisive study on the two...I'm wholly convinced that the Spit was a superior weapon.

Anyone else catch the show?




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:43 AM
did the test spit have the midwar "tilly" mod to stop it dying under negative G or was it BoB original ?

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:45 AM
I am actually watching it right now. These are stock model ac, no mods, as far as I can tell. The Spit could outfly the 109 and pilots loved em, but the 109 could rip er up.

I love these shows. I just finished watching Sherman vs. Tiger. Sherman won, but only because they could replace them in 36 hours and they rolled into Berlin.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:10 AM
I watched it and don't know how you came to that conclusion. Their simulation tests were a draw and their opinion was the 109 had a slight overall edge because of the 20mm cannon.

Spitfire wins speed by 7mph, but cant dive in negative g.
Spitfire outturns only because 109 pilots were afraid to push the limits.
Spitfire better visibility--wins.
109 firepower--overwhelming.

From what I got out of it, they believe the only reason the 109 did not win the air battle is because of it's limited fuel capacity. They didn't have enough time to finish em off before they had to run home on fumes.




<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:12 AM
CorporalTunnel wrote:
- I just finished watching
- Sherman vs. Tiger. Sherman won, but only because
- they could replace them in 36 hours and they rolled
- into Berlin.
-
-
-
-

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:21 AM
yes i'm watching this as well...it was a spitfire MK1 v. a 109E4...spit 1 8 .308 guns(bad) and the spit used a carb. instead of fuel inj...and the 109 had 2 20mm model MG/FF with 60 rounds per gun(120 total) and 2 cowl mounted 7.9 mm guns as backups...the 20 mm had very poor ballistics so u had to get in close...i could go on and on about this..i currently fly aces high, online WWII flight sim and i have to tell you that i never believed that a 109 could flat out out-turn a spit(maybe using flaps in combat i'll have to give it a try)so if you would like i can post some links of some overviews writin by some respectable online pilots(i use his charts for reference) so here goes......... http://www.netaces.org/ahmain/siteframe.html#title....go to sodas plane evaluation charts...and there u can pick the models...spit 1 and 109E4....also some climbing and speed charts..... http://kingcat.hihome.com/speedgraph.html.........http://kingcat.hihome.com/climbgraph.html.....(u (http://kingcat.hihome.com/speedgraph.html.........http://kingcat.hihome.com/climbgraph.html.....[u) dont have to have the languages installed....enjoy hope it helpshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:23 AM
Yeah,I just watched that. Cool show. Basically,the show said the 109 was technically superior, but just didn't have the range to fight effectively. I never realized the early Spits still used carbuerators. I thought that ended with the Hawker Hurricane.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:26 AM
Didn't fix carb problem till MkV iirc.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:29 AM
Ah,thanks. I'm hardly a Spitfire expert. Can't keep all the Marks straight....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:30 AM
Why were the German pilots afraid to push the limits? Maybe because the Spit could handle it better? If the Spit can take a tighter turn, and the pilot was not SCARED of it, then the Spit won. Its that simple. No excuses please.



Weather_Man wrote:

- Spitfire outturns only because 109 pilots were
- afraid to push the limits.


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:32 AM
109E vs Mk1 Spit (this is from memory)

109E Better Dive Rate (coupled with Fuel Injection for a -ve G Dive allowed for top means of escape for the 109)

I think the 109 had the better climb (i may be wrong)

the Spitfire had the better turn rate

roll rate note sure sorry

speed about the same 109 348mph@14,456ft, spit 346mph@15,000ft (some of my info does conflict here)

just FYI
in modifactions done on the spit in its life

retractable tail wheel +5mph
propeller root fairing +4mph
chassis door panel +3mph
whip aerial +0.5mph
plain ailerons +6mph
curved front windshield +6mph
multi-ejector exhausts +4mph
improved & waxed finish +9mph
clipped wings +1mph
rear-view hood & deletion of mirror +1mph

almost +40mph from these modification alone

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:33 AM
Yeah Gib,it said due to the Spit's elliptical wings,the plane vibrated long before it entered a stall,so pilots had plenty of time to correct. The early 109s weren't quite so user friendly with it's smaller,angled wings.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 09/22/0312:34AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:41 AM
Also, about the 20MM VS .303's subject.

In real life, if you get rattled by a bunch of .303's, you going home!!! Online, you dont care because there is a respawn button. In REAL LIFE (AkA WAR) there was no respawn. Any pilot taking any damage would head for home at his first chance. You have a MUCH GRATER chance of hitting with 8 .303's firing then 20MM's. Plus, the Spit had an easier time bringing those .303's to bear on its target (Re: German pilots were "afraid" to push the limits). So against a 109. I think a pack of high velocity, high ROF MG's would do better IN REAL LIFE then a few low velocity low ROF 20MM's. Now against bombers like the He-111 and Ju-88's, they were near useless.

Also, another factor that I have not read yet is endurance. The Spit had more time over target (its own base) then the 109E that only had like 15 milutes due to its EXTREAMLY small fuel load.

Combine the pilots unwillingness to push the 109, very low fuel, and being riddled with .303's, the Emil pilots would bail and go home before the British worked up a sweat.

I do agree that the 109 had its advantages, and the Germans used them to great extend, but only for fleeing. Climb, dive, negitive G's. If you read accounts of BoB air combat, German pilots used these trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a Spit got on its tail, he would nose down and dive and get away. Spit cant do negitive G's. Also, the better climb and also allowed for an escape route.

Remember, it was the few that faught back the many. Most in "inferior" Hurricanes. The Luftwaffa tactic to run served them well through the war.

Just my openion. I salute all the brave pilots who faught and died in BoB. The victory the world needed in a time of darkness. The victory that showed the wold Germany can be defeated.

Never has so much been owed to so few by so many.

Gib


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:49 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Why were the German pilots afraid to push the
- limits? Maybe because the Spit could handle it
- better? If the Spit can take a tighter turn, and
- the pilot was not SCARED of it, then the Spit won.
- Its that simple. No excuses please.
-
-
-
- Weather_Man wrote:
-
-
-- Spitfire outturns only because 109 pilots were
-- afraid to push the limits.


That's what the show implied, not my opinion. They gave the turns to the Spits, but said it was not conclusive that it could actually outturn a 109. They said the 109 may in fact outturn a Spit if the pilot was willing to push it.

The buffetting in tight manuevers due to the larger wing surface area on the Spits let them ride the edge more effectivly than the 109 pilots could--who had no such warning when pushing the limits, and were therefore more cautious.



I don't necessarily agree with any of that, but it's how it was portrayed in the show.

<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:50 AM
Part of the nervousness in tight turns for 109 pilots was probably caused by the slats which had a nasty habit of opening asymetrically.


But also do not discount the psychological aspect of bailing over home versus enemy territory.

The spit pilot probably feared burning and being disfigured a lot more than bailing because of a spin .... bailing out probably meant a comfortable night in some pretty local English village girls care for the spit pilot but a long unpleasant internment in enemy hands for the 109 pilot.

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:53 AM
Yeah,it said only the most experienced Luftwaffe pilots were bold enough to try to push the limits of the 109. It said that the 109 was CAPABLE of out-turning the Spit,but the 109 pilot was taking a big risk by trying it,so most didn't.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:44 AM
Yes Spitfire had a slight advantage in turn rate (1 sec per 360deg turn) and turn radius (derived from stall speeds). But this difference is too small to give you an real advantage, it will take you forever to outturn an Emil. On the other hand Emil has all other advantages (at least E4): climb rate, acceleration, dive, roll, firepower and of course prestige/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Could anything compete with this beauty in its time?

http://www.museumofflying.com/bf109e_mof_0015.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:49 AM
CorporalTunnel wrote:
- I am actually watching it right now. These are
- stock model ac, no mods, as far as I can tell. The
- Spit could outfly the 109 and pilots loved em, but
- the 109 could rip er up.
-
- I love these shows. I just finished watching
- Sherman vs. Tiger. Sherman won, but only because
- they could replace them in 36 hours and they rolled
- into Berlin.
-
-
-
-

Oh please the Sherman vs. Tiger? There was no contest. The Sherman was not intended to fight against a tank. Armour and penetrating power of Tiger was far superior as well as the track profile and suspension system. The delay in producing Pershings (Patton's fault) and in admitting the shortcoming of the early American torpedoes (Navy's fault) were among the biggest blunders made by the US military in WWII.

I'm American and even I know that much.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:13 AM
Gibbage said:

"Why were the German pilots afraid to push the limits? Maybe because the Spit could handle it better? If the Spit can take a tighter turn, and the pilot was not SCARED of it, then the Spit won. Its that simple. No excuses please."


If aerial combat is simply a contest of who can turn the tightest, then yes, you're right. The Spit wins.

However, consider this: A huge number of kills (yes, even BoB kills) happened when the victim is "bounced" by an unseen attacker. If you are the one doing the bouncing, it is very much in your favor to have big guns, so you can kill the bogey quickly. In this case, the 109 has the big guns. If a Spit is doing the bouncing, he better put a lot of lead on target (since he is only shooting the .303 bullets) before the 109 pilot does a negative-G dive, which the Spitfire cannot follow.

Good turning performance is a good thing to have, but in real life it probably didn't factor in as often as some people would like to believe. Remember, lots of Spits were shot down in BoB. If you saw the show, you remember the Spit pilot talking about when he was immediately bounced when emerging from a cloud. I think he would chuckle at some youngster asserting how "the Spit won. Its that simple. No excuses please."

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:18 AM
Yeah, sure...that show on discovery, which also compared other "weapons"...talking about biased comparations...

They said that Sherman (NOT THE FIREFLY mod) was better than the TIger!!! HAHAHAHA...because of the numbers involvedhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And then asked a bunch of former tank crew members about in which tank they wanted to be during the war...IN THE TIGER, was the answer, SEVEN OUT OF SEVEN...and then the conclusion: The sherman was betterhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))
No word about the SUPERIORITY OF THE GERMAN TANK CREWS...nothing.

Then they compared the Spit with the Emil, and found the Spit better because of "better maneuvrability"...yeap, like that carburetor was allowing the Spit to walz arround the Emil. The Emil had better firepower (by a HUGE margine) and better climb, dive, etc...Spit has "FOREVER" like roll rate.

When they compared the Sabre with the MiG and had a hard time making the first one a winner..mostly because of the pilot superiority (a factor which was ignored when comparing the sherman vs tiger)...I had enough and switched channels.

Sometimes Discovery, but especially History Channel ARE SO BIASED and propagandistic that makes me wonder if someone will ever believe them...

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:21 AM
The .303 and 20mms hardly give any comparison at all.

While the main line of logic behind favoring machine gun armament over 20mm cannons lies in the three main factors of 'dispersion', 'rate of fire' and 'accuracy', it offers interesting comparison only with the 12.7mm "50cal" rounds.

Comparing the combat effectiveness of .303s against 20mm armed planes are frankly, out of the question. The "myth" of "dispersion increases hit chance = better combat effectiveness", has been revolving around in aircombat sim game forums for so long, that I can't even locate the original source.

This 'myth' surfaced in the games of old times, where the DM used a linear calculation by subtracting the 'damage points' from the given hit point par plane. It wasn't until recently an aircombat sim came out modelling bounce, penetration depth, and internal damage factors. In the olden games, basically you would just set the guns to the most effective pattern of the "shotgun", and spray all over enemy presence. If you get a hit, it damages him. There's no variation on the extent of the damage.

However, in real life not only was the Dowding Spread proven grossly inefficient, but the scope of the damage a non-explosive 7.92mm round could do, when it was spread all over the plane, was repeatedly noted as unsatisfactory. Higher rate of fire and greater dispersion did mean a higher chance of hit, but it did not necessarily mean better combat effectiveness.

Another factor is the RAF overestimated the gunnery skill of an average pilot during combat. The spread patterns of the guns often set out further than 300, 400 meters distinctly shows the RAF estimated the 'killing range' as a lot further than it actually was - whereas the Luftwaffe quickly learned from experiences in Spain that kills would be achieved at very close distances.

The conceived point in the end, was that the usual 'killing range' was within 200m, and generally under 150m to be really effective - within these close ranges the difference in dispersion between the varying gun types hardly mattered. The only real 'dispersion' would be achieved depending on how many guns are set upon the wings, in how large space between the guns. This type of armament would indeed, offer a wider 'triangle' of coverage, but it also offered a distinct problem of planes being heavily dependant on convergence ranges, whereas centerline armament could cover an extent of different ranges,

Thus, effectively, during combat kills would be achieved at very close ranges, through a pilot getting hold of a very rare chance at a very short time. The problem was the ability to deal with maximum firepower at a given time - which the .303 rounds were often reluctant to deliver, whereas even a lucky shell could often deal with varying degrees of actual damage with the 20mm cannons. The range being sufficiently close enough, the differences in both rate of fire and dispersion hardly mattered at all. It was when the firing range got longer that better weapons with better trajectory was appreciated - for instance, the rare cases of 'getting kills as far as 1000m out', was relatively more common with .50 armed US planes, compared to German instances.

The RAF stuck to the .303 rounds out of necessity, as the Hispano-Suizas 'scheduled' to be installed were worthless due to frustrating jamming problems. Increasing the number of .303s was a decision out of a griping process of 'filling the gap' of the absence of 20mm cannons.

It wasn't the other way around.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:23 AM
cable documents often deteriorate rather than improve over time

the original wings series on Discovery was excellent, good wartime footage, interviews with veterans, accurate technical discussion

the final few epsodes were a joke .. jingoistic "gee-whizz look at theses great US planes" stuff with no technical data and a target audience IQ of about 50

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:24 AM
The show admitted that on a one-on-one basis the Tiger was superior by a vast margin. The Sherman design was the manifestation of the Allied strategy of attrition, which worked. That was the reason they picked the Sherman.

The show was not propaganda.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:27 AM
cowace2 wrote:
- The Discovery Channel did a pretty decisive study on
- the two...I'm wholly convinced that the Spit was a
- superior weapon.
-
- Anyone else catch the show?
-


Decisive my...hat. Beside a test on the firing range, when they fired a .303 Browning (more like shot by shot than full auto...so there was no spread at all) and a 20mm cannon at some aluminium panels...what was else "decisive"?

They talked about maneuvrability, like a GENERAL term, didn't now exemplify A BIT, and without many explanation got the Spit as winner...they said that the Emils was flown far from its real capabilities because the pilots were afraid of doing it!!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)) Yeah, good one...and the Spit was shaking just before stalling, thus permiting the pilots to fly it to the limit...a plane which was a brick in a dive, with an awful rol rate, no neg.G or else engine died...

THey mentioned the carburator problem, but later, and only like a sideline...didn;t counted in the "decisive" studyhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The MiG-15 vs F-86 Sabre comparison was a joke...
Here in reality only the pilot training made the difference...otherwise, a very well flown Mig could have whoped Sabres all day long...the only downside: not very stable platform at high speeds and low rate of fire of its guns, but one hit and Sabre was history...

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:37 AM
Sure Tiger tanks were better as far as the tank itself goes. Yet in a war the Sherman was better. A Tiger was a very big expensive tank.
The Sherman was a small cheap rapidly produced death trap with a gun capable of killing tigers with either lucky shots or shots in the rear.
Yet 10 to 1 how can any superior tank win? Let's say 5 Shermans meet 1 Tiger. The tiger shoots BOOM! A destroyed Sherman. Then 4 Shermans shoot, and due to the lighter gun they could reload faster. So the tiger gets shot 8 times, and probably more before it can fire again. Because inside any WWII tank even if the hit didn't blow you sky high you were officially deaf, and having your guts shaken out.

Besides that while it's armor was effective no matter what after 2 or three shells into the armor. One of them was going to go through. Just like a bullet proof vest (actually worse). It'll stop 1 9mm round, but 3 with a few inches of each other, and 1 is going through. That and it hurt them more to lose one Tiger than it did us to lose 10+ Shermans. Tanks crews back then were pretty easy to train.

Also the bit above about turning to run after getting peppered by 8 .303's isn't right at all. Here's the truth the 8 .303's simply won't down anything with great speed. While they're peppering the BF-109 his wingman is about to pump some cannon rounds into the Spit.

I can definitely see the limited fuel as a problem though. Even if the Spit could turn better or was more safely puched further into the turn. You have to seriously be able to out turn your opponent to get deflection for your guns. Plus every aircraft has a speed which it turns the best. So while at one airspeed the spit may outturn a 109 at another airspeed the 109 will outturn the spit.

I'd rather have to get close to hit with my cannons than have to get close to down them with .303's
Also a running away aircraft is not an air victory. If he had blown your wingman out of the sky a second ago would you be happy just making him run home?
Where they will do a quick check, re-arm, re-fuel and slap some duct tape over the holes before he's ready to go back up?
I'm not sure the Germans even used 100 mile and hour tape. It ripped off at 100 miles and hour anyway. Just helped to takeoff without holes in the wing.

I don't even consider climb an advantage. Even online you cannot outclimb your opponent to get away unless you have already extended to the limit of his guns. Other than coming out of a 700mph dive and going vertical.
Speed? You need a 30-40mph advantage before the speed difference even matters. Thrust is what matters, and if the BF-109 could out climb the Spit it means beyond a doubt it had a better thrust to weight ratio. Yet unless it really really outclimbs the spit it's really not enough to matter.

The Spit was hampered by what can only be called a poor armament. The BF-109 was hampered by fuel capacity.
I doubt pilots were afraid to push the envelope in the BF-109's. When someon start shooting at your tail you will crank it till the cows come home or something breaks.
They were highly trained pilots, and I'm sure they knew how to recover from a spin. Plus if you can simply dive away when one gets on your tail you don't really need to out turn them.
You only need to out turn them when your the aggresser, and trying for a shot. Also it's easier to follow someone in a turn than be followed. Two closely performing aircraft especially. If the spit isn't spinning than neither am I sort of thing.

Also the turning is all fine and dandy but it's also a matter of who can stand to pull 6 G's for the longest period in time? If you weight 150lbs thats like weighing 750lbs or having a 650lb fat guy sit in your lap. Thus it's painfull and if sustained you can black out from it.
Even with pressure suits modern fighter pilots only pull 9 G's for a few seconds. When they lands their backsides, and under their arms are all red from blood vessels bursting from the blood being forced into them.
At 3 negative G's blood vessels in your eye's will burst, and too much or any more your brain will hemorage.
Thus dogfighting was more split S's, spinning, and generally jumping around. After you pulled 6 G's a few times for a minute or so you would be exhausted. Literally crawling out of your aircraft when you landed.

All of that can't be modelled in any simulator of course. It's the human factor and is the biggest limitation of aircraft, and spacecraft design technology. How to make it do X without killing the pilot?

In fact it's really hard without having been there to know what air combat in WWII was like. It was a lot of luck, and trying to trick the enemy. If you went right, and he thought you were going left you lost him. That and you learned real fast or died real fast. A lot of E management timing, and some very important manuevers. There's a science to those manuevers. If he's at position X, and you do Y and Z. Your now on his tail. It's not a might be it's a physics thing you just will be if you do it right. Unless he breaks off the chase.

So it all comes down to pilots not planes just like race cars, motorcycles, speed boats, etc.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:43 AM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- The show admitted that on a one-on-one basis the
- Tiger was superior by a vast margin. The Sherman
- design was the manifestation of the Allied strategy
- of attrition, which worked. That was the reason they
- picked the Sherman.
-
- The show was not propaganda.
-
-


Oh...so the Allies won the war by sheer numbers in everything...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or you were not saying this?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not propaganda?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not even a bit? Than why in each comparison the anglo-yank product came winner? Even when the comparison was FORCED and they had a hard time to pull their winner...

Oh, and that "scenario" with the tiger in the hedges and the shermans...BS mon amis. The german tankcrews when in ambush were knocking out the first AND last of the enemy tanks, which almost always were traveling in line (due to a ever green crews maning them) So that little dumb scenario was a little forced...of course, I can bet that >90% found it very veridic and believed it...
I laughed my hat of when I saw how slowly the Tiger was transversing its turet...For Discovery's information...the driver was always helping in dire situation by rotating THE ENTIRE TANK...but hey, can't use this...it would have been even harder to pull the Sherman as a winner...


<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:06 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Yeah Gib,it said due to the Spit's elliptical
- wings,the plane vibrated long before it entered a
- stall,so pilots had plenty of time to correct. The
- early 109s weren't quite so user friendly with it's
- smaller,angled wings.

What do you think are the slats for??? they deploy when you go nearly to a stall.. I don&#180;t know about vibrating wings in Spits, but if you want to see how close to a stall you are you have to look out the window /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

109 pilots are afraid to push the limits... hmm I would say to intelligent, to push to the limits, cause even at the edge of the E4 the Spit is simply better in turns



Gibbage1 wrote:
- Also, about the 20MM VS .303's subject.
-

some 109 came back with 200 hits /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-
- Also, another factor that I have not read yet is
- endurance. The Spit had more time over target (its
- own base) then the 109E that only had like 15
- milutes due to its EXTREAMLY small fuel load.

Ӟhhm Gibbage do you call this objetive???

Spit I - 85gal 386.4 litre
109 E - 88gal 400 litre
both planes have and EXTREAMLY similar fuel load!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Combine the pilots unwillingness to push the 109,
- very low fuel, and being riddled with .303's, the
- Emil pilots would bail and go home before the
- British worked up a sweat.


- I do agree that the 109 had its advantages, and the
- Germans used them to great extend, but only for
- fleeing. Climb, dive, negitive G's. If you read
- accounts of BoB air combat, German pilots used these
- trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a
- Spit got on its tail, he would nose down and dive
- and get away. Spit cant do negitive G's. Also, the
- better climb and also allowed for an escape route.


Sometimes you make me laugh... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Try this...

I do agree that the P47/51 had its advantages, and the
USpilots used them to great extend, but only for
fleeing. ZoomClimb, dive, Speed. If you read
accounts of BoG air combat, US pilots used these
trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a
109 got on its tail, he would nose down and dive
and get away.

LOL the tatic the 109 vs the Spit used was the same the P51 and 47 used.. hit and run tactics, would you realy also complaine about the same fact, that the US-pilots did&#180;t push them to the edge in a turning fight and better run away in a hit and run tactic?!? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 09/22/0312:08PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:53 AM
nt = No Text

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:20 AM
Abbuzze wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- Also, about the 20MM VS .303's subject.
--
- some 109 came back with 200 hits /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-

My point is, they went home. You dont need to kill the other pilot or down his aircraft to claim a victory.

--
-- Also, another factor that I have not read yet is
-- endurance. The Spit had more time over target (its
-- own base) then the 109E that only had like 15
-- milutes due to its EXTREAMLY small fuel load.
-
- Ӟhhm Gibbage do you call this objetive???
-
- Spit I - 85gal 386.4 litre
- 109 E - 88gal 400 litre
- both planes have and EXTREAMLY similar fuel load!!
-

Yes. Very even. But two facors you did not include. #1, fuel efficiancy of the DB compaired to the Merlin?

#2, the 109 burned off most of its fuel before getting to the target. The British still had a LOT more loiter time since BoB was faught OVER BRITIN!!!! So near empty Emil VS fresh full Spit.

#1 does not matter to much, but its still a facor you left out.


-
-
-- Combine the pilots unwillingness to push the 109,
-- very low fuel, and being riddled with .303's, the
-- Emil pilots would bail and go home before the
-- British worked up a sweat.
-
-
-- I do agree that the 109 had its advantages, and the
-- Germans used them to great extend, but only for
-- fleeing. Climb, dive, negitive G's. If you read
-- accounts of BoB air combat, German pilots used these
-- trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a
-- Spit got on its tail, he would nose down and dive
-- and get away. Spit cant do negitive G's. Also, the
-- better climb and also allowed for an escape route.
-
-
- Sometimes you make me laugh...
-

I did not say the Germans were unwilling to push the 109. A 109 fan said that as an excuse to why it could not turn into a Spit. Rather lousy excuse, but not my excuse.

- I do agree that the P47/51 had its advantages, and
- the
- USpilots used them to great extend, but only for
- fleeing. ZoomClimb, dive, Speed. If you read
- accounts of BoG air combat, US pilots used these
- trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a
- 109 got on its tail, he would nose down and dive
- and get away.
-

US pilots were told to turn in a P-51, dive in a P-47. Most Luftwaffa pilots dove away from P-51's and P-47's when enguaged. P-47's and P-51's were mostly guarding B-17 formations and HAD to fight to protect them, they never ran. In fact, a lot of P-51 and P-47 pilots would fallow fleeing 109 and 190's to there airfield, straif them when they were landing, and straif up the airfield once the B-17's went home. The 109's had to return to base because of low fuel supply. If the 109 did NOT have such a low fuel supply, they could fight the P-51's and P-47's off before landing. THAT is a critical flaw, and the P-51 and P-47's range was a critical attribute to the war effort. Putting performance aside, would you not agree? If the 109E had more range and loiter time then the Spit I, they could have done the same thing to the RAF. Stay in the fight longer, and get them when they had to go home.



- LOL the tatic the 109 vs the Spit used was the same
- the P51 and 47 used.. hit and run tactics, would you
- realy also complaine about the same fact, that the
- US-pilots did´t push them to the edge in a
- turning fight and better run away in a hit and run
- tactic?!? <

From what I read, the Spit pilots tactics were to turn, 109 pilots was to dive. This used each aircraft advantage to the others disadvantage. Clearly the Spit could turn, and the 109 could dive. Also, the Spit was guarding its home land and the British pilots faught like made. The German LW had more pilots and aircraft, and still lost. Not because of the 109's better turning ability http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But lack of loiter time over target.

With the two aircraft being very closely matched, it all came down to who had staying power. 109 did not.

Gib

-
-
-
- JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
- I./Gruppe
-
- http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
-
- <img
- src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner
- _langsam.gif">
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/22/03 12:08PM by Abbuzze



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:48 AM
It all came down to the fact the Battle of Britain was a German tactical blunder, and they could not continue the ammount of attacks due to sustained losses.
As it was said anyway more Hurri's went up against 109's than Spit's did.
Plus it wasn't just 109's. They had to deal with the large formations of Stuka's, and other German bombers as well.
40 or so Stuka's with fighter support coming at you when your in a Hurri or a Spit is not a pretty sight. The limited time of the 109 over target was a blessing for sure.
Yet bombers are always a priority target, and a hard priority when your getting BnZ'ed. Not to mention flying into a large formation of Stuka's is bad. Really bad when your trying to engage them at close range with .303's
Spit's didn't exactly tote a lot of ammo either, and I imagine it ran out of bullets or was shot down long before gas was an issue.

I've become confused in this discussion is this a Spitfire vs BF-109E-4 discussion, or a Spitfire vs. BF-109E-4 discussion during the battle of britain?

The latter is an issue but if you just stack plane vs plane. Then what is tops?

Ok lets say a Spit and a Emil take off, and fly an hour before meeting each other who wins?

Lol trick question the Emil didn't have enough duration to fly for an hour. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:53 AM
In an interview from the 70's I've got on video with Douglas Bader and Robert Stanford Tuck, Douglas Bader explained that the standard German evasion technique during the Battle of Britain was to push the nose into a steep dive as the Spitfire I and Hurricane I couldn't do this.He said if he half rolled and followed them down the 109 would usually be quite a distance away and that's where most RAF pilots gave up as it looked like the 109 was getting away.He found if he continued pursuing the 109 in a dive the 109 pilot would nearly always pull out early allowing him to catch up.This was because a famous Luftwaffe pilot had managed to rip the wings off of a 109 pulling out of a dive and he reckoned this had got round the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons and so 109 pilots were wary of this fact and would be careful when pulling out of a dive.


-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

Message Edited on 09/22/0311:54AM by DeerHunterUK

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:01 PM
I agree. They also made the point the an experienced 109 pilot will down an inexperienced Spit pilot and vice versa. It was the pilot that made the difference. The program I interpreted as being a draw between the two. In fact in Geof Wellum's First light, he recounts a turn fight with a 109 and his Spit only just managed to outturn it, but only after being shot up quite badly. As he was there and fighting at the time, I'll take his point of view.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



necrobaron wrote:
- Yeah,it said only the most experienced Luftwaffe
- pilots were bold enough to try to push the limits of
- the 109. It said that the 109 was CAPABLE of
- out-turning the Spit,but the 109 pilot was taking a
- big risk by trying it,so most didn't.
-
- 47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:18 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Abbuzze wrote:
-
-
- My point is, they went home. You dont need to kill
- the other pilot or down his aircraft to claim a
- victory.

So you say british pilots cheated with thair kills? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif just kidding! Hmm or like hitted and maybe smoking 109 made it home in 43-45?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

---
--- Also, another factor that I have not read yet is
--- endurance. The Spit had more time over target (its
--- own base) then the 109E that only had like 15
--- milutes due to its EXTREAMLY small fuel load.
--
-- Ӟhhm Gibbage do you call this objetive???
--
-- Spit I - 85gal 386.4 litre
-- 109 E - 88gal 400 litre
-- both planes have and EXTREAMLY similar fuel load!!
--
-
- Yes. Very even. But two facors you did not
- include. #1, fuel efficiancy of the DB compaired to
- the Merlin?

YOU started to talk about fuel load- not range! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
thats a different thing!!

But:
Range of the SpitI
Max Range:639 mls :low speed;
415mls (666km) max. cruise speed

Range of the Emil:
around 650km at cruising speed

No real big diffence- sorry have no values for fuel saving
speed for 109...

Also in this aspect both planes are very similar and a Spit wouldn&#180;t do it much better than a 109 in thair role!

- #2, the 109 burned off most of its fuel before
- getting to the target. The British still had a LOT
- more loiter time since BoB was faught OVER
- BRITIN!!!! So near empty Emil VS fresh full Spit.
-
- #1 does not matter to much, but its still a facor
- you left out.
-

-
- With the two aircraft being very closely matched, it
- all came down to who had staying power. 109 did
- not.

That a question about the point of view /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif after you made some distance in a dive you dont stay in a dive till SL - you will zoomclimb again, and ...


[The phenomenon, that LW pilots try to dive away from P47/51 was a deadly failure- no doubt, even Galland wondered why they tried it. This was known as "J¤gerschreck" -fighterscariness- maybe a simple result of the bad education of the german pilots]



JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:20 PM
Hmmph sorry to notice but Gib seems to be really biased on the subject. Nice modelling and I liked most of your posts but I have to disagree with you here. I respect the german pilots just as much as their british counterparts and I bet the "flee at first opportunity if there is an enemy in your 6" is true for the brits as well so do not call german pilots chickens.

It will be "interesting" to see whether the emil can out-turn the spitI in FB if we ever get the spit. I dare push the envelope so I want the tighter turn radius /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

No excuses please, just as Gib said.

-pozzu

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:28 PM
sobolan wrote:
-
- Suckerpunch11 wrote:
-- The show admitted that on a one-on-one basis the
-- Tiger was superior by a vast margin. The Sherman
-- design was the manifestation of the Allied strategy
-- of attrition, which worked. That was the reason they
-- picked the Sherman.
--
-- The show was not propaganda.
--
--
-
-
- Oh...so the Allies won the war by sheer numbers in
- everything...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or you were not saying this?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
-
- Not propaganda?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not even a bit? Than why in each
- comparison the anglo-yank product came winner? Even
- when the comparison was FORCED and they had a hard
- time to pull their winner...

The Tiger obviously had an advantage in a 1 vs 1 engagement, but to judge the success of a weapons system by what might happen in 1 vs 1 engagements is naive. Wars don't consist of 1 vs 1 engagements.

The military effectiveness of techically-sophisticated weapons like aircraft or tanks depends on far more than the paper performance figures. In real life, weapons have to be designed to complete some specific military task, they have to be developed into a form suitable for mass production, factories have to be tooled up to manufacture them, technicians and crews have to be trained to operate them and the quipment has to be supported in the field by repair shops and supplies of spare parts, fuel and ammunition.

You can only judge the effectiveness of a weapons system by considering its performance in this total military context. If you just compare performance figures you completely miss the most important points about the weapon system in question. This is a critical point which often gets overlooked on discussion boards like this one, where the posters tend to be aircraft enthusiasts but usually have little knowledge of academic military history or economics.

If we consider the Tiger tank, we find it's another example of the failure of the German military establishment to produce militarily significant weapons of war. The Luftwaffe suffered seriously from similar shortcomings. In the case of the Tiger, the critical failures were an overly complicated design which meant that it could be produced only in small numbers combined with a failure to provide support infrastructure so that the tanks could not be adequately supported and repaired in the field. One good example of this is that German tank manufacturers only produced approximately one spare transmission for every ten tanks. Even worse was the difficulty of replacing major engine components in the field, resulting in tanks being carried 2,000 miles by rail back to Berlin for overhaul. In contrast, the great strength of tanks like the T-34 and Sherman was that they were simple and cheap to produce and could be easily maintained in the field.

After Kursk, what the Germans needed was a tank that capitalised on their assets (the 88 mm gun), could be produced cheaply, quickly and in large numbers and one that could be easily supported in the field to maintain a high servicability. In effect, they needed a German T-34. What they got were overly-complicated vehicles that could only be produced in small numbers.

This doesn't mean that a working Tiger tank was anything other than a formidable opponent. What it does mean is that militarily it was far less effective than either the T-34 or (arguably) the Sherman. Having a handful of operating Tigers is of little use if your opponents are fielding several thousand Shermans or T-34s.

This sort of contrast between occurs repeatedly when one examines the major weapons programmes of WWII. The Allied nations recognised the combined values of mass production, ease of operation and support infrastructure. The Allies were thus able to field huge numbers of effective weapons and support systems such as the Sherman tank, the Liberty ship, the DC-3, B-24 and P-51 aircraft, the T-34 tank etc. None of these programmes relied on under-developed advanced technology, and so could be developed and deployed in a short-enough time and in large enough numbers to be militarily significant. On a 1 for 1 comparison of paper performance figures were sometimes equalled or out-performed by Axis equipment - but that is not how wars are decided.

The German failure to match this Allied success took place at several levels.

1. The military authorities issued specifications for new equipment without taking adequate advice from either industrialists, engineers and scientists.

2. The manufacturers of advanced technology equimpment (aircraft, tanks etc) proposed numerous projects which to meet the requirements specified had to rely on advanced and under-developed technologies. This was a serious weakness because the development times became dangerously long. Almost all the advanced weapons programmes failed to deliver product in useful numbers.

3. The procurement process itself (especially in aviation) was fatally flawed. Incompetant staff also did not take adequate industrial and scientific advice and were outmanouvered by the interests of the manufacturers and by political pressures.

4. The unglamorous but essential work of providing support infrastructure was often overlooked (e.g., He-177 bombers were too large for most available hangars).

5. Finally, the urgent requirement for mass production was not recognised until it was too late. By the time Speer rationalised weapons programmes (greatly reducing the number of different types of weapon to be produced) and instituted mass production the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion.

So in its proper historical context, one can argue that the Tiger tank and its glamourous cousins were a sign of failure, not success. The Allies recognised that success came from having weapons that were just advanced enough, but were available in large numbers. The German military establishment only appreciated this fact when it was too late.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:29 PM
skopro wrote:
- yes i'm watching this as well...it was a spitfire
- MK1 v. a 109E4...spit 1 8 .308 guns(bad) and the
- spit used a carb. instead of fuel inj...and the 109
- had 2 20mm model MG/FF with 60 rounds per gun(120
- total) and 2 cowl mounted 7.9 mm guns as
- backups...the 20 mm had very poor ballistics so u
- had to get in close...i could go on and on about
- this..i currently fly aces high, online WWII flight
- sim and i have to tell you that i never believed
- that a 109 could flat out out-turn a spit(maybe
- using flaps in combat i'll have to give it a try)so
- if you would like i can post some links of some
- overviews writin by some respectable online pilots(i
- use his charts for reference) so here goes.........
-

Excellent links...at least the first one...couldnt get the second one up for some reason..thanks...

Gibbage1 wrote:
Also, about the 20MM VS .303's subject.
In real life, if you get rattled by a bunch of .303's, you going home!!! Online, you dont care because there is a respawn button. In REAL LIFE (AkA WAR) there was no respawn. Any pilot taking any damage would head for home at his first chance. You have a MUCH GRATER chance of hitting with 8 .303's firing then 20MM's. Plus, the Spit had an easier time bringing those .303's to bear on its target (Re: German pilots were "afraid" to push the limits). So against a 109. I think a pack of high velocity, high ROF MG's would do better IN REAL LIFE then a few low velocity low ROF 20MM's. Now against bombers like the He-111 and Ju-88's, they were near useless.
Also, another factor that I have not read yet is endurance. The Spit had more time over target (its own base) then the 109E that only had like 15 milutes due to its EXTREAMLY small fuel load.
Combine the pilots unwillingness to push the 109, very low fuel, and being riddled with .303's, the Emil pilots would bail and go home before the British worked up a sweat.

Great points Gib which are easy to overlook from the safe vantage point of the desk....

ucanfly wrote:
Oh please the Sherman vs. Tiger? There was no contest. The Sherman was not intended to fight against a tank. Armour and penetrating power of Tiger was far superior as well as the track profile and suspension system. The delay in producing Pershings (Patton's fault) and in admitting the shortcoming of the early American torpedoes (Navy's fault) were among the biggest blunders made by the US military in WWII.

In a 1 on one tank battle you are right of course but considering the numbers and maneuverability of the Sherman there was indeed a contest as you put it...one in which I do believe in the end the Tigers lost. It takes more than brute force to win a war as history has proven. Tigers were much slower all around, less maintainable, were bigger and heavier hence could not go through as many different types of terrain, were much harder and more expensive to manufacture (fewer in numbers). All the firepower in the world is useless against a more numerous more agile force with enough firepower to do some damage. Sort of like a pack of wolves attackiong a Grizzly. Enough wolves and that big Grizzly is going down.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:41 PM
I dont know why this turned into a Tiger vs. Shirman thread. But yes. Tigers were superior. Nobody doubts that. But the Shirman was NEVER made for the anti-take roll. The Tiger was built as a tank destroyer, Shirman was a troop support. BIG DIFFERANCE! The fact that a Shirman could even take a Tiger out was simply amazing since it has such a small cal gun. Clearly not for taking on tanks!!! Yes, it took 4 Shirman to disable/kill a Tiger, but the point is we had 10 Shirmans to 1 Tiger ratio http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the Germans had as many Panzers as we had Shirmans, it would have stopped us cold.

I think compairing a Shirman to a Tiger is rather stupid. A more suitable comparison would be a Panzer. Still the Panzer was superior in most all aspects. Im no armor expert, but German tanks kicked ***.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:43 PM
True the Spit did have a carb and most of the pilots where inexperienced Does anyone know when the show will be reairred?

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:13 PM
Amazing that so many folks watched the same show but came away with different results. For the most part, the show showed that both planes were evenly matched, each having their own pros/cons. The net result was that neither was better or worse than their counterpart - it was a wash. The only thing that would turn the tides of battle was pilot skill.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:13 PM
- The "myth" of "dispersion increases hit chance = better combat effectiveness", has been revolving around in aircombat sim game forums for so long, that I can't even locate the original source

Galland pushed this idea in the armament of the F-3/4. He had one outfitted with a pair of 20mm cannons in the wings, and stated (paraphrased) that the dispersion allowed by the guns in the wings afforded inexperienced pilots a better chance of scoring hits. [this is taken from JG26 War Diaries ... it may be in "The First and the Last" as well ... don't have the books here].

Has there ever been an answer as to why the LW didn't employ droptanks during the BOB? I believe that they were available by early autumn.

A seperate question: when an aircraft loses a wing (as often happen in FB), how many pilots were/ would be able to successfully bail-out? Getting out of a cork-screwing aircraft seems like it'd be very a hard thing to do.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:21 PM
Gibbage, your spelling is terrible
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Problem with your argument is that no smart pilot in WW2 voluntarily got himself into a dogfight. The trick was to avoid dogfighting. You do that when you have an aircraft with superior performance, which the Emil was.
The 20mm Armament was more efficient than usually stated, especially with the 20mm Minengeschoss.
Don't confuse the Zero with the 109. 109s had the same armament, but they didnt not have to shoot down "Grumman's iron works". And by Pilot's accounts, it was possible to down a Spitfire with MG only. The 2 nose mounted MGs of the 109 are a lot more concentrated than the 8 of the Spit, so if you hit, you will hit him with both, while with the spit, 1 out of 8 MGs might hit at a time.
Generally, the Spit was mostly feared not because of its turn rate, but because of its altitude performance. Spits could climb over 109s and bounce them, but only when they had initial altitude advantage.
Over El Alamein, the Desert Air Force used its few Spits for high-altitude (over 5000 meters) air patrol and tried to bounce free hunting 109s. But that was only possible with initial altitude advantage. If both sides met at the same height, the 109s (it was F-4s versus Mark Vc with Vokes, filter, not exactly the hottest Spit version ever produced) could overclimb them and BnZ just like against Curtisses.
The only Spit version really superior to the contemporary 109s was the Mark IX and upward. These were really œberplanes
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regarding tanks, the very idea of comparing the Tiger with the Sherman is idiotic. The Sherman was a mainstay frontline tank which served everywhere. But it was never planned to make the Tiger a standard tank. A Tiger was a special "Schwerpunkt" weapon which was used by special battalions and never issued to normal tank units.
The standard tanks were Panzer III, IV and Panther.
Against the PIII, the Sherman is superior, and it is still better armored than the IV while the IV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman.
Ok, against the Panther the Sherman has not really a chance either, but keep in mind that a Panther was almost twice as heavy, but still more mobile in rough terrain.
If you want to compare, compare the Sherman to the Panther, a design so advanced it influenced Tank design until the 1980s.


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 09/22/0301:28PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:49 PM
It is interesting to see folks here arguing that the Sherman was superior to the Tiger despite its inferiority to the tiger. Talk about doublethink!

If my army of 10,000 men armed with pointed sticks overwhelm one guy with an assault rifle does it mean the pointed stick is a superior weapon? Hardly. It simply means that my numerical superiority is so overwhelming that quality of arms is irrelevant.

Of course, I could argue that my pointed stick is superior to an AK. After all, it costs nothing, and it'll never jam or run out of ammo...

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:03 PM
In both of these arguments the results are all relative. I think the real testimonial as to which was better, was answered by the participants themselves. In the "Spit-vs-109" debate, all of those interviewed said they preferred the spit (including BoB ace Hans Eckhard Bob!). In the Tiger-vs-Sherman debate, they ALL said they'd rather be in a Tiger.

As soon as the Spitfires got 20mm cannon and fuel injection, they were better...period. That doesn't mean the 109's were crap. Far from it.

They also did a comparison of the Fokker Dr1 to the Sopwith Camel. I'll use their own hypothetical scenario here:

If you took Erich Hartmann and a clone of him and pitted them against each other in a dogfight (one in a Spit, the other in a 109) then the spit driver would "likely" win. One of the keys here is that all good pilots tried to avoid dogfighting (Erich Hartmann included).

It was more a matter of approaching your opponent without him seeing you and shooting him in the back. Then fleeing to safety to prevent the same thing happening to you.

Even modern pilots try to avoid dogfighting because even today they say it's an "E" game and a dogfight is like trolling with an anchor...it just gets you low and slow.




http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:07 PM
Yeah yeah yeah, poxy bl**dy luftwhiners

The 109E was by far superior to the Spit I. After all, just look at the way the Luftwaffe won the BoB and the Wehrmacht rolled into southern England in late 1940......

Next up how Barbarossa was over by Nov 1941 with Hitler sleeping at the Kremlin - OR AT LEAST IT WOULD HAVE DONE IF OLEG HADN'T NERFED THE 190 FM
http://ask-nanny.com/images/p_cry.jpg



8.9/10 (EURO)Troll Rating from USAFHelos

EUROTROLLS PWN


Message Edited on 09/22/0303:07PM by big_lads

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:09 PM
S!
I am not going to argue with the results of the spit vs. 109 those can be debated forever. I will add my thoughts to the tiger vs. sherman debate. Shermans were the U.S. medium tank, the heavier Jumbo version did not apear till later, which had more armour and bigger gun) The wolverine tank killers were there for taking on tigers, as were the Jugs. The tigers were heavy tanks yes, but by time they came around the Whermacht was switching to a defensive roll and slower but heavy armour tanks were a must. Also those special units were highly trained in tactics using the tiger and knew its weakness, speed. So they made sure their butts were protected and always tried to find hull down positions. The turrent was only thing visible and that was then hard to hit.

Some mentioned that numbers were always better against the Tigers, which is theoreticaly true. However after reading a lot on the tigers and the sherman crews, a tiger could take out almost 10 shermans in one engagement before they were reached by the shermans. One tiger ace on east front took out 12 t34's by himself before with drawing to get more ammo. Even the vaunted Is-3 Joesf Stalin tanks were picked off easily by the tigers. Why? better tactics and equipment, electric turrent for tigers while slow, moved faster then manual turrents of the sherman and t34s. As for optics, german versions way better. So were the guns, tigers were engaging shermans and t34s from 1200 m out and killing them, allies had to get within 500m just to shoot the treads out and disable the tiger.

I feel the us army learned a lot on tank design from the tiger an panther series, and modled our tanks on some of those pricipals, good armour, hit from long distance and superior training (with good air support also) can make 1 tank more economical in long run then mass producing inferior tanks with inferior crew ( tho t34 was not inferior to the more numerous mark 3 and four tanks) Germans were trying this and if they had air supeiority, I believe they would have pushed the allies off of France. Lot of If's yes but the Germans had the right idea, just the wrong situation for it. There will always be arguments, but i feel the tiger and king tiger were the best tanks in the late war period in terms of armour, guns and tactics to use them in the roles they were used for.

S!
Watsup

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:30 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:

- I do agree that the 109 had its advantages, and the
- Germans used them to great extend, but only for
- fleeing. Climb, dive, negitive G's. If you read
- accounts of BoB air combat, German pilots used these
- trates TO GET AWAY! Not actual air combat. If a
- Spit got on its tail, he would nose down and dive
- and get away.

Sounds like a P47 here.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:35 PM
It also sounds like 'disengaging at will' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:42 PM
Watsup wrote:
- There will always be
- arguments, but i feel the tiger and king tiger were
- the best tanks in the late war period in terms of
- armour, guns and tactics to use them in the roles
- they were used for.

Definitely. But you don't win the war by having the best tanks. You win the war by having lots of good enough tanks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Equally true for aircraft, of course.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:54 PM
Thunderbolt56 wrote:
- If you took Erich Hartmann and a clone of him and
- pitted them against each other in a dogfight (one in
- a Spit, the other in a 109) then the spit driver
- would "likely" win. One of the keys here is that all
- good pilots tried to avoid dogfighting (Erich
- Hartmann included).


The only advantage Spit had was the turn performance, but it was way to small to prove decisive. Emil had all the other advantages like climb, acceleration, dive and so on. There was no way in which Spit could win, considering pilots with equal experience starting from equal energy states.

Bf-109 is not restricted to BnZ, it is an energy fighter, meaning that first, pilot has to maximize its relative energy state compared with enemy, then, when difference in energy can conpensate the difference in turn rate, attack. The difference in turn performance between Emil and SpitI was very small so it can be compensated very easily.

And anyway Spits for the next 3 following years won't be competitive compared with Bf-109. Next good Spit was MkIX with 1720HP.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:11 PM
I have to take issue with the idea that the .303 cal MG were "just about useless" against He-111s and Ju-88s. If that were the case the RAF wouldn't have shot any down. But they did shoot 'em down and a good number of them. You didn't have to cut through a wing spare to take down one of these planes down. Shooting up one or both engines with those MGs did the job quite well. The .303s could sever fuel lines and oil lines and once that was done it was only a matter of short time before it was going down.

Also, a number of sqadrons began adopting a head on attack against the bombers. Nerve-racking as it was it gave good results with, as the RAF pilots described it, the nose of the bomber "crumpling" under the fire of the 30s. Of course much of the nose of these a/c were plexi. A hail of .303 fire would rip the pilots to pieces. Some RAF pilots described seeing the pilots of the German bombers futily rearing up to try to get out of the way of the bullet stream.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:20 PM
Weather_Man wrote:
- I watched it and don't know how you came to that
- conclusion. Their simulation tests were a draw and
- their opinion was the 109 had a slight overall edge
- because of the 20mm cannon.
-
- Spitfire wins speed by 7mph, but cant dive in
- negative g.
- Spitfire outturns only because 109 pilots were
- afraid to push the limits.
- Spitfire better visibility--wins.
- 109 firepower--overwhelming.
-
- From what I got out of it, they believe the only
- reason the 109 did not win the air battle is because
- of it's limited fuel capacity. They didn't have
- enough time to finish em off before they had to run
- home on fumes.
-

That how took it. The 109 pilots could thank "Fat" Herman for their limited time as he would not let drop tanks be used. The only Factor left then was the quality of the pilots

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9141f290fa1c1c59a2dc382c77af21f3/fb1a8321.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47-30 and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:27 PM
That show was lacking several things. I call BS on that show!

1 vs. 1, 20mm are more effective at killing airplanes. The Spit: however, has eight guns to the pair of 20mm and two Mg's.

Given the fact that it was Spit mk1 vs. 109E: 8x.30 cal is great in fighter vs. fighter combat. The 20mm has less ammo and a slower RoF. High RoF is better in fighter combat.

The Spit was a better plane because it had a better filed of view, a higher top end and was more sturdy. The Negitive G thing is really bad but there are ways to compensate for that.

The other total BS thing about that show was choosing the M4 over a Tiger. Note how ALL the crews would rather have gone to war in a Tiger.

<center>http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/pics/cb.jpg </center>

<center>We are recruiting: www.92ndfg.com</center> (http://www.92ndfg.com</center>)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:32 PM
There hardly could be any debate of what weapon set was superior in BoB era 109vsSpit comparison. By the time of the beginning of WWII almost all parties realized that rifle caliber machineguns are no longer effective weapons. They were sufficient during WWI, but proven less and less worthy its weight during conflicts in Spain and Hankin-Gol.
They were still able to do their jobs only due extremely light (or non-existent) armor of some of the planes of the era. Heavier construction of the planes of the WWII era (compare to WWI ) and elements of pilot's and engine armor and protected fuel tanks made them what pilot's of those times called them - "paint strippers". Not that they could not "kill" the opponent's plane - of course they could, it just there were better/more efficient ways of doing it.

Rifle Caliber Machineguns (6.5-7,92mm) were <u>sufficient</u> for WWI era targets.
Heavy Machineguns (12.7-15mm) <u>enough</u> for fighters or light bombers of the WWII period. They become ineffective at the end of WWII vs. jets with their much sturdier structures and much harder to ignite fuel.
Cannons (20mm-25mm) were ideal weapons against WWII era fighters or light bombers.
Cannons (30mm-40mm) were ideal weapons against WWII era medium and heavy bombers.
There are nothing to debate - this is just to restate the facts.
The placement of those weapons was also extremely important.

By the way - "dispersion myth" is not myth at all - that was a reality pilot's were living then (and now). Yes, chances of hitting were higher with the "spot" or series of overlapping "spots" bullets were covering at a distance, compare to "laser beam" or single large caliber projectile flying, but hitting something does not constitute automatic distraction or even serious damage capable of preventing the opponent with continuation of his mission.


AKA_Bogun

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

- Tom Clancy


Message Edited on 09/22/0311:33AM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:27 PM
Cardinal25 wrote:
- That show was lacking several things. I call BS on
- that show!
-
-- The other total BS thing about that show was
- choosing the M4 over a Tiger. Note how ALL the crews
- would rather have gone to war in a Tiger.


If you read my earlier posts...my words exactlyhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The older planes documentaries from Discover (like the Wings and the ones in which they present the actual line of planes from US, Europe and Russia) were and ARE FAR BETTER in anything, from objectivity to value and corectness.

It's geting worse and worse, History channel looks like a lost cause...they open more and more to "a type of audience"...heck, they need numbers, so they need to diversify and dumb the programs a little...like, compare how Il-2 was and how FB is...in hardnes of flying I mean...



<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:45 PM
I did not see the show, so do not know whether the comparsion involved the earlier Spit I with fixed pitch prop or the later Spit I with the Hamilton VP prop. If the first case, then I agree with Huckebein. If the second case, from what I have read, the Spitfire I had a superior speed and climb rate above about 15000 feet. The 109E4 was better below this altitude and very superior to the Spit at low altitudes due to better supercharger performance. Emil dive performance was advantaged by negative G byn capability, but limited at the other end due to stiff controls at high speed.

I will post what specific data I have tomw.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:47 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- I did not see the show, so do not know whether the
- comparsion involved the earlier Spit I with fixed
- pitch prop or the later Spit I with the Hamilton VP
- prop. If the first case, then I agree with
- Huckebein. If the second case, from what I have
- read, the Spitfire I had a superior speed and climb
- rate above about 15000 feet. The 109E4 was better
- below this altitude and very superior to the Spit at
- low altitudes due to better supercharger
- performance. Emil dive performance was advantaged by
- negative G byn capability, but limited at the other
- end due to stiff controls at high speed.
-
- I will post what specific data I have tomw.


BLUTARSKI, Emil had only the ailerons stiff at high speeds. But Spitfire was even worse.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:17 PM
Bogun,

The USSAC/USAF disagreed about heavy Mg's through Korea and they did pretty well in both WWII and Korea so that "Jets theory" of your does not hold water. Besides, the USAF/AAC is slightly more qualified to make those decisions than you. And no, this is not the same argument.

Heavier shells with a slower RoF are more effective against bombers. No doubt. The .303 rounds were not very good against bombers and were out dated at the beginning of BoB, true. What you are missing is that eight MG's were more than enough to take down early 109's and are better than two 20mm with the light ammo load against fighters. How else do you explain the Luftwaffe loss to the RAF? The German's had more and better trained pilots than the RAF. The British were giving their guys mere hours of flight training and throwing them up against Veteran Luftwaffe pilots and the RAF won. The planes performance was about the same. The one advantage is that the RAF had warning about the raids but the German's were trying to kill the RAF so that isn't really all that much of an advantage.

As far as the History or Discovery Channels tailoring their shows to people, I do not agree. The shows made for those channels are produced by people who have their opinions. They get information from people with individual opinions. The idea that the History channel is a Western propaganda tool is absurd.


<center>http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/pics/cb.jpg </center>

<center>We are recruiting: www.92ndfg.com</center> (http://www.92ndfg.com</center>)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:29 PM
I thought the program concluded it a draw between Emil and Spit Mk1, which is about right. It's a classic case of strengths and weaknesses in different areas in aircraft of broadly the same capability.

As to the armament, Fighter vs Fighter it's pretty close. Stats from the battle of britain reveal that the British fighters were slightly more destructive of German fighters than the other way round, ie the percentage of aircraft actually hit that were destroyed is higher in the British fighters favour, (but an allowance must be made for German fighters crashing en route to base owing to the greater distance they had to fly),which means that the 8x303 armament was at least as effective as the MGFF/7.9mm loadout of the 109E AGAINST FIGHTERS. Against armoured bombers, Cannon is indisputably superior.

MGFF was not as effective as is generally supposed, low rate of fire, low velocity, meant that a fast moving fighter was hard to hit consistently, also the low verlocity shells often detonated on the metal skin of a Spit, peppering it, but leaving vital internal structures intact. Also the long range of the cannon is irrelevant. No respectable fighter pilot opens up at long range, you're only going to waste ammo, and with only six seconds of cannon available to the Emil, they had to get close anyway. Close up, 8x rapid fire 303 is pretty devastating against a light fighter, particularly against the pilot, cooling system, control cables, oil lines, fuel tanks, engine, etc.

So, I'd say it was a draw.

Re turns, The Spit would out turn an Emil, all things being equal, including pilot skill. The reports of Emils out turning Spits seem to stem from a few Veteran LW pilots who were most likely up against Green Spit pilots who didn't fly to the limits. Every account I've read from experienced Spit plots said they out turned Emils with ease.

When The RAF flew comparative trials SPit v 109, they concluded the same.

It was the RAF's tactic to lure 109's down from altitude into a turnfight. Why would they do that if they couldn't out turn them?

Roll rates: Emil was just as bad as Spit 1, if not worse, at high speed roll rates. Concluded by Geoffrey Quill, Supermarine test pilot when he flew a captured Emil. He also flew in the BoB and said, if he'd flown Emil before the battle, he'd have had less respect for it.

Regards, Gibbs

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:46 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Abbuzze wrote:
--
-- Gibbage1 wrote:
--- Also, about the 20MM VS .303's subject.
---
-- some 109 came back with 200 hits /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
--
-
- My point is, they went home. You dont need to kill
- the other pilot or down his aircraft to claim a
- victory.
-

Yes you do Gibbage, otherwise that same pilot and same plane comes back a few days later and kills you.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:50 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:

He also flew in the BoB and said,
- if he'd flown Emil before the battle, he'd have had
- less respect for it.
-



...And probably wouldn't have been around to do the interview. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif




http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:19 PM
The big problem here (and with that show) is the confusion of techinal comparisons (weapon systems) with strategic comparisons (employment of systems). To say that one on one the Tiger is superior to the Sherman, but then to say that the Sherman was a better weapon system because the Germans lost the war is fundamentally flawed. It totally disregards hundreds of factors that enter the equation once you go beyond a purely technical comparison (airpower, other weapons systems, supply, etc.). Same goes for the endurance factor in comparing the Spit to the 109. When the situation was reversed during the "Channel War" of 41-43, Spits faced the exact same disadvantage.

The simplest way to prove how this type of analysis is fundamentally flawed is through a little bit of "what if" conjecture:

1. If Germans flew Spits, and the British flew 109s during the BoB and all other factors remained the same, would the Germans have won?

2. If the Germans employed Sherman tanks, and the Americans Tigers and all other factors remained the same, would Germany have defeated the Normandy invasion?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:29 PM
You know I was really enjoying that show, but when they did the weapons test thats when it lost me. They fired solid shot projectiles from a 20mm at a piece of aluminum to simulate hits from the MG-FF. Now where the hell was the mention of explosive effect????? Even the spit pilots they interviewed mentioned the explosive qualities of the 20mm. That was just BS. I have heard that a single 20mm hit punches a hole fist sized or better. And funny how they never even mentioned roll rates in any of the comparisons. The mig-15 vs. sabre was much better done IMHO.


Kalo

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:02 PM
Personally, I think early Spit's suck!!! I love the Hurri and it's awesome power and turns! If they had put in more lethal armament, I'm sure it would have been all they needed to win the BoB.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>On your six 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:15 PM
kalo456 wrote:
The mig-15 vs. sabre was much better
- done IMHO.

What was the final of that one, I stopped watching it after the poor Spit vs. 109 deal.

<center>http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/pics/cb.jpg </center>

<center>We are recruiting: www.92ndfg.com</center> (http://www.92ndfg.com</center>)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:18 PM
It was actually a big tug of war of performances, each one countering the other


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:22 PM
This is pointless.. I think British won the BoB, because it is simply easier to defend than attack. Also active Radar control had huge impact also. And the fact, that Emisl could stay only 30 min over the target, whereas Spits and Hurricanes could land and refuel quickly, and then get back to air into combat.. Poor numbers favoured LW, but when you consider planes doing 2 sorties in the same time than a single Emil, then the numbers would favour British ;O

____________________________________



Official Sig:



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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:27 PM
Completely agree. The poster ealier who made this point also was spot on. The show, while fun and extremely entertaining, did not provide the proper strategic framework. Individual planes don't win wars, airforces do.

One of the critical factors that impeded the 109s in the BOB, in addition to fuel constraints, was Goering's shackling them to the bombers midway through the conflict.

This robbed the 109s of two critical tactical advantages: (1) Height. In the conflict's early stages the 109s would push to their ceilings and pounce on Spits, who generally had to scramble and climb to altitude to intercept the invaders. (2) Initiative. Adolph Galland comments in several books that in addition to forcing the jagdflieger to be lower and predictable, Goering's insistence that they stick to the bombers sapped LW fighter pilots of an "agressive, hunting" mindset, which they had at the outset of the BOB.

This phenomenon had an eerie echo later in the war. When the USAAF 8th AF changed tactics in late 43/43, they experienced the exact same results but in reverse. Once the strategic mandate changed from "the role of fighters is to protect the bombers..." to the "the role of fighters is to destroy enemy AC" USAAF (and British/Allied) pilots began decimating the LW very rapidly, esentially eliminating the cream of the LW in the period Jan '44 through May '44 and making the Normany Invasion possible.

I loved the show and hope the History Channel does more with this series. It was truly excellent.

S~!

A.K.Davis wrote:
- The big problem here (and with that show) is the
- confusion of techinal comparisons (weapon systems)
- with strategic comparisons (employment of systems).
- To say that one on one the Tiger is superior to the
- Sherman, but then to say that the Sherman was a
- better weapon system because the Germans lost the
- war is fundamentally flawed. It totally disregards
- hundreds of factors that enter the equation once you
- go beyond a purely technical comparison (airpower,
- other weapons systems, supply, etc.). Same goes for
- the endurance factor in comparing the Spit to the
- 109. When the situation was reversed during the
- "Channel War" of 41-43, Spits faced the exact same
- disadvantage.
-
- The simplest way to prove how this type of analysis
- is fundamentally flawed is through a little bit of
- "what if" conjecture:
-
- 1. If Germans flew Spits, and the British flew 109s
- during the BoB and all other factors remained the
- same, would the Germans have won?
-
- 2. If the Germans employed Sherman tanks, and the
- Americans Tigers and all other factors remained the
- same, would Germany have defeated the Normandy
- invasion?
-
---AKD
-
http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg
-

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:22 AM
Following data are taken from FIGHTER COMBAT COMPARISON No.2: Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 versus Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IA, Tacitus Publications, M Rubenstein, 1973. The data were generated by a USAF a/c performance computer modelling program, which I believe was developed by John Boyd during his tenure at the USAF Fighter School, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas NV. This is the same program which demonstrated the combat superiority of Russian fighter aircraft over their US counterparts and was also employed in the conception and design of the F16. That having been said, take the data for whatever you think it is worth.

Aircraft Design Comparison

..................Bf109E-3............Spitfire Mk.IA

Engine............DB601Aa.............R/R Merlin III
Output (t/o).... 1175hp@2480rpm......880hp@3000rpm
..................1020hp@2400rpm......1030hp@3000r pm
..................@14765ft (no ram)...@16250ft (no ram)
Red Gear Ratio....0.53:1..............0.477:1
Ram Recovery......37.5%...............50%
Propeller.........3-blade VDM.........3-blade Rotol
..................constant speed......constant speed
Empty Weight......4189 lbs............4810 lbs
Normal Loaded.....5875 lbs............6200 lbs
Combat Weight.....5479 lbs............5811 lbs
Length............28ft 4.25 in........29ft 11in
Span..............32ft 4.50in.........36ft 10in
Height............8ft 2.33in..........12ft 7.75in
Wing Area.........176.53 sq ft........242 sq ft
Aspect Ratio......5.94................5.61
Wing Loading......31.0 lb/sqft........24.0 lb/sqft
Power Loading.....4.66 lb/hp..........5.64lb/hp
Prof Drag Area....4.975 sq ft.........5.182 sq ft
Max Speed.........355mph@16400ft......362mph@18500ft
Max Climb Rate....3730 ft/min.........3240 ft/min
Range.............410 miles...........575 miles
Service Ceiling...35600 ft............37000 ft


On Wing Loading and Turning Performance -

"On paper, the wing loading of the Spitfire was far less than the Emil. (snip) Except that the Emil had slats. Although the slats reduced the advantage of the Spitfire in turning ability, it didn't eliminate it completely. The difference in wing loading was just too great. But the slats endowed the Messerschmitt with another important charcteristic. They gave the pilot ample stall warning. Spitfire pilots weren't so lucky. If, in combat with the enemy, a Spitfire pilot pulled too tight a maneuver and stalled, he lost all control and became easy pickings for a fighter on his tail. As a result, many top German pilots believed that the Emil could turn inside the Spitfire. This is because they had fought RAF pilots who were afraid to extract the last ounce of turn capability from their mounts. With the slats preventing vicious stall and the wing giving the Luftwaffe pilots ample warning of impending stall, the German pilots could rack the Emil through the tightest possible maneuver."


Powerplants -

The earliest Spitfires, circa Battle of France, with the Watts wooden 2-bladed fixed-pitch propeller, and even the deHavilland 3-bladed two-position propeller, were inferior to the 109E-3 in both climb and ceiling performance. It was not until the Rotol variable-pitch constant speed propeller was fitted that Spitfire was substantially improved.

TheDB601Aa offered a significant improvement in critical altitude, from the 12140 ft of the old DB601A to 14765 ft.

"A cardinal fault of the Bf109E - one which was corrected in the F and G models - was the design of the supercharger air intake. The unit on the Emil was close to the fuselage and ingested the "dirty" boundary layer air which scrubbed along the cowling surface. As a result, the supercharger ram recovery was 37.5% compared with the Spitfire's 50%. The lower ram recovery meant that the critical altitude wsa reached at a lower altitude. Had the later design been used on the Bf109E, as much as 1000 ft may have been gained in ceiling and in best combat altitude. This would have nullified much of the Spitfire's performance advantage at height."

"Another important difference between the Bf109E and the Spitfire Mk.IA lay in the supercharger design. The early Merlin engines were equipped with gear-driven single-speed, single-stage units. The supercharger had to be throttles back at low altitude to avoid over-boosting the engine. As altitude increased, more and more of the supercharger capability was used and engine horsepower continued to increase until critical altitude was reached, after which power fell off rapidly.

The DB601Aa engine, on the other hand, was equipped with a single-stage supercharger with a hydraulic or fluid clutch. While heavier and more complex than the gear-driven clutch, this unit had the capability of operating at an infinite number of speed ratios. This meant that the supercharger could be slowed down without choking it and far more power was delivered at lower altitudes. AS the Bf109 flew higher, an aneroid control causedthe supercharger to run faster to compensate for the decreased density of the air. The variable speed characteristics of this supercharger are obtained through slippage, so it was necessary for the Bf109 cooling system to contain more oil for cooling.

At low levels, the variable-speed supercharger of the DB601Aa allowed some 200 hp more to be delivered to the Bf109. To a great extent, this was the measure of the low altitude superiority of the Messerschmitt fighter."


Armaments -

The Bf109E-3 was equipped with three 20mm Oerlikon MG FF/M (two wing mounted with 60 rpg and one in the prop hub with 200 rpg) plus two 7.9mm Rheinmetall Borsig MG17 in the cowling with 500 rpg. The MG ff/M fired a 115 gram projectile at 350 rpm with a muzzle velocity of 1919 ft/sec. The MG17 fired an 11.6 gram projectile at 1100 rpm with a muzzle velocity of 2600 ft/sec. Total weight of fire for the 109E-3 was 322 lbs/min

The Spitfire Mk.IA was equipped with eight .303 in Browning Mk.II machine guns firing 11.2 gram ball and 11.1 gram AP projectiles at 1350 rpm with a muzzle velocity of 2600 ft/sec. total weight of fire for the Spitfire was 266.7 lbs/min.

"While the Spitfire armament wasvery adequate against the Heinkel and Dornier bombers ... , it proved to be disappointing ... against the Emils. The German fighter's guns outranged those ofthe Spitfire. Its cannon were more lethal ..."


Profile Drag -

"...the equivalent profile drag area of the Bf109E was slightly less than that of the Spitfire Mk.IA. This would lead one to believe that the streamlining ofthe Messerschmitt was better than that of the English fighter. This just wasn't so. The Spitfire was, physically, a larger airplane. It was slightly longer, had a greate wing area, and was deeper. That the drag coefficients were so close could only mean that it was the Spitfire that had the more refined contours.


Energy / Maneuverability -

Maximum Climb Rate...Bf109E-3.........Spitfire Mk.IA
Sea level............3730 ft/min......2900 ft/min
14765 ft.............3300 ft.min......3200 ft/min
16200 ft.............3050 ft/min......3250 ft/min
24000 ft.............1875 ft/min......2150 ft/min
30000 ft.............1000 ft/min......1250 ft/min

Maximum Speed........Bf109E-3.........Spitfire Mk.IA
Sea level............305 mph..........280 mph
5000 ft..............322 mph..........301 mph
10000 ft.............336 mph..........324 mph
15000 ft.............350 mph..........346 mph
16400 ft.............355 mph..........350 mph
18500 ft.............350 mph..........362 mph
20000 ft.............347 mph..........358 mph
25000 ft.............336 mph..........349 mph
30000 ft.............315 mph..........335 mph
35000 ft.............276 mph..........309 mph

Level flight Acceleration -
Sea level............Bf109 superior by +/- 1.5 mph/sec
15000 ft.............practically equal
25000 ft.............Spitfire superior by +/- 0.25 mph/sec

Maneuverability -
At any airspeed, the Spitfire was superior in maximum instantaneous maneuverability, the advantage ranging from about +0.50G at 140 mph up to a full 1.0G or slightly more at 260mph plus.

In terms of maneuverability in the sustained 1G condition, the advantage lay heavily with the Bf109E up to about 18000 ft. Above that altitude, the Spitfire held a modest advantage. In the sustained 2G maneuvering case, the Bf109E was superior up to about 12000 ft, withthe Spitfire superior above that altitude. In the 3G condition, the Bf109E was superior up to about 8,000 ft by my best analysis of the graph.


Conclusions -

"...against the Spitfire, the Emil couldslash and dive away. At the lower altitudes where the Bf109 was unable to dive, it was capable of outperforming the Spit Mk.IA

(snip)

At altitudes of about 20,000 feet or more, the Spitfire could outperform the Emil in everything except the dive. Nor could the Spitfire be intercepted effectively at the higher altitudes, since it owned a speed advantage.

(snip)

British radar prevented the Luftwaffe from jumping the RAF fighter units. Spitfires wer eforced to descend from the upper altitudes which favored them in order to join battle with invading German aircraft at lower - and less favorable - altitudes.

(snip)

Without question, the Bf109E was the better armed aircraft.


I hope this proves useful, interesting, thought provoking, whatever.....



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:34 PM
spit1-9 had poor view as 190,many ally test,

and spit9 is much slower as a4 under 1000m and climb same bad as a4,eric brown test

that means spit9 has many problem againbst p39 and mig3u,yak1b,


because a reason not to model spit9,oleg muss then decrease p39 and mig3u and many other plane.



Message Edited on 09/28/0306:48PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 06:37 PM
I saw an interview withw an RAF pilot who claimed that the spit had very vulnerable wings wich was not to difficult to brake off in sharp turns at high speed. At one point he saw over 200 crashed spitfires. He had never heard of anyone pull anything off from a hurricane.

In another interview a 109 pilot described another 109 breaking up in a tight turn, but it may have been damaged in an earlier sortie over the channel.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:05 PM
I think that from all that I have seen and heard the spitfire was the superior aicraft for a few reasons. The first was its pedigree. It came from a racing machine, so it was bound to be quite fast, hence slight speed advantage and good aerodynamcs for prolonged high turn-rate turns. also most pilots say it is just a dream to fly. It feels like you are part of the plane and that you do not have to think about flying it, you just do. I have never heard this sort of thing said about the '109. could be a decisive factor in staying alive (often mistakenly called "Combat"). Also spit had advantages of Radar, i.e. Could fly direct to enemy and engage for longer.
Just my opinion, might be wrong.

"Every time I learn something new, it pushes some of the old stuff out of my head"
Homer Simpson

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:21 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:

-
- MGFF was not as effective as is generally supposed,
- low rate of fire, low velocity, meant that a fast
- moving fighter was hard to hit consistently, also
- the low verlocity shells often detonated on the
- metal skin of a Spit, peppering it, but leaving
- vital internal structures intact. Also the long
- range of the cannon is irrelevant. No respectable
- fighter pilot opens up at long range, you're only
- going to waste ammo, and with only six seconds of
- cannon available to the Emil, they had to get close
- anyway. Close up, 8x rapid fire 303 is pretty
- devastating against a light fighter, particularly
- against the pilot, cooling system, control cables,
- oil lines, fuel tanks, engine, etc.

Hmm the MGFF HE-bulltes have a muzzle velocity of 570m/s
they are "slow" in relation to others weapons... but 570m/s are 2052km/h or 1275mph when they leave the barrel and you will tell us that this makes the HE bullet.. dropping from the surface?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But you are right when you tell us that you have to go close when you want to score hits, that sure for both 0.303, MG17 or the MGFF

Here some result-picture of the less effective as general supposed MGFF

Distance of the static testshots: 100m
all shots were whitin an area of 15/15cm
Target was the Rudder of a He 111

With an impactfuse without any delay
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/MGFFwoDelay.jpg


And this was fired from the same MGFF with "Zerlegung" a kind of delay-fuse
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/MGFFwDelay.jpg




JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:08 AM
Spudo- Talk about the racing pedigree of the Spitfire? an early specialy modified 109 set a world speed record which lasted for many years. Look it up.
Two factors were the reason for the Germans abandoning BoB due to losses they could not afford. When the English were at a very clear disadvantage they simply didn't go up. The Germans had to fight when and if the R.A.F. were ordered to engage. The British had a wonderful plan of action which took full advantage of their small numbers.
Galland and other German officers wanted an invasion where the R.A.F. would be forced into the air on Luftwaffe terms.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:34 AM
Actually, the record was set by a Pilot named Fritz Wendel.
Date -26 Nov. 1939
Place- Augsberg, Germany
Pilot-Fritz Wendel
Plane-Messerschmitt 209V1
Speed- Slightly over 469 MPH- It was the last piston engine record.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:51 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Yeah,I just watched that. Cool show. Basically,the
- show said the 109 was technically superior, but just
- didn't have the range to fight effectively. I never
- realized the early Spits still used carbuerators. I
- thought that ended with the Hawker Hurricane.
-
- 47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-

What I got out of it is the same thing I have gotten out of reading about the 2 planes. Just like any two combat a\c of the same era they both had their strengths and weaknesses. In the end it was the pilot and which one achieved the element of surprise.

109 pilots used to evade Spitfires by throwing the stick forward causing hard negative G. The Spit would not be able to purse in the same manuever and I believe it was Galland who came up with the idea to only attack Spitfires and Hurris in the vertical instead of a tight turning battle.

P.S The spitfire was maybe the better a\c but WHY do so many people constantly look for ways to discredit the ME-109? Its only glaring deficiancy was the lack of a droptank on the early models but it was a combat aircraft not a long range escort. Hitler decided to abandon the tatical bombings towards the end of B.O.B and throw them all on London...Hitler was a maniac but thats history.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 12:56 AM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- Personally, I think early Spit's suck!!! I love the
- Hurri and it's awesome power and turns! If they had
- put in more lethal armament, I'm sure it would have
- been all they needed to win the BoB.
-
- Boosher-PBNA
-----------------
Boosher the early Spitfires were in every way better than the early Hurricanes save equal armament. It was faster with a sleeker airframe and had a higher service ceiling. I think you have been spoiled by whats modeled in FBhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:35 AM
A little piece out of a real story from my
collection...


A story of a pilot of a spitfire mark I.

Our Spitfir Mark 1 was equiped with a 1030hp
Rolls-Royce Merlin motor, was armed with eight 7,62 mm
Browning mitrailleurs and had a ceiling of about
9750 meter. The bf109E, our most important opponent, had
a higher ceiling and a better armement than as well
the spitfire as the hurricane. The BF109F had a canon
that fired through the nave of the propeller, so that
the pilot had a great advantage that he exactly in his
flight direction could aim and fire. Our spitfires were
better turnable, but with only turnability alone you don`t
win a aircombat and the turning of sharp curves is more
suitable to a defensive than to an offensive tactic.
The superior turnability of the Spitfie could get out
of problems if you saw the enemy in time. When you take
it entirely the Bf109F was some better than the Spitfire
Mark I.

The messerschmitts evaded us as usual by making a half roll and a steep dive.Bader went after them.

Our spitfire Mark VB with his two canons was superior to the
bf109F, but when the formidable FW190 came we had no chance against this fighter.The FW190 was faster, had a higher ceiling and was better armed than the spitfire mark V.

One small detail what took my attention.

The hurricanes occupied the enemy bombers while the spitfires protected the hurricanes.

So this was a small story. I have so much to write.

I think it is a good idea when people asks something that i
will reply with details out of my books, okay?

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:08 PM
kweassa wrote:
- The .303 and 20mms hardly give any comparison at
- all.

Well said. I am rather pro RAF, but it is worth
noting that specifications for a fighter with 50%
greater armament than the 8 gun fighters was issued
pre war by the RAF, leading to experiments with
4 cannon in the Hurricane pre war, and a decision
to fit cannon to the Spitfire taken pre war. The HS
cannon (Hispano II as it became) wasn't quite ready
for a wing mount, hence the response in upgrading
the armament of the Hurricane to 12 guns, and the
12 .303s on the Hawker response to the prewar specification
for a new fighter (Tornado-Typhoon-Tempest series).

Now to be fair, they were looking at requirements
for bomber interceptors, but it does show that
even pre war the RAF were not at all confident about
the abilities of the .303 as a fighter armament.

Ogre's analyses show that firing outside convergence
(i.e. a large spread) isn't very useful for a wing-armed
fighter. With cannon in the wings your ROF is lowered,
and there is a reduced chance to hit (but less of a reduction
than many would imagine) but a single hit is more destructive, so the overall combat effectiveness is
improved.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:10 PM
DeerHunterUK wrote:
- In an interview from the 70's I've got on video with
- Douglas Bader and Robert Stanford Tuck, Douglas
- Bader explained that the standard German evasion
- technique during the Battle of Britain was to push
- the nose into a steep dive as the Spitfire I and
- Hurricane I couldn't do this.He said if he half
- rolled and followed them down the 109 would usually
- be quite a distance away and that's where most RAF
- pilots gave up as it looked like the 109 was getting
- away.He found if he continued pursuing the 109 in a
- dive the 109 pilot would nearly always pull out
- early allowing him to catch up.

Hmmm - Bader should have got reprimanded if he was
following the aircraft in a dive. The reason? He
was supposed to be there to shoot down bombers. In
allowing himself to be lured away by a 109 that
may have been so short on fuel that it would not be
able to reenter the battle, he was not discharging his
duty as he was also taking himself out of the battle.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:19 PM
LilHorse wrote:
- Also, a number of sqadrons began adopting a head
- on attack against the bombers.

This was required because of the relative ineffectiveness
of the .303s. They weren't totally useless, but the
RAF felt that they were relatively ineffective for
a fighter, hence the prewar search for something better.
Attacking from the rear and putting in anything up
to a full load wasn't viable due to defensive fire.
Beam attacks were safer, but the rounds were dispersed
over a wider area with less critical systems than
a head on attack.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:51 PM
Er...no.

The RAF adopted head on attacks because they were very un-nerving for German bomber crews, who felt, and were, very vulnerable huddled together in the cockpit area of the Bombers. The Head-on attack was implemented not only because it offered a good chance of nailing the crew, but because it often broke up bomber formations before they reached their target and rendered the bombers easier to pick off once formation disclipine was disrupted.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:57 PM
Eric Lovell-Cooper, manager from the Spitfire works:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/spitfire.jpg



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 02:25 PM
I did like the bit in the show where the ex 109 pilot sitting in the Spitfire said that the petrol tank in front of the cockpit catching fire would have been worrying to him.So the ex Spit chap sitting in the 109 says "Ok I'm on fire,doesn't matter whether the tank is in front or below-I'm on fire and I've got to get out"
Spoken like a true fighter boy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

and Huck,the Emil is merely businesslike looking at best /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.airplane-world.addr.com/Corgi/aa30701.jpg


No601 County of London Squadron,Tangmere Pilots.
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 02:31 PM
this "legs straight in front" enabled the german pilots to bear more Gs.

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 04:29 PM
TurboPorsas wrote:
- Hmmph sorry to notice but Gib seems to be really
- biased on the subject.



thats not new. he is biased on all subjects /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:08 PM
Nice post, BLUTARSKI.

----

Looking at the BoB you should not forget about the second German fighter model, the Bf 110. For the Hurricane it was a good opponent, for the Spitfire it was a good target. This is what probably made the biggest difference between the two RAF fighter models in the BoB.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:16 PM
JG53Frankyboy wrote:
- this "legs straight in front" enabled the german
- pilots to bear more Gs.

from what I understand Spitfires(not sure about Hurricanes)were fitted with two step rudder pedals for precisely the same reason

http://www.airplane-world.addr.com/Corgi/aa30701.jpg


No601 County of London Squadron,Tangmere Pilots.
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:27 PM
With regard to armament no one mentions the DEWilde incediary bullets used alongside ordinary rounds in the Spitfire, these were more destructive and helped the pilot see the trajectory of his shot.

Tedious unoriginal philoshophical statement the pith of which is lost in repetition.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:33 PM
Re: The armament debate.. the .303s used in the early spitfires were not; aging left-over WW1 vickers,, in fact they were a new design, manufactured by colt..

They were set to converge at 250yards (228 metres) and could do one hell of a lot o' damage.

i.e. a one second burst could deliver around 4.5kgs (10 lbs) of lead to an area of 2ft diameter. Quite a punch.

Cannons weren't always the choice of aces: Douglas Bader always requested an 8x.303 armament his plane.. believing cannons encouraged pilots to open fire too early. His 22 air victories are surely a testament to the effectiveness of the 8 .303s

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:14 AM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- Re: The armament debate.. the .303s used in the
- early spitfires were not; aging left-over WW1
- vickers,, in fact they were a new design,
- manufactured by colt..
-
- They were set to converge at 250yards (228 metres)
- and could do one hell of a lot o' damage.
-
- i.e. a one second burst could deliver around 4.5kgs
- (10 lbs) of lead to an area of 2ft diameter. Quite a
- punch.

This myth of brownings firing only rifle bullets still persists - a typical load-out of 8 machine guns would be 4 with standard bullets - 2 with armour piercing bullets and 2 with De Wilde bullets. The De Wilde incendiary were the best of their type at the time and exploded on impact.

Tedious unoriginal philosophical statement the pith of which is lost in repetition.