PDA

View Full Version : BOB - Spitfire and BF109 similar in performance



Destraex
06-24-2005, 05:42 PM
At the heights that the German Bombers were flying I have read that the spitfire and BF109 marks used at the time were very similar in performance.
THis will be be a very interesting fight indeed!

The Spits engine has the carby problem and poor armament though, on top of that rookie pilots and bad formation tactics.

Looking forward to it though. wonder if WOV2 is worth a go

F19_Olli72
06-24-2005, 05:47 PM
What do you mean? I thought the Boulton Paul Defiant was the best plane of BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

new-fherathras
06-24-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
What do you mean? I thought the Boulton Paul Defiant was the best plane of BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



It is to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Destraex
06-24-2005, 07:26 PM
just started to watch the movie "Piece of Cake" and got a little trigger withdrawal.

Had to post about dem spits.

The movie is missing Hurri's and the spits appear to be MKIXs but apart from that their is some great aerial footage so far - I am an hour in to the 5.5hr movie

VW-IceFire
06-24-2005, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Destraex:
At the heights that the German Bombers were flying I have read that the spitfire and BF109 marks used at the time were very similar in performance.
THis will be be a very interesting fight indeed!

The Spits engine has the carby problem and poor armament though, on top of that rookie pilots and bad formation tactics.

Looking forward to it though. wonder if WOV2 is worth a go
I wrote an essay on the subject of the Battle of Britain (and why the RAF subjectively "won" and the Luftwaffe subjectively "lost"). You're absolutely right, at the end of the day, the Spitfire Mark I and the Bf109E were nearly par for par equal in virtually all aspects.

While the Spitfires 8 .303s weren't as effective as a pair of 20mm cannons (slow muzzle MG-FF) the .303s were easier to aim for rookie pilots that the RAF had. The Spitfire and 109E were considered near equal in turn depending on the situation. 109Es had superior fuel injection engines. Speeds were close. So on and so forth.

Neither of these planes decided the battle but for the first time the Luftwaffe came up against a fighter that one on one was subjectively equal to their own. Previous to that, the 109 was faced with whatever the Polish air force could muster (the P.11 as we've seen is not really a match) and the few Hurricanes and assorted French fighters. Not knocking the French fighters either...the D.520 and a few other types were possibly just as good a contender as the 109E was but they weren't ready, weren't tested, and there was no organized command.

All things considered, the BoB scenario should present the most balanced planeset around.

Destraex
06-24-2005, 09:40 PM
IceFire, have you got it for me to read? I would be interested.

WHat other British aircraft were in the battle of Britain as possibles:

Hurricane I
Spitfire I & II
Bolton Paul Defiant
Fairy Battle - withdrawn

On British fighters a little after the period:
It is also interesting that the Tempest and Typhoon were not used more as fighters.

I mean up engine the Whirlwind also would have been interesting, shame the resources did not exist.

Tachyon1000
06-24-2005, 11:30 PM
Yes, I heard that their performance was in parallel just today on a show on the Military channel. Also of some interest is that it was actually the Hurricane that did most of the flying and killing during the Battle of Britain. The Spit's reputation has as much to do with its actual performance as it has to do with its press.

FritzGryphon
06-24-2005, 11:41 PM
They are actually quite different in individual characteristics. Certainly not similar performance, not even close. Especially with the SpitMKI and 109E.

A better way to put it, is that neither had a particular overall advantage, because both had roughly equal strengths and weaknesses. It is classic case of angles vs. energy fighter. Either one can win, with right tactics.

Nubarus
06-25-2005, 02:53 AM
I watched a show on the Discovery Channel a few days ago where they compared the Spitfire MKI with the Bf109E and several BoB veterans where interviewed as well as a RAF pilot who was placed in the cockpit of a 109 and a LW pilot in the cockpit of a Spitfire.
The LW pilot stated that the Spitfire had better visibility compared to the 109E in all directions.
The BoB Spitfire veterans all stated that the Spitfire MKI had a superiour turn rate, no question about it.
They also said that the stories of 109E pilots who said they out turned Spitfire MKI's in their 109E where flying against inexperienced RAF pilots and that was the only reason.
All the RAF veterans agreed on that and said that the superiour turn rate saved their lives on several occasions.

Also the Spitfire MKI was 11 miles per hour faster then the 109E.

The Spitfire MKI won in the maneuverability and pilot survivability(*) section and the Bf109E in the firepower and performance(**) section.

(*)(The main reason the Spitfire MKI won the pilot survivability section was the narrow landing gear of the 109E that caused a lot of accidents and killed a lot of LW pilots during take-off and landing)

(**)(The main reason the 109E won the performance section was the negative G issue the Spitfire MKI had)

So according to this the planes where matched up pretty good but not because their performance was so closed but their flaws, when exploited by the pilots could win the fight.
So it came down to pilot skill but only when they used tactics to exploit the opponents plane's flaws.

AerialTarget
06-25-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Destraex:
just started to watch the movie "Piece of Cake" and got a little trigger withdrawal.

Had to post about dem spits.

The movie is missing Hurri's and the spits appear to be MKIXs but apart from that their is some great aerial footage so far - I am an hour in to the 5.5hr movie

Say, I've been wondering about that movie. There's no nudity in it, is there?

F19_Olli72
06-25-2005, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Destraex:
IceFire, have you got it for me to read? I would be interested.

WHat other British aircraft were in the battle of Britain as possibles:

Hurricane I
Spitfire I & II
Bolton Paul Defiant
Fairy Battle - withdrawn

On British fighters a little after the period:
It is also interesting that the Tempest and Typhoon were not used more as fighters.

I mean up engine the Whirlwind also would have been interesting, shame the resources did not exist.

You forgot Gloster Gladiator, many think it wasnt used operationally in combat in BoB, but it was. I just think it deserves to be mentioned as the pilots fought against hopeless odds in a cr@p plane.

Notably 247 squadron "China-British" had Gladiators, Coded HP, Operated from St Eval. Though as losses grew unacceptable, they eventually were withdrawn as well.

Ruy Horta
06-25-2005, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:Neither of these planes decided the battle but for the first time the Luftwaffe came up against a fighter that one on one was subjectively equal to their own. Previous to that, the 109 was faced with whatever the Polish air force could muster (the P.11 as we've seen is not really a match) and the few Hurricanes and assorted French fighters. Not knocking the French fighters either...the D.520 and a few other types were possibly just as good a contender as the 109E was but they weren't ready, weren't tested, and there was no organized command.

The first part of your post I can find little fault with, but the second only more so.

By concentrating on the Spitfire, you ignore the fact that it was the Hurricane which was numerically the more important RAF fighter type, and as such responsible for the "subjective" victory.

That same Hurricane had fought over France, side by side with types that were either close and in some cases superior in performance.

You cannot wave off the Western Campaign and the Battle of France because it doesn't fit an easy picture.

The Hurricane was not far superior compared with Curtiss Hawk 75, MB 152, MS 406 and certainly not D 520.

No, if you are really objective than it is a myth that the Luftwaffe first encountered a first rate enemy over the skies of Britain.

Of course the fact that this part history is dominated by the British view through english literature doesn't help to erode the myth.

The french pay the price, their role forgotten, their performance neglected.

I'd even go further to add that a 1940 Western Campaign from the aerial pov would be more interesting as a game than the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain is a static campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to this game...but the campaign will be relatively boring by lack of possible variables.

Unless 1C invests in a more in depth campaign engine (not this quasi static mission scripting stuff), it will be a shallow experience.

Hopping the channel in 1940 a/c will soon ware thin...even in MP.

Nubarus
06-25-2005, 06:20 AM
By concentrating on the Spitfire, you ignore the fact that it was the Hurricane which was numerically the more important RAF fighter type, and as such responsible for the "subjective" victory.

Both planes where important to secure the victory.
The Spitfires tangled with the fighter escorts as much as they could so the Hurries could go after the bombers.
Since the German bombers where the MAIN target during BoB it's pretty obvious why the Hurries played a larger part during BoB.

Without the Spits the Hurries alone would not have been able to get the job done since they are no real match against the Bf109E's flown by experienced pilots.

VW-IceFire
06-25-2005, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:Neither of these planes decided the battle but for the first time the Luftwaffe came up against a fighter that one on one was subjectively equal to their own. Previous to that, the 109 was faced with whatever the Polish air force could muster (the P.11 as we've seen is not really a match) and the few Hurricanes and assorted French fighters. Not knocking the French fighters either...the D.520 and a few other types were possibly just as good a contender as the 109E was but they weren't ready, weren't tested, and there was no organized command.

The first part of your post I can find little fault with, but the second only more so.

By concentrating on the Spitfire, you ignore the fact that it was the Hurricane which was numerically the more important RAF fighter type, and as such responsible for the "subjective" victory.

That same Hurricane had fought over France, side by side with types that were either close and in some cases superior in performance.

You cannot wave off the Western Campaign and the Battle of France because it doesn't fit an easy picture.

The Hurricane was not far superior compared with Curtiss Hawk 75, MB 152, MS 406 and certainly not D 520.

No, if you are really objective than it is a myth that the Luftwaffe first encountered a first rate enemy over the skies of Britain.

Of course the fact that this part history is dominated by the British view through english literature doesn't help to erode the myth.

The french pay the price, their role forgotten, their performance neglected.

I'd even go further to add that a 1940 Western Campaign from the aerial pov would be more interesting as a game than the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain is a static campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to this game...but the campaign will be relatively boring by lack of possible variables.

Unless 1C invests in a more in depth campaign engine (not this quasi static mission scripting stuff), it will be a shallow experience.

Hopping the channel in 1940 a/c will soon ware thin...even in MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry but the topic of the thread was Spitfire VS 109 and I gave a slightly broader overview regarding the top of the fighter foodchain during this time.

I can launch into my entire argument regarding the Battle of Britain and you can be assured that the Spitfire, Hurricane, 109 and any other plane constitutes about a paragraph in total. Gorings follys, German intelligence, the switch to London bombing, Hitlers timetable and lack of interest, Dowding and Park, radar, and all sorts of other things are far more poignant subjects regarding the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire is just a symbol...the Hurricane got the job done but symbols are powerful.

The total difference between the efforts during the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain was determined by two things (in regards to this subject). One, the Spitfire was an equal opponent to the Bf 109. The Hurricane was not...but it was more numerous and had all sorts of benefits to it that ultimately affected the battle. Secondly, the RAF was able to rely on a very sophisticated (for the time) air defense system. One that had been worked on from WWI until 1940. The Luftwaffe never came across either of these things during any of their previous campaigns.

While the D.520 and some of the other French designs had lots of potential, the main frontline squadrons were not equipped with these until the very last and even then in small numbers. Combined with the lack of organized air defense and pre-war tactics (the Luftwaffe was superior in the individual fighter unit tactics till 1941 really as the RAF adapted in some squadrons but not in others) and you have some justification for my statement. Neither the RAF nor the French airforce were first rate over France during the fall of France. I'm not waving it off because it doesn't fit the picture...

Remember the keyword topics here are: Battle of Britain, Spitfire, 109, and Performance.

I did stray off topic and now you've made me stray more. Do we want to launch another thread? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

raaaid
06-25-2005, 04:49 PM
you guys talk about pilots accounts about spits out turning 109, how about the account of an experten as marseille who consistenlly out turned any single spit he faced

i dont think he would say the spit turns better than the 109 but quite the oposite

p1ngu666
06-25-2005, 06:15 PM
yes, the 109 was better in every way, and thats how it constantly went from victory to victory over teh raf
BOB, malta, Dday
at every turn, it was teh best, but somehow it lost and no one knows why!

BOF, the ground forces was where the real decider took place, the front crumbled and so in turn co ordinated air defense of offensive didnt and couldnt happen.

in poland, the mighty p11's where doing very well, there just wasnt enuff of them.

VW-IceFire
06-25-2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you guys talk about pilots accounts about spits out turning 109, how about the account of an experten as marseille who consistenlly out turned any single spit he faced

i dont think he would say the spit turns better than the 109 but quite the oposite
Actually raaid...the division between pilots regarding the turn rates of the Spitfire Mark I and II against the 109E suggest that the two aircraft were so close that there was nothing in it - the conclusion put forward by most history books on the subject suggest that pilot skill was the overriding factor between the Spitfire and 109 of this timeperiod.

The Spitfire was regarded as "easier to turn" while the 109 was more difficult. An ace 109 pilot was more likely to continue riding the edge past the deployment of the leading edge slats while a new pilot was most likely to backoff.

As they say, the difference between the 109 and the Spitfire, is that with the Spitfire "Any idiot can fly one." (to quote a RAF veteran) That was the key advantage when you had RAF pilots flying into battle with 9 hours of flight experience.

JG27_Tanker
06-25-2005, 08:21 PM
May I add the BF 109 had just about 15 minutes over South England to escort their Bombers over target and after that they had to return to base or ditch in the channel.

Hendley
06-25-2005, 08:39 PM
I'm not sure where the revisionist talk about relative turning circles comes from--German pilot accounts?--but I always assumed the superior turning circle of the Spit was pretty much established (not denying that the 109 had advantages in other areas).

http://www.japan-translation.com/misc/turningCircles.jpg

Credit: The Most Dangerous Enemy, Stephen Bungay

Destraex
06-25-2005, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Yes, I heard that their performance was in parallel just today on a show on the Military channel. Also of some interest is that it was actually the Hurricane that did most of the flying and killing during the Battle of Britain. The Spit's reputation has as much to do with its actual performance as it has to do with its press.

What I would want to know is if the Hurri's (bless their cotton socks) were assigned to kill bombers and the spits cover the hurris, thus the high hurri kill ratio during the battle of Britain

EDIT: looks like this has already been answered. But still like to know whether Hurris were specifically put up to tangle with 109s and 110s or they were relegated to anti-Bomber only roles throughout BOB

Hendley
06-25-2005, 09:54 PM
In general, Fighter Command preferred to send Hurris against bombers and Spits against the fighters, but circumstances often dictated that this was impossible. In those situations, they had no hesitation in sending Hurris against the Luftwaffe fighters.

FritzGryphon
06-25-2005, 10:08 PM
Look at historical data, or even just IL-2 compare.

Sustained (continuous flat-out level) turn at 1000m for 109E, 24 seconds. For SpitMkI, 16 seconds. Hurricane, 19 seconds.

Factor in relative control heaviness, and 109 is even worse.

But, 109 was faster, particularly in dive, and didn't have the carb thingy. This is why you might hear they are a fair match.

Hurricane was at least prefered to attack bombers because it didn't perform as well as the Spit, in pretty much all characteristics. Slower, worse climb, worse turn, etc. Against bombers, these deficencies didn't matter as much, and it was very successful; hence the kill ratio.

Jester_159th
06-25-2005, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you guys talk about pilots accounts about spits out turning 109, how about the account of an experten as marseille who consistenlly out turned any single spit he faced

i dont think he would say the spit turns better than the 109 but quite the oposite


And if I remember correctly, you're also the one that like to insist the world is flat and other such lunacy on these forums!!

The Spit could and did out-turn the 109. The thing a Spit could not do was follow a 109 into a dive. The Spit was also faster than the 109.

In fact, if as you suggest the 109 was the better fighter why would a Luftwaffe pilot (a certain Adolf Galland...[sarcasm on]You might have heard of him [sarcasm off]), when asked by Goering what they needed to win the battle, answer "Spitfires!"

As to the roles of Spitfires and Hurricanes during the battle:

Hurris were mainly tasked with going after the bombers, not so much because they were inferior to the Spits, but because they were steadier gun platforms, could sustain more damage and (being of the partly fabric covered construction) were easier to repair. Spits mainly went after the escorts because they were faster than 109's and more manuverable than the Hurricane. However, considering the difference in stregnth between the Luftwaffe and Fighter Command, it's very likely that Hurricanes often found themselves taking on the 109's as well.

If the 109 had had a longer endurance over England, the Hurricane pilots could have had a very rough time of it.

p1ngu666
06-26-2005, 08:00 AM
hurri aprently shot down more aircraft than any other in teh BOB.

109's had problems with high speed dive pullout, hurri could follow (after rolling into dive, not nose down) and "cuting" the turn, could get the 109.

the spitfire was better once the speed increased in the dive, at very high speeds it was one of the best divers for all of ww2.

speed and climb rate would probably vary with altitude, aprently spit was faster on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hurri turned better, was easier to fly and more stable than spitfire, and the guns where grouped so more effective.

spits escortin hurri's is mostly untrue, fighter command would send up the same type of fighters if possible because they perform the same, helps with the organisation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also germans where always shot down or had close fights with spitfires, never hurricanes. partly because they feared the spitfire, and partly because they didnt want to get shot down by a hurri http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

in norway a he111 was shot down by what the crew thought was a spitfire.
it was a skua i think, radial engine, 2-3 seat dive bomber fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EPP_Gibbs
06-26-2005, 06:33 PM
If you balance up all the performance characteristics you get a pretty even match between the Bf109E and Spitfire Mk1, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Spitfire MkII is a different matter, with better high alt performance than the Mk1 which is where the 109 was noticeably superior to the Mk1. As Steinhilper said of the MkII "we could barely keep up".

It is a myth to say that the Hurri took damage better. Statistically more pilots survived being hit in Spits than in Hurris

It is true to say that in 1940 the 8x.303 was less effective than 20mm cannon...but only against armoured bombers. Against fighters, ie 109 & 110 the 8 x.303 infact destroyed a greater percentage of fighters they hit than did the Me's guns. You have to factor in the extra flying required for the LW to regain their base and therefore the extra losses due to ditching/crashlanding, but even given that the stats for BoB show the .303 to be at least as effective as the 109's armament at knocking down fighters. Many argue that the cannon has longer range..therefore it's better. I don't see that at all. As we all know, no self respecting fighter pilot opens up at long range. The chances of hits, and their lethality, are much reduced and with only 6 seconds of 20mm ammo on board, no 109 pilot any good was going to spray and pray with it. Another problem with the Low velocity/low fire rate MGFF against the Spit was that many of the shells would explode on the metal skin of the Spit and damaging that but fail to penetrate and damage vital internal structures, whereas the same shells would penetrate the fabric of the Hurris and then explode inside causing far more damage. It's one of the reason Spits had better survivability than the Hurri, contrary to myth.

As to the inferior Hurricane...much depends on the violinist. The top scoring unit on either side during the BoB was......RAF 303(Polish)Sqn, with a 14:1 kill to loss ratio flying..yup..Hurricanes. Also, in France No.1 Sqn RAF managed to shoot down 155 enemy aircraft for the loss of 3 pilots killed, 2 wounded, and one POW. 114 of those kills came during 10 days of the blizkrieg. They also flew Hurris.

p1ngu666
06-26-2005, 08:08 PM
with fabric there is a chance the round will go though the plane and do nothing but make a couple of holes.

its 15 (i think) seconds of 303 vs 6 of 20mm, and a enterity of 7mm from twins on a 109.

so for 6-7 seconds teh 109 is better in weight of firepower, but 7 to 15 spit or hurri is better, then 109 is better cos it has some ammo left.

8x 20 (rof of 303) is 160, which is a impressive number
109 is 60 then 40 (ish) at a guess

WTE_Target
06-26-2005, 08:18 PM
------------------------------------------------
In fact, if as you suggest the 109 was the better fighter why would a Luftwaffe pilot (a certain Adolf Galland...[sarcasm on]You might have heard of him [sarcasm off]), when asked by Goering what they needed to win the battle, answer "Spitfires!"
------------------------------------------------
In response to this statement by Galland I think you will find that he was making a point to the fact that the altitude he was being forced to fight, was taking place at a height more suited to the Spitfire, more so than the Bf-109E and was made in frustration to the edict that the fighters had to stay low and slow with the bombers instead of a more roving / hunting role.

As has been stated repeatedly the planes were very equal with the 109 having a decided altitude edge and the Spitfire an edge in ease of turn.

I know people will argue that the 109 with Marseilles at the stick could out turn a Spit, I can only answer this to the fact that whilst circulating at Eastern Creek raceway on my high powered superbike a certain Australian Gp rider flew past me in a corner on some thing offering way less performance ,was it his bike or his ability that let him overtake me.
Compareing Marseille with the average RAF pilot is a little unfair I am sure Schumacher would clean up at the local go-kart track aswell.
Getting back to the planes in question I think that as has been stated the Spit was more forgiving than the 109 and thus the 'avg' pilot could get more turn performance out of her.

The biggest advantage the Spit has over the 109 is simple ....vision out of the cockpit.Galland mentions it numerous times ,infact he complained so much that he eventually got his wish with a modification of the hood in the later models to try and address the imbalance of the Spitfires superior visibility.

Thats my 2 cents worth

Jester_159th
06-27-2005, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Target:
------------------------------------------------
In fact, if as you suggest the 109 was the better fighter why would a Luftwaffe pilot (a certain Adolf Galland...[sarcasm on]You might have heard of him [sarcasm off]), when asked by Goering what they needed to win the battle, answer "Spitfires!"
------------------------------------------------
In response to this statement by Galland I think you will find that he was making a point to the fact that the altitude he was being forced to fight, was taking place at a height more suited to the Spitfire, more so than the Bf-109E and was made in frustration to the edict that the fighters had to stay low and slow with the bombers instead of a more roving / hunting role....


Bombers, although admittedly slow, didn't fly low. All Luftwaffe fighter pilots were frustrated that they were tied to the bombers since this caused them to use more fuel and reduced still further their effective endurance over Britain.

The 109's invariably flew at least 1000ft higher than the bombers and used the height advantage over RAF fighters attacking the bombers.

As it is, if you look at the post I replied to, you'll notice I was using the Galland quote mainly to make a point.

Salfordian
06-27-2005, 08:45 AM
In terms of kills, hurricanes did score more than all other defenses put together,

type - No. Sqns - Kills - Kills/Unit
Hurricane - 35 - 1516 2/5 - 43 1/3
Spitfire - 19 - 1188 - 62 1/2
Blenheim - 9 - 26 - 2 8/9
Defiant - 2 - 22 - 11

From the figures though the spitfire could be argued as being more effective on an individual unit basis, with an average of 62 kills per sqn, compared to 43 per sqn for the hurricane.

Not trying to cause any arguments, just thought the figures were interesting.

(info from http://www.battle-of-britain.com/ fair enough it's a website so I can't guarantee the accuracy)

raaaid
06-27-2005, 11:49 AM
Look at historical data, or even just IL-2 compare.

Sustained (continuous flat-out level) turn at 1000m for 109E, 24 seconds. For SpitMkI, 16 seconds. Hurricane, 19 seconds.

Factor in relative control heaviness, and 109 is even worse.

But, 109 was faster, particularly in dive, and didn't have the carb thingy. This is why you might hear they are a fair match.

Hurricane was at least prefered to attack bombers because it didn't perform as well as the Spit, in pretty much all characteristics. Slower, worse climb, worse turn

Look at historical data, or even just IL-2 compare.

Sustained (continuous flat-out level) turn at 1000m for 109E, 24 seconds. For SpitMkI, 16 seconds. Hurricane, 19 seconds.

Factor in relative control heaviness, and 109 is even worse.

But, 109 was faster, particularly in dive, and didn't have the carb thingy. This is why you might hear they are a fair match.

Hurricane was at least prefered to attack bombers because it didn't perform as well as the Spit, in pretty much all characteristics. Slower, worse climb, worse turn

hurricane turning worse than the spits?

thats why you cant trust historical charts

spits were much easier to pilot and thats why galland said that

i dont mind about the accounts of 5 kills fighters im talking about real experts like marseille who always outperform spits on the turning and hurris on the speed which he faced

two times he would even enter a turning defence of spits outturning avery single plane

by the way im not saying the earth is flat i only say you cant prove it wrong because you cant even define what straight is

VW-IceFire
06-27-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Salfordian:
In terms of kills, hurricanes did score more than all other defenses put together,

type - No. Sqns - Kills - Kills/Unit
Hurricane - 35 - 1516 2/5 - 43 1/3
Spitfire - 19 - 1188 - 62 1/2
Blenheim - 9 - 26 - 2 8/9
Defiant - 2 - 22 - 11

From the figures though the spitfire could be argued as being more effective on an individual unit basis, with an average of 62 kills per sqn, compared to 43 per sqn for the hurricane.

Not trying to cause any arguments, just thought the figures were interesting.

(info from http://www.battle-of-britain.com/ fair enough it's a website so I can't guarantee the accuracy)
You've hit the nail on the head.

Between Spitfires and Hurricanes the Hurricanes had a higher loss rate but were also more involved numerically and shot down more aircraft.

Its undeniable that the Spitfire and Hurricane share the Battle of Britain prestige as two very worthy fighters against the best that the world had to offer at the time which was the 109E. All very impressive machines, all performed very well, and all were close to each other in their performance.

stathem
06-27-2005, 01:35 PM
Erm, Marsielle mostly tangled with Tomahawks and Hurricanes. The Spits he did fight in NA were the poorest performing Spit of the War - the Vc with the Volks filter - and he was in a Friedrich. Very few of his kills were Spits.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he'd met Screwball Buerling.

DeerHunterUK
06-27-2005, 01:56 PM
This is for those of you who are interested about the 109's performance in a dive against Spits and Hurris during the BoB.
On video I have a Spitfire documentary filmed in the early 70s. In it is an interview with 2 of the great British aces, Douglas Bader and Robert Stanford Tuck. They explained that they could catch a 109 which had entered a dive by performing a Split-S (everyone knows that) and following the 109 down. Now the 109 is faster in a dive, however what Tuck and Bader both said was that the 109 pilots would pull out of a dive way too early giving the Spit\Hurri pilot the chance to catch up and score hits. They reckoned that an ace pilot had managed to rip the wings off of a 109 by trying to pull out too sharply in a high speed dive and word had gotten round the Luftwaffe squadrons and thus pilots were warned to be careful in a dive. Whether it's true or not I can't say but it is interesting none the less.

WTE_Target
06-27-2005, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Jester_159th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Target:
------------------------------------------------
In fact, if as you suggest the 109 was the better fighter why would a Luftwaffe pilot (a certain Adolf Galland...[sarcasm on]You might have heard of him [sarcasm off]), when asked by Goering what they needed to win the battle, answer "Spitfires!"
------------------------------------------------
In response to this statement by Galland I think you will find that he was making a point to the fact that the altitude he was being forced to fight, was taking place at a height more suited to the Spitfire, more so than the Bf-109E and was made in frustration to the edict that the fighters had to stay low and slow with the bombers instead of a more roving / hunting role....


Bombers, although admittedly slow, didn't fly low. All Luftwaffe fighter pilots were frustrated that they were tied to the bombers since this caused them to use more fuel and reduced still further their effective endurance over Britain.

The 109's invariably flew at least 1000ft higher than the bombers and used the height advantage over RAF fighters attacking the bombers.

As it is, if you look at the post I replied to, you'll notice I was using the Galland quote mainly to make a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jester the point I was trying to make is that the bombers were coming over England at about 12000-15000 ft and the Spitfire (and to a lesser extent Hurricane) could match or even exceed the 109 at that altitude .The 109 was superior to the allied fighters above 20000ft .The bombers travelled at a pace far slower than the fighters could thus being tied by command to the bomber made them relatively "Low and Slow" to the speed and height that the fighter jocks wanted to fly.

I was not disagreeing with you it is just that this quote is often miss used to claim the Spit was superior to the Bf-109 and it is often used out of context.

The German pilots were being forced to fly tactics that made them the hunted not the hunters and in frustration Galland made the comment.Not I believe as a claim the Spit was a better fighter.
Dowding himself was quoted as saying if the fight had been above 20000 ft they prob would have lost.

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by DeerHunterUK:
This is for those of you who are interested about the 109's performance in a dive against Spits and Hurris during the BoB.
On video I have a Spitfire documentary filmed in the early 70s. In it is an interview with 2 of the great British aces, Douglas Bader and Robert Stanford Tuck. They explained that they could catch a 109 which had entered a dive by performing a Split-S (everyone knows that) and following the 109 down. Now the 109 is faster in a dive, however what Tuck and Bader both said was that the 109 pilots would pull out of a dive way too early giving the Spit\Hurri pilot the chance to catch up and score hits. They reckoned that an ace pilot had managed to rip the wings off of a 109 by trying to pull out too sharply in a high speed dive and word had gotten round the Luftwaffe squadrons and thus pilots were warned to be careful in a dive. Whether it's true or not I can't say but it is interesting none the less.

there would also be the stiff elivator to cope with too..

blakduk
06-27-2005, 10:07 PM
VW-IceFire "The total difference between the efforts during the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain was determined by two things (in regards to this subject). One, the Spitfire was an equal opponent to the Bf 109. The Hurricane was not...but it was more numerous and had all sorts of benefits to it that ultimately affected the battle. Secondly, the RAF was able to rely on a very sophisticated (for the time) air defense system. One that had been worked on from WWI until 1940. The Luftwaffe never came across either of these things during any of their previous campaigns.

While the D.520 and some of the other French designs had lots of potential, the main frontline squadrons were not equipped with these until the very last and even then in small numbers. Combined with the lack of organized air defense and pre-war tactics (the Luftwaffe was superior in the individual fighter unit tactics till 1941 really as the RAF adapted in some squadrons but not in others) and you have some justification for my statement. Neither the RAF nor the French airforce were first rate over France during the fall of France. I'm not waving it off because it doesn't fit the picture..."

Well stated!
The only reason Britain didnt fall was due to the English Channel. The vermacht wasnt able to overrun the airfields and destroy the British infrastructure as they had on the continent.
The French forces were sizeable and competently equipped, but they were completely chaotic using the wrong strategy and tactics (similar story with the French army, especially the tanks. The German blitzkrieg overran them and never allowed them the opportunity to regroup- fortunately the British were able to retreat to their island and the lessons they'd learned on the continent proved invaluable in the BOB.
The list of changes made to aircraft after hostilities commenced were astounding- during the Battle of France Hurricanes were very poorly armoured (most were modified in the field), most had wooden propellors (let alone variable pitch), the carburettors were incapable of operating in negative G (this wasnt properly overcome until after BOB), and very few had properly functioning RT. The lessons learned regarding tactics were even more remarkable- they eventually adopted the formations the Germans had developed in the Spanish civil war (not as general RAF policy until after BOB but most units adopted them on their own initiative).
By the time of the BOB the hurricane was a very different aircraft to the one used by the BEF in France- but its development was just about complete. The potential really rested with the Spitfire- it continued to excell as the short range air-defence fighter it was envisioned to be.
The BF109 was overextended in the BOB and had to disengage after 15minutes of fighting over Britain- a huge disadvantage.
The key to victory for Britain was that it didnt lose control of its airspace, it always retained the ability to put up a formidable defence. It wasnt impregnable but it remained effective.

Abbuzze
06-28-2005, 02:55 AM
Speedcomparison between Spit and 109E.

If I remember correct some LW-Aces like Galland stated that the 109 was the faster plane by around 20 km/h. Even if this is unlike the official data, which were maybe a bit optimistic...


Will take a look into books to find a quote.

Peachy9
06-28-2005, 05:58 AM
I agree an even match but look at the statistics for the Hurricane as well!


Hurricanes shot down 54% of all Bf 109s lost in Battle of Britain

On Average Hurricanes made up 61% of Fighter Command's strength (no more as some believe)

The Hurricane had a good deal of success against the Bf 109E - shooting down some 272 of them from July to October 1940. Compared to the Spitfires tally of 219. Given the ratio of Hurricanes to Spitfires it is clear that the hurricane had almost as much success against the 109 as the Spitfire. Even though tactics may have indicated that Spitfires should take on the fighters it is clear from the figures that in the heat of battle Hurricanes tangled with 109s as much as Spitfires.

It is clear that tactics, radar and fighter control played an even bigger part than aircraft performace 1 to 1.


Interestingly Me 109s shot down some 180 Spitfires and 153 Hurricanes, the vast majority of British fighters falling to the defensive guns of the Bomber formations some 600+. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

To give the Bf 109 its due the larger number of 109 losses are invariably due to the fact that damaged aircraft could often not make it back over the channel unlike the British fighters that could crash land and be recovered.

VW-IceFire
06-28-2005, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Erm, Marsielle mostly tangled with Tomahawks and Hurricanes. The Spits he did fight in NA were the poorest performing Spit of the War - the Vc with the Volks filter - and he was in a Friedrich. Very few of his kills were Spits.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he'd met Screwball Buerling.
Thank you! That certainly puts things into a much greater context.

Thank you raaid for totally getting the context, battle and locations wrong. I'm not very surprised.

So I went and did a little research on this fellow. Here's a good website: http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/marse/marse.htm

Mostly flew Bf 109Fs in Africa against Hurricanes and Spitfires there. Performance of the desert Spits and Hurricanes were much lower than their BoB equivalents with the hastily designed tropical filter which was only solved much later on. No wonder he was easily out turning them.

The site makes special mention that this fellow would often throttle down to attack (unconventional for Luftwaffe pilots) and use flaps to gain better turns on the enemy. Not to mention the Bf109F was much better in nearly ever way over the 109E used in BoB.

Although he did fly in the Battle of Britain, he was victim to enemy fighters 4 times and shot down 7. He was good but obviously wasn't completely dominating the opposition.

*sigh*

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-28-2005, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Although he did fly in the Battle of Britain, he was victim to enemy fighters 4 times and shot down 7. He was good but obviously wasn't completely dominating the opposition.

*sigh*


That could be one of the things that made him so tough in such a short period of time. He was said to have a meticulous mind and would "study" his (and others') tactics as a leisure activity. The fact he was beaten a few times and learned from his mistakes (he practically WAS untouchable and DID dominate his opposition in later engagements) oftentimes makes me wonder just how good he could have been.

In his biography, he had an engagement with what turned out to be a British ace and was shaken enough to sit in his cockpit after landing for almost 30 minutes in a cold sweat...the other pilot was flying a Hurricane.


TB

p1ngu666
06-28-2005, 11:12 AM
thingy with 352kills or whatever was the same too?

maybe something clicks in there heads and there suddenly really good. we get that sometimes where we can do no wrong in games, and then somedays u cant do anything right..

stathem
06-28-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Although he did fly in the Battle of Britain, he was victim to enemy fighters 4 times and shot down 7. He was good but obviously wasn't completely dominating the opposition.

*sigh*


That could be one of the things that made him so tough in such a short period of time. He was said to have a meticulous mind and would "study" his (and others') tactics as a leisure activity. The fact he was beaten a few times and learned from his mistakes (he practically WAS untouchable and DID dominate his opposition in later engagements) oftentimes makes me wonder just how good he could have been.

In his biography, he had an engagement with what turned out to be a British ace and was shaken enough to sit in his cockpit after landing for almost 30 minutes in a cold sweat...the other pilot was flying a Hurricane.


TB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed TB, I believe he put a lot of work in on his arrvial in NA. Supreme natural ability coupled with application and hard work is always what sets apart the absolute cream in any field from the merely great; the Senna or Schumacher from the Prost or Hunt.

With regard to the BoB, everyone seems to be forgetting that the Hurricane, with its thick wing, was a very poor performer over 20,000' - this is probably the origin of the reported statement from Dowding, since the Hurricanes DID do the bulk of the hard, dirty work.

Thus it must be clear that without the Spitfire, and the fear of the Spitfire, the 109's could have operated with complete imunity over 20,000', and would have inflicted even greater losses on the Hurricanes and probably won the Battle. Of course Hurris would still have made kills, since they could be very effective up close and personal when flown with skill and aggresion, but remember the major competitor to the Spit was... the B-P Defiant.

As regards performance, I have it that the Spit I was superior in speed below 5,000' and above 15,000' to the E-3. Someone will probably disagree but it's about right. Additionally, ignoring engine performance, the Spit is superior in terms of lift at high altitude, and had a superlative (for the time) climb rate.

Gunner_361st
06-28-2005, 12:53 PM
How does anyone know what Adolf Galland really meant when he made his infamous "Spitfires!" comment to Goering's question?

Did anyone ever actually ask the man what he meant by that statement before he died?

I see people make claims that because the Me-109 E and the Spitfire were so close in performance as according to tests and testimony that he MUST have meant it was only the poor tactical desicion the german fighters had to keep a close escort so they could be bounced from superior altitude all day long.

That isn't necessarily the case, and you can't prove it either unless the man was asked that and answered the question. As other people have noted, quoting an RAF veteran who said "Any idiot could fly a Spitfire" is... EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Ease of use when flying very dangerous and 'hot' military aircraft is a testament to excellent design. Considering the air was fought by hundreds of thousands of pilots, not just a small group of the talented aces who make up some speculate less than 1% of all pilots in World War II, technological advantages, especially ease of use, was a HUGE advantage when looking at the situation in a broad, strategic sense.

My two cents, anyway. ~S~

361st TeaWagon AKA Gunner

hop2002
06-28-2005, 12:54 PM
While the Spitfires 8 .303s weren't as effective as a pair of 20mm cannons (slow muzzle MG-FF) the .303s were easier to aim for rookie pilots that the RAF had.


Keep in mind that about 40% of the 109s in the Battle of Britain were E-1s, armed only with 4 machine guns, and no cannon.

stathem
06-28-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
How does anyone know what Adolf Galland really meant when he made his infamous "Spitfires!" comment to Goering's question?

Did anyone ever actually ask the man what he meant by that statement before he died?


361st TeaWagon AKA Gunner

Yeah, they did. I'll try to dig it out.

BSS_Vidar
06-28-2005, 01:25 PM
The Spits and 109's during the Battle of Brittan were very evenly matched. The Spit had a tighter turn radious, but couldn't do neg G push-overs due to a carborator engine. The Germans had tactics to use that against them, but the Brits knew not to get in a situation where a neg G push-over was the only way out. i.e. Executing Slashing dives, instead of pushing over.

The 109s had fuel injection, but terrible legs.

Speeds were about the same.

The ammo is an interesting issue. Round per round, German ammo was superior; however, the Spitfire's MG's sent so much ammo down range in such a short time, it was completly devistaing on a 109's airframe and engine. The two armaments virtualy equaled each other out... Strenght vs rate of fire.

stathem
06-28-2005, 01:35 PM
When BoB comes out, if they model coolant systems, Oxygen systems and ammo storage - the 8 brownings will be a real killer.

Sharkey888
06-28-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
the Spitfire's MG's sent so much ammo down range in such a short time, it was completly devistaing on a 109's airframe and engine.


Originally posted by stathem:
When BoB comes out, if they model coolant systems, Oxygen systems and ammo storage - the 8 brownings will be a real killer.

Also think of the trip back across the Channel in your damaged 109. You'd be alot less heroic about taking damage and staying to fight.

Gunner_361st
06-28-2005, 02:32 PM
Thanks stathem,hope you find his answer.

Yeah, they certainly will. And if the BOB development evolves into different theaters and times, the same beneficial effect will be seen with the Browning .50 caliber machine guns as well. Right now as in FB because of the lack of damage model for these systems, LMGs and HMGs are at a disadvantage to cannons with their HE shells.

I'm sure FW-190 pilots will loathe to think what it will be like when .50 cal API rounds can punch through their wings and detonate the ammuntition stores for their wing cannons.

361st TeaWagon AKA Gunner

Tvrdi
06-28-2005, 05:32 PM
somethin about weapons of two:

"With its armament of eight 7,7mm (0.303) machine guns, the Spitfire MkI had less "hitting power" than the BF109E with its two cannon and two machine guns. Cannon were trialled on the MkIb but frequently jammed in combat"

"Much of the success of the SPitfire was due to its thin and gracefully tapered wing."

"The narrow track of the main undercarriage made for tricky ground handling and led to many accidents. This was also true of the BF109."

"Early trials with MarkI Spifires proved disappointing. Rigidly mounted in the MS.406, the cannon had worked well, but if fired from the wing of a Spitfire pulling g during a maneuvre, the natural flexure of the wing caused the weapons to misfeed and jam. A number of engineering changes were introduced during the summer of 1940., solving the problem and alowing Supermarine to produce the Spitfire MkIIB."

"although more poerfull (stronger engine) the Spit MkII represented a little advance structurally over the MkI. MkIII was the first major step forwards in Spitfire evolution"


"Hurricane, outnumbered the Spitfire by three to two in Fighter Command,...and without Hurri the RAF would have been unable to defend the British Isles in the summer of 1940."


"On 15 August, due to superb management of resources, skill and gallantry by the RAF pilots, the German attacks were blunted. Hurricane pilots destroyed more enemy aircraft than all other defences combined (other RAF fighters, AA guns and baloons), by ratio of more than three to two"


It seams that Hurri and Spits worked well in combination...and with concentrated force (early RADAR!) they were in advance....specially if we know that Emils had only 15-20 mins over England (due to fuel limit) for dogfight and with knowledge that they must stay low and slow because of their bombers...not to mention that stupid nazi political leadership ordered attacks on the cities just when LW weakened RAF with constant bombing of their bases.....anyway I think it would be very interesting to play BoB...good pick by Oleg...

EPP_Gibbs
06-28-2005, 06:11 PM
Two things..

The Hurricane actually had a smaller turning radius than the Spitfire but it was slower, with worse climb and more vulnerable to being set on fire. Its lower rate of climb could well have contributed to the number of successful bounces by enemy fighters as they struggled for Altitude. Also 109's could engage Hurris knowing they'd have a good chance of getting away at will. If the 109's decided to stay and mix it and there was a general dogfight, the Hurri gave as good as it got. Forget not that there were many Hurricane Aces and that the Poles were devastating in them.

Galland did say what he is quoted as saying, but it must be viewed within the context of the discussion at the time which had been a bollocking by Goering about the fighters not defending the bombers sufficiently well, and passing on the KG's requests for close escort. What Galland meant was...for that job he'd like a squadron of Spitfires because he saw it as more suited to that role as a defensive fighter, with it's superior manoeuverability particularly at low speeds.

He knew the 109 was best used as a fast free-hunter, bouncing victims in one pass and away. Once slow they were vulnerable.

That was from his book, 'The First and the Last'

WTE_Target
06-28-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
How does anyone know what Adolf Galland really meant when he made his infamous "Spitfires!" comment to Goering's question?

Did anyone ever actually ask the man what he meant by that statement before he died?

I see people make claims that because the Me-109 E and the Spitfire were so close in performance as according to tests and testimony that he MUST have meant it was only the poor tactical desicion the german fighters had to keep a close escort so they could be bounced from superior altitude all day long.

That isn't necessarily the case, and you can't prove it either unless the man was asked that and answered the question. As other people have noted, quoting an RAF veteran who said "Any idiot could fly a Spitfire" is... EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Ease of use when flying very dangerous and 'hot' military aircraft is a testament to excellent design. Considering the air was fought by hundreds of thousands of pilots, not just a small group of the talented aces who make up some speculate less than 1% of all pilots in World War II, technological advantages, especially ease of use, was a HUGE advantage when looking at the situation in a broad, strategic sense.

My two cents, anyway. ~S~

361st TeaWagon AKA Gunner
Short of going to a clarvoiant I suggest you read his book First and last where he talks about the comment and puts it into perspective.

blakduk
06-28-2005, 07:41 PM
EPP_Gibbs- you beat me to it regarding Galland's clarification of that famous comment re wanting a squadron of Spitfires. It was widely reported soon after he made it (interesting how gossip can travel despite paranoia of spies) and used by the Brits as evidence of the superiority of their equipment. Any experienced pilot knew it was bollocks and that the machines were too closely matched in performance for either to claim clear superiority.
The problems the Germans were facing was the unacceptable losses of their bomber forces and the bold predictions Goering had made re forcing a surrender on the British by the end of the summer of 1940. The 109's were making a good record of destroying RAF fighters but they were not stopping bomber losses, thus the change in tactics to close support. Goering seems to have had the perception that the LW fighters were more interested in personal tallies rather than the less glamorous job of protecting the bombers- Galland's reputation as a flamboyant ace didnt help his cause much.
Thankfully the Germans didnt have an accurate picture at the time of how desperate the RAF situation was becoming and the changes came just in time for their reprieve.
Further frustration came in the following weeks resulting in the switch to civilian rather than RAF targets.
It has to remembered too that at that time in history it was widely believed that civilian populations were extremely vulnerable to strategic bombing and that infrastructure would totally collapse after repeated bombing. It was only after ww2 when critical review was made of the enormous resources spent on strategic bombing by the allies that the resilience of civilian populations was realised.

stathem
06-29-2005, 04:10 AM
From 'The First and the Last'

"Finally, (Goering) asked us what were the requirements for our squadrons. Molders asked for...more powerful engines. The request was granted.

"And you?" Goering turned to me.

I did not hesitate long. "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group, Herr Reischmarschall."

After blurting this out, I had rather a shock for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally, I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed by the lack of understanding and stubborness with which the High Command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely...

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


I thought I'd seen a more in-depth treatment of this than Galland gives here; perhaps I was dreaming. I thought I'd seen him indicate even more clearly that he was just erm, 'having a laugh" with the notably jocular Reichsmarschall. He is the only source for this statement. It was made on the 19th August, and should be taken in the context that Goering had just previously at this meeting been berating the Jagdwaffe Kommodoren for not protecting the bombers well enough. I think that Galland's Jg26 had the best record of protecting the bombers under his auspice so he had every right to be frustrated with Goering.

It's often taken to mean that the Spitfire would have made a better close escort, given it's slight superiority in a close in co-E dogfight. The standard 109 defensive tactic of running screaming for the deck like a little girl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif isn't the best for protecting your bombers.

Of as much interest is Molders request for more power; that would indicate to me that they were struggling slighty to hold their own with the Spits, or at least needed a much greater power advantage to regain the intiative.

hop2002
06-29-2005, 07:02 AM
It's commonly claimed Galland asked for Spitfires because they were better at the close escort the German pilots were being forced to do.

But the truth is Goering was not insisting on close escort. From his orders issued 19th August:

"In the actual conduct of operations, commanders of fighter units must be given as free a hand as possible. Only part of the fighters are to be employed as direct escorts to our bombers. The aim must be to employ the strongest possible fighter forces on free-lance operations, in which they can indirectly protect the bombers, and at the same time come to grips under favourable conditions with the enemy fighters."

Just like a lot of German generals blame all their failings on Hitler, so do a lot of Luftwaffe pilots blame all their's on Goering.

Vipez-
06-29-2005, 07:44 AM
Ah, classic duel between British Spit-fans vs ME-fans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That is why I had preferred for No BoB, and Keep Oleg on the eastern front, where the forgotten battles lies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Imagine the whine, when Spit I can't outturn our Fiat CR 42s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nevertheless, I'm Sure BoB will be interesting. I wouldn't think Spit Is replacing 109Es as Bomber escorts would have not changed a thing. Why? Simply because it was the lack of range, that stopped the germans from winning the BoB.. And Spit I did not have better range, than 109E http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Personally, i am probably going to choose the 109E, it takes slightly more patience to fly more effectivily, and ability to outdive from your opponents is important. Will be interesting to see, how Bob is going to model multiplayer.. we might fly over the channel, but everytime rtb:ing from the british isles can prove to be rather boring.. and only 10 min time to fight with combat power in the 109E. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Does anyone have real perfomance numbers for Spit I perfomance, and 109E-3 ? And maybe for 109E-4/N vs Spit MK2 ? And don't give me the captured 109E3 vs Spit test, it is kinda biased towards spit.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

m_williams
06-29-2005, 08:02 AM
Spitfire I versus Me 109 E Performance Comparison:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

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

JG7_Rall
06-29-2005, 09:11 AM
I'm just hoping that 20,000 ft in BoB doesn't look like outer space, like it does in IL2

vanjast
06-29-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
I'm just hoping that 20,000 ft in BoB doesn't look like outer space, like it does in IL2

You can still fly at 7500m without too much problem...maybe it is outer-space ??

Tvrdi
06-29-2005, 01:32 PM
more about weapons:

It was during the Battle of Britain that the RAF was able to test its first few cannon-armed Spits. Great thing were expected, but when No. 19 Sqn went into action in august 1940. the weapons performance was abysmal. During combat on 16 August, both cannon-functioned properly on only one out of theseven spits that engaged the enemy. On 19 August - none out of three, on 24 August it was two out of eight, and on 31 August it was three out of six.....Because of these initial problems with the Hispano cannon, during the BoB the Spits and Hurrries had to fight with a weapon that was inadequate aginst multi-engined bombers (There are several well-documented instances in which German bombers regained friendly territory after taking more than 100 hits from 0.303-in (7.7mm) ammunition).. The survivability of German bombers was much enhanced by the self-sealing fuel tanks....Durimg the summer and autumn of 1940., work to cure the failings of the Spitfires cannon installation continued at the highest priority. Only near the end of 1940., too late to play a major part in BoB, were the problems finally eradicated.....Yet even the cannon did work properly then, another problem remained - the 60-round magazine fitted to each Hispano weapon contained sufficient ammunition for only five seconds firing....

Emil and his probs: The lack of range had been one of the main disadvantages of the Bf109 during the French campaign, and would further embarrass the LW over England, limiting combat time to just a few minutes (15-20mins).... When they introduced the tanks - they were in practice prone to terrible leaks and suspected of a tendency to ignite....Since Bf110s were cut to ribbons, BF109s were switched from its fighter sweep role to close escort around the beginning of September, immediately denying the tactical freedoms enjoyed by Me pilots during the opening weeks of the battle...With its limited range, the BF109 could reach no further than London, while combat over southern coast od England could rarely be maintained for more than 20 mins at most.....Tied closely to the bombers, the BF109s could be easily out-turned by both Spits and Hurries, and instead of being the hunters who struck at large formations in slashing manoeuvres from altitude, the German aircraft found themselves hunted....Of course the Bf109 was still a most feared opponent, especially in the hands of experienced pilot...Apart from its performance characteristics and experienced pilots, a key tage enjojed by the Bf109E was the 20-mm MGFF cannon, which proved to be devastating against the British fighters......

31 October is recognised as the last day of the BoB..since July the LW had lost 610 Bfs, while RAF FC lost 631 Hurricanes and 403 Spitfires....



BTW, m_williams...you trust them? i mean..site is SPITFIREPERFORMANCE.COM.....hehe...I dont trust them (its enough to read the URL)

Corsair9
06-29-2005, 04:56 PM
What happened to Marseille when he met a Spitfire pilot that knew how to fly?

"The battle continuted. Marseille once again demonstrated his entire reqertoire of aerobatic talent unmatched by anyone else. The Spitfire which attempted to shoot him down suddenly became the hunted quarry. Marseille's weapons spat out their fatal venom and at 1659 hrs the second Spitfire fell mortally wounded. Then Marseille saw a third Spitfire coming at him. This was a foe which demanded all he could muster. The way this opponent attacked clearly indicated that here was an expert. He matched Marseille step for step, opening fire upon the German again adn again. Marseille was only able to escape being hit by making the neck-breaking maneuvers he was so famous for. They curved and twisted around one another, racing at full speed toward each other, waiting until the last millisecond before firing and breaking off. The dogfight took the two eagles to within 100 meters of the desert floor. Curving and turning, the two pilots paralleled each other equally matched.

The red light came on and Marseille knew that he only had 15 minutes' worth of fuel left. He must now end the duel as quickly as possible or not be able to return to base. An additional eleven minutes passed, with neither opponent showing any sign of weakening. Several times both German and Brit had only escaped by a hair's breadth. Suddenly, Marseille turned directly into the evening sun. The Spitfire followed and presented Marseille with his opportunity. As the enemy became caught in the sun's bright rays, Marseille suddenly whipped his plane around, executed a roll and found himself heading toward an enemy only 100 meters away.

Both his machine guns and his cannon belched lead. The brust cut through the Spitfire and the engein immediately caught fire. A wing seqarated and the Spitfire plunged into the ground. The Pilot, a brave and warthy opponent, was not able to escape in time.

...

When Yellow 14 landed in Quotaifiya, Marseille didn't waggle in advance. He let the aircraft roll out to the dispersal area. As he climbed out, his two crewmen were horrified. They had never seen their Jochen looking like this. He appeared to be a ghost of their Staffelkapitan. Trembling hands grabbed for a cigarette which Meyer passed to him. HE too one, two deep drags. His face looked like that of an old man.

He went to the flight debriefing in a trance. There he confessed: "a materful adversary: Never before had an enemy fought like he did. I don't know how things will turn out next time."

... Hans-Joachim Marseille - 1994, Frank Kurowski

In short - he crapped in his pants!

It doesn't look to me like he was able to out-turn a Spit pilot who know what he was doing.

MLudner
06-29-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Corsair9:
What happened to Marseille when he met a Spitfire pilot that knew how to fly?

"The battle continuted. Marseille once again demonstrated his entire reqertoire of aerobatic talent unmatched by anyone else. The Spitfire which attempted to shoot him down suddenly became the hunted quarry. Marseille's weapons spat out their fatal venom and at 1659 hrs the second Spitfire fell mortally wounded. Then Marseille saw a third Spitfire coming at him. This was a foe which demanded all he could muster. The way this opponent attacked clearly indicated that here was an expert. He matched Marseille step for step, opening fire upon the German again adn again. Marseille was only able to escape being hit by making the neck-breaking maneuvers he was so famous for. They curved and twisted around one another, racing at full speed toward each other, waiting until the last millisecond before firing and breaking off. The dogfight took the two eagles to within 100 meters of the desert floor. Curving and turning, the two pilots paralleled each other equally matched.

The red light came on and Marseille knew that he only had 15 minutes' worth of fuel left. He must now end the duel as quickly as possible or not be able to return to base. An additional eleven minutes passed, with neither opponent showing any sign of weakening. Several times both German and Brit had only escaped by a hair's breadth. Suddenly, Marseille turned directly into the evening sun. The Spitfire followed and presented Marseille with his opportunity. As the enemy became caught in the sun's bright rays, Marseille suddenly whipped his plane around, executed a roll and found himself heading toward an enemy only 100 meters away.

Both his machine guns and his cannon belched lead. The brust cut through the Spitfire and the engein immediately caught fire. A wing seqarated and the Spitfire plunged into the ground. The Pilot, a brave and warthy opponent, was not able to escape in time.

...

When Yellow 14 landed in Quotaifiya, Marseille didn't waggle in advance. He let the aircraft roll out to the dispersal area. As he climbed out, his two crewmen were horrified. They had never seen their Jochen looking like this. He appeared to be a ghost of their Staffelkapitan. Trembling hands grabbed for a cigarette which Meyer passed to him. HE too one, two deep drags. His face looked like that of an old man.

He went to the flight debriefing in a trance. There he confessed: "a materful adversary: Never before had an enemy fought like he did. I don't know how things will turn out next time."

... Hans-Joachim Marseille - 1994, Frank Kurowski

In short - he crapped in his pants!

It doesn't look to me like he was able to out-turn a Spit pilot who know what he was doing.

Ultimately, it's the pilot, not the ship. The 109 could slightly out-turn a Spit BUT: You had to an absolute expert as it required pulling the 109 past the safe limits of airframe stress; One mistake and pieces - wings, for example - tend to come off.
Also, you had to be strong. The 109 had no hydraulic assist in the controls and when making tight turns jagdflieger often had to pull the stick with both hands.
During the Battle of Britain the 109 does have a painful advantage due to the Spit's carburated engine, but a good Spit pilot can still overcome that hitch in his get along.

WTE_Target
06-29-2005, 09:26 PM
Guys something that amazes me on link on spitfire performance v 109 is the British pilots apprasal of the destructive fire power of the 8 .303 in his combat report.
I beleive he states the destructive power of all those bullets are an awsome sight or some such comment.
I know we are taking about a pilot form 1940,but can you imagine his report after getting hits with the Hispano's.

I think if BoB is modeled correctly then the 8 .303's will be able to do alot of damage to machinery components ,ie:glycol\oil etc. on a sigle seat fighter like the 109.
What you guys think?

Corsair9
06-29-2005, 10:15 PM
Yeah, there are lots of pilot reports about the 8 x .303s in close.

One pilot said, "...you had to see it to believe it" when he caught a 109 in close with 8 x .303s.

People tend to forget that aircraft were made of aluminium, not steel. You may not kill the pilot (although many were Germans were killed in their seat by .303s), but the aircraft will be destroyed and they won't make it back to base.

Most flight sims, including this one, do not model aircraft damage properly so you see almost no effect from the .303s. In fact, this sim doesn't even model .50 cal damage.

I can't see a Battle of Britain simulation working well at all with this software. But it would be interesting to see what comes out.

No3 Spit
06-29-2005, 10:19 PM
Seems no one mentioned Range as a factor. Yet it is historically one of major contributing factors in deciding the BOB.

I have interviewed a surviving 109 pilot at great length, his accounts compare directly to the accounts of survivng RAF pilots, who often saw 109's for fleeting moments before they pushed their noses over and headed for France. Oskar was glued to his fuel gauge, the further North they went the less thought they had for fighting.

"To the guy with 109 could out turn the Spitfire statement"....LOL very funny indeed mate.. you must be an FM designer right! and Marseille as well... lot of pilots in the Desert were still flying around after he claimed to have shot them down!

Badsight.
06-29-2005, 11:26 PM
imagine if when the Maddox Games BoB comes out & we can turn with spitfires using the E2 & E3 Bf-109

imagine the howls

(no way was the Emil with those wings ever going to produce the same lift the Spitfire did , no way)

wasnt the E3 the last Emil in the BoB & that the E4 got released just after the BoB operations were scaled back ?

Hendley
06-30-2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
BTW, m_williams...you trust them? i mean..site is SPITFIREPERFORMANCE.COM.....hehe...I dont trust them (its enough to read the URL)

The URL simply says, in a completely neutral manner, that the site is about Spitfire performance. You should probably actually view the material there before passing judgment.

Anyways, it seems that some folk just don't get that the Spit turned better than the 109. This is such a part of the record I can't believe it needs to be discussed.

These quotes are compiled from the Spitfire performance site (credit not mine. Sent by PM, copied here w/ permission.):

Pilot‚‚ā¨ôs Accounts

Jeffrey Quill , 65 Squadron: I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights

F/Lt Al Deere (NZ), 54 Squadron: My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear... Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces.

P/O D. Hastings, 74 Squadron: I found that with full throttle and 2800 revs. I did a steep climbing turn to starboard which easily out-turned the M.E. 109.

F/O William Nelson,74 Squadron: While climbing and turning I saw 6 M.E. 109's at 28,000 feet who obviously did not see me, they were circling widely so I climbed onto the last E/A. I was sighted and they started turning steeply, I easily out-turned them.

S/P Andrew McDowall 602 Squadron: In my opinion Me 109's cannot hit Spitfires in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside you in stern attack.

Sgt B. Douthwaite, of 72 Squadron: I then turned to port and attacked an Me 109 who was turning steeply to port. I could easily out turn him and fired until he broke away in a steep left hand dive.

F/S George Unwin, 19 Squadron: I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling...

F/Lt J. W. Villa, 72 Squadron: I was then attacked by five other ME 109. I did a steep turn to starboard and continued to turn until I out turned one ME 109 which was on my tail.

Geoffrey Wellum 92 Squadron: With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

P/O George Bennions, 41 Squadron: I immediately went into a steep right hand climbing turn at full throttle. The ME 109 tried to follow but after about 2 turns he fell out of the turn completely stalled, and I turned down on his tail.

P/O Colin Gray, 54 Squadron: The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience.

F/O Hugh Dundas, 616 Squadron: In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane.

Adolf Galland: I tried to tell him otherwise, replying that the Spitfire was better able to reduce speed, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at low speeds.

Heinz Knoke: The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them.

Oberleutnant Gerhard Sch√¬∂pfel, III./JG 26: the British fighters could turn tighter than we could.

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

raaaid
06-30-2005, 01:05 AM
that stuff is propaganda to show how much better the english engineering is than the german

get it on the german engineers were better

the 109 is much more difficult to pilot what gives the advantage to the spit otherelse they are very closely matched, being the 109 slightly superior because of a better design

thats the neutral historical point of view that the spits were easier to turn not that they turned better

of course i know many people wants a bob game to play lets smash the nazis with their crappy planes, but the true is that german engineering was and is better than english engineering

raaaid
06-30-2005, 01:06 AM
heres a link that says exactly the oposite than yours why yours should be more beliavable:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

Hendley
06-30-2005, 01:26 AM
Raaid, read your own link. The evidence he presents strongly implies the Spit was a better turner.

On second thoughts, never mind...

*withdraws in panic at the prospect of actually engaging in an argument with raaaid*

Tvrdi
06-30-2005, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Hendley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
BTW, m_williams...you trust them? i mean..site is SPITFIREPERFORMANCE.COM.....hehe...I dont trust them (its enough to read the URL)

The URL simply says, in a completely neutral manner, that the site is about Spitfire performance. You should probably actually view the material there before passing judgment.

Anyways, it seems that some folk just don't get that the Spit turned better than the 109. This is such a part of the record I can't believe it needs to be discussed.

These quotes are compiled from the Spitfire performance site (credit not mine. Sent by PM, copied here w/ permission.):

Pilot‚‚ā¨ôs Accounts

Jeffrey Quill , 65 Squadron: I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights

F/Lt Al Deere (NZ), 54 Squadron: My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear... Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces.

P/O D. Hastings, 74 Squadron: I found that with full throttle and 2800 revs. I did a steep climbing turn to starboard which easily out-turned the M.E. 109.

F/O William Nelson,74 Squadron: While climbing and turning I saw 6 M.E. 109's at 28,000 feet who obviously did not see me, they were circling widely so I climbed onto the last E/A. I was sighted and they started turning steeply, I easily out-turned them.

S/P Andrew McDowall 602 Squadron: In my opinion Me 109's cannot hit Spitfires in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside you in stern attack.

Sgt B. Douthwaite, of 72 Squadron: I then turned to port and attacked an Me 109 who was turning steeply to port. I could easily out turn him and fired until he broke away in a steep left hand dive.

F/S George Unwin, 19 Squadron: I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling...

F/Lt J. W. Villa, 72 Squadron: I was then attacked by five other ME 109. I did a steep turn to starboard and continued to turn until I out turned one ME 109 which was on my tail.

Geoffrey Wellum 92 Squadron: With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

P/O George Bennions, 41 Squadron: I immediately went into a steep right hand climbing turn at full throttle. The ME 109 tried to follow but after about 2 turns he fell out of the turn completely stalled, and I turned down on his tail.

P/O Colin Gray, 54 Squadron: The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience.

F/O Hugh Dundas, 616 Squadron: In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane.

Adolf Galland: I tried to tell him otherwise, replying that the Spitfire was better able to reduce speed, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at low speeds.

Heinz Knoke: The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them.

Oberleutnant Gerhard Sch√¬∂pfel, III./JG 26: the British fighters could turn tighter than we could.

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hendley, i think both planes were better in turns in specific situations, but yes, in general Spit MkI was slightly better in turning than Bf109E......on the other hand, Emil was better in acc dive (at some point of diving they were almost equal)...also their max speeds were very similar....although Spits MkIs had that carburator problem....and spitsMkIs weapons were weaker than those mounted in Emil (read carefuly my post above which I took from the docs)...anyway, IMO in BoB (and i hope in 1Cs BoB) the winner was more experienced pilot who knew how to bring out the best from his fighter (not to mention that in general both fighters were similar in performance).....so BoB should be a big fun for us..anyway as usually ill be flyin for both sides.....more fun for me hehe

Peachy9
06-30-2005, 02:33 AM
Raaid
Just looking for someone to bite!

Well here goes.

Dont Rolls Royce own Daimler Benz aero engines, Dont Rolls Royce own allison, dont Rolls Royce engines power many modern aircraft and ships internationally?

British engineering may not have been so **** if it had had 5 years of slave labour to assist in its development programmes and then have to pay its huge war debts incurred in helping to save the world from dictatorship!

Get a life.

Badsight.
06-30-2005, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
heres a link that says exactly the oposite than yours why yours should be more beliavable:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm
are you kidding ?

that site is full of it

as in BS

WTE_Target
06-30-2005, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Peachy9:
Raaid
Just looking for someone to bite!

Well here goes.

Dont Rolls Royce own Daimler Benz aero engines, Dont Rolls Royce own allison, dont Rolls Royce engines power many modern aircraft and ships internationally?

British engineering may not have been so **** if it had had 5 years of slave labour to assist in its development programmes and then have to pay its huge war debts incurred in helping to save the world from dictatorship!

Get a life.
Lmao
you just couldn't resist hehe.I am glad it was you because I started to then thought better of it .lol

Badsight.
06-30-2005, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
...anyway, IMO in BoB (and i hope in 1Cs BoB) the winner was more experienced pilot who knew how to bring out the best from his fighter but if they decided to do constant level turns the loser would more than likely be the Messerschmitt pilot

because they couldnt turn with Spitfires equally

as in worse

trying to say otherwise is REVISING history

Tvrdi
06-30-2005, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
...anyway, IMO in BoB (and i hope in 1Cs BoB) the winner was more experienced pilot who knew how to bring out the best from his fighter but if they decided to do constant level turns the loser would more than likely be the Messerschmitt pilot

because they couldnt turn with Spitfires equally

as in worse

trying to say otherwise is REVISING history </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


and you think that experienced Emil pilot would allow that..to be dragged into constant level turns?? or should i ask you -Do you believe that Spit pilot would follow his enemy into constant climb or harsh dive? think...thats why I think noobs would be wiped from the sky in full reall coops/dogs in BoB....njam!

btw, you found yurself like a true historian and a true expert regarding BF and Spit performance in BoB??

RAF74_Vostok
06-30-2005, 07:41 AM
You know you aren't a Luftwhiner unless you believe every German plane was superior to its opposition (if only slightly, still want the enemy to have a sporting chance!), and every variant, sub-variant and mod was perfectly fitted to the exact role that it was precisely needed to fill.

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 09:52 AM
hm, guess raid knows nothing about napier then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gunner_361st
06-30-2005, 11:46 AM
Don't you love it, gentlemen?

For the sake of continuing this hilarious argument, lets say the testimony from all of these respected and experienced German and British pilots is just a bunch of bull**** that is inherently false.

Now, lets be "objective" and look at the scientific, statistical, numerical evidence. Comparing the Spitfire I's wing to the Messerschmitt's, you kind of notice a few things that stand out.

First, the Spitfire's wing is four feet longer.

Second, the Spitfire's wing has rounded wingtips, while the Me-109E's are squared off.

Third, the Spitfire's wing area is about 65 square feet larger.

Loaded weight and horsepower of the two types are very comparable, thus powerloading being very close as well.

The Spitfire has a considerably longer and larger wing as compared to its weight than the Messerschmitt. What does that mean? That means a lot more lift, and a lot more lift means turning a tighter circle.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can all nod and finally agree, like any sane human being would, that dozens and dozens of British and German pilots all agreed on the same analysis of the Spitfire vs. the Me-109E, it being that the Spitfire could not only turn tighter but the vibration when approaching stall gave warning of it, while the Messerschmitts didn't have that.

Can we talk about something more important now that is actually debateable? Thanks. :-)

361st TeaWagon / Gunner

Ruy Horta
06-30-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Vostok:
You know you aren't a Luftwhiner unless you believe every German plane was superior to its opposition (if only slightly, still want the enemy to have a sporting chance!), and every variant, sub-variant and mod was perfectly fitted to the exact role that it was precisely needed to fill.

Just curious, but what would you call the opposite side of that coin?

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF74_Vostok:
You know you aren't a Luftwhiner unless you believe every German plane was superior to its opposition (if only slightly, still want the enemy to have a sporting chance!), and every variant, sub-variant and mod was perfectly fitted to the exact role that it was precisely needed to fill.

Just curious, but what would you call the opposite side of that coin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

allied whiner, or amiwhiner for american planes for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gunner_361st
06-30-2005, 12:52 PM
Paul, you bastard! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where the hell have you been? I haven't seen you on Messenger or on Hyperlobby in a long time. Nice to see you again, even if I do have to dreg through another Ubi-whine thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_Target
06-30-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Don't you love it, gentlemen?

For the sake of continuing this hilarious argument, lets say the testimony from all of these respected and experienced German and British pilots is just a bunch of bull**** that is inherently false.

Now, lets be "objective" and look at the scientific, statistical, numerical evidence. Comparing the Spitfire I's wing to the Messerschmitt's, you kind of notice a few things that stand out.

First, the Spitfire's wing is four feet longer.

Second, the Spitfire's wing has rounded wingtips, while the Me-109E's are squared off.

Third, the Spitfire's wing area is about 65 square feet larger.

Loaded weight and horsepower of the two types are very comparable, thus powerloading being very close as well.

The Spitfire has a considerably longer and larger wing as compared to its weight than the Messerschmitt. What does that mean? That means a lot more lift, and a lot more lift means turning a tighter circle.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can all nod and finally agree, like any sane human being would, that dozens and dozens of British and German pilots all agreed on the same analysis of the Spitfire vs. the Me-109E, it being that the Spitfire could not only turn tighter but the vibration when approaching stall gave warning of it, while the Messerschmitts didn't have that.

Can we talk about something more important now that is actually debateable? Thanks. :-)

361st TeaWagon / Gunner
Hey Gunner dont try and baffle us with statistics we dont want facts here, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
As has already been stated these are just propaganda to hide the fact that the 109 could out turn the Gladiator out dive the Jug and carry a larger payload then the Lancaster.
Any so called facts to the contrary are just plain propaganda.
Now lets get onto a real subject we can debate,Can a Bf 109k really be modeled so poor in its rate of climb vs a F-15.I have facts that prove that.....................;P

Xiolablu3
06-30-2005, 08:43 PM
Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:

My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The
engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to
fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention.
I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and
lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would
not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not
fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster
especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109.
In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.
For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed
than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy
fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages.
The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The
cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that
in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50
metres, it was necessary to close in to short range. 83
G√ľnther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected
on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:
The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great
lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On
the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the
fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were
still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I
didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear
visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't
have it. 84

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup:

"the ME-109 was superior in the attack and
not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a
little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered
the famous passage to G√¬∂ring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my
Squadron". 85

Xiolablu3
06-30-2005, 08:51 PM
Hugh Dundas thought the antagonists to be evenly matched:

There is no doubt, that Goering and his commanders overrated the effectiveness
of their fighters in relation to our own. In fact the Messerschmitt 109 and
the Spitfire were extraordinarily evenly matched. Their duel for supremacy
lasted thoughout the war, as each plane was constantly improved and given
increased power and performance. At times the Germans, by rushing out a new
version before our own next improvement was ready, would get one jump ahead.
At other times the advantage would be to the RAF. But on balance the Spitfire
was, I believe, slightly the better aircraft. And so it was in 1940. In
particular, such advantages as it enjoyed over the ME 109 at the time were
enhanced by the circumstances of the battle. 93

The Spitfire I had reached maturity by the outset of the Battle of Britain and
began to be replaced by the Spitfire II in August. This improved varient first
entered service with No. 611 Squadron, 94 eventually equipping over a third of
the Spitfire squadrons by the end of the Battle. Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper
of III/JG 52 flew a Me 109 E-1, armed with 4 MG 17 machine guns, until 15

September 1940, whereupon he received a cannon equipped Me 109 E-4. 95 A month
later he wrote home:

The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can
hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new
engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12
October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against
one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was
shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was
no alternative but to get the hell out of it. 96

It seems that both had their pros and cons, personally I'd rather have been in a Spit with 8x303's at that time, not a lot of use against bombers but much better vs fighters (in real life NOT in Il2)

RAF74_Vostok
06-30-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF74_Vostok:
You know you aren't a Luftwhiner unless you believe every German plane was superior to its opposition (if only slightly, still want the enemy to have a sporting chance!), and every variant, sub-variant and mod was perfectly fitted to the exact role that it was precisely needed to fill.

Just curious, but what would you call the opposite side of that coin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not every coin has two sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's like in modern American politics, when the loud mouthed, utterly slanted Conservative chatterboxes on radio proclaim "all media to be biased towards liberals", when the claim is just to distract and confuse, and assert everyone is as blatently lopsided as they are themselves.

Every nation has its fanboys, and it's club of "our planes were the mostest and the bestest", because many love their country and it's history - but there is a certain 'hero worship' regarding the exploits and technical achievements of the Luftwaffe that crosses national boundries; and sometimes people whom have studied every possible paint scheme (even if they were often nothing more than the results of a couple of aircrew grunts given a paintbrush and a couple of standard issue paint buckets and told to "paint"), to every possible variant and characteristic, drown in statistics and information. This depth of knowledge is admirable but sometimes misleading. It's hard to see the forest from the trees.

Ruy Horta
07-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Vostok:Not every coin has two sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Your reply is as illogical as its explanation.

Nah, I am not buying any of this bull...

FritzGryphon
07-02-2005, 10:57 AM
Bah, must every thread turn into a flame war of red vs blue?

Spit has better sustained turn. 109 has better speed and VNE.

Spit shoots more bullets that do less damage each. 109 shoots less bullets that do more damage each.

Though opposite in most respects, both planes are equally good. Depending on situation and pilots, both can win equally.

Unless you play against me, then I win. But I will fly both planes, so it evens out.

carguy_
07-02-2005, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Don't you love it, gentlemen?

For the sake of continuing this hilarious argument, lets say the testimony from all of these respected and experienced German and British pilots is just a bunch of bull**** that is inherently false.

Now, lets be "objective" and look at the scientific, statistical, numerical evidence. Comparing the Spitfire I's wing to the Messerschmitt's, you kind of notice a few things that stand out.

First, the Spitfire's wing is four feet longer.

Second, the Spitfire's wing has rounded wingtips, while the Me-109E's are squared off.

Third, the Spitfire's wing area is about 65 square feet larger.

Loaded weight and horsepower of the two types are very comparable, thus powerloading being very close as well.

The Spitfire has a considerably longer and larger wing as compared to its weight than the Messerschmitt. What does that mean? That means a lot more lift, and a lot more lift means turning a tighter circle.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can all nod and finally agree, like any sane human being would, that dozens and dozens of British and German pilots all agreed on the same analysis of the Spitfire vs. the Me-109E, it being that the Spitfire could not only turn tighter but the vibration when approaching stall gave warning of it, while the Messerschmitts didn't have that.

Can we talk about something more important now that is actually debateable? Thanks. :-)

361st TeaWagon / Gunner


Sorry,you just don`t know what you`re talking about.

Hastatus
07-02-2005, 08:49 PM
No, if you are really objective than it is a myth that the Luftwaffe first encountered a first rate enemy over the skies of Britain.

No thats not a myth, but not in the sense that sometimes its intended when that comment is made.

The Luftwaffe's first encounter with an enemy air force that had all of the following traits at the same time first occured in July 1940:

#1 A modern air defense system with ground controlled fighters relying on radar and an integrated observer corps system.

#2 A country capable of producing large #s of decent quality fighters to replace losses sustained.

#3 A country that could rely on air operations not being disrupted through a land campaign (France, Poland, Norway).

#4 Good quality (on average) pilots.

#5 Good quality leaders at the Group and higher levels who understood the strategy of an air campaign.

Those are not myths.

Does that mean the RAF was better than the LW? No, it does not. It simply points out that the RAFs forces in Fighter Command were, up to that point in the war, their toughest opponent.

As to the Hurricane IA, it was the more numerous fighter, claiming 57 percent of the LW's losses in the BoB, and capable of intercepting and destroying the He-111 and Do-17. The BoB was not a duel between the Spitfire IA and the 109E-4, and what version went 8 mph faster at what alt had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the battle, at all.

As for the Spitfire IA and 109E-4, they both had good points and bad, and for anybody to think that their favorite fighter (any of them), was without any flaws is simply delusional. Get over it.

Ruy Horta
07-03-2005, 02:29 AM
I am not denying that Britain had a good air defense (they held most of the cards in that regard), I am however not prepared to call the allied forces (Anglo-French) on the continent
"second rate" which the prior statement in fact implies (simply because it did not hold all the cards and the campaign was subsequently lost).

So my main aggrevation is against these blanket statements.

Although I am certain that some of those who reacted here have read a lot of Battle of Britain books, I am also quite certain that the bulk of them were written by British writers (here and there is a Steinhilpher or Galland - probably only by quote).

How many of them have read a French book on the Battle of France, or a German one for that matter?

I find it hard to believe one can build a balanced picture when studying any subject from basically one side.

The irony is that few in this thread have implied "that their fighter was without any flaws", but that accusation is repeatedly coined against Luftwhiners.

You took my quote out of context without its reference to the Battle of France and the fighter types there encountered.

The quality of men and machines deployed by the Anglo-French, at least in the fighter arm, was not inferior. (point 4)

Fighter production supplied more fighers than could be flown. (points 2)

Geography was a given variable, it was not something that could be attributed to the RAF nor something that could control, although something they could certainly profit from.

The Battle of Britain, given the force disposition and current technology, was a battle that could not be won in 1940, probably not even in 1941 or 42 (disregarding subsequent events in the East). That fact is only partly attributable to the fighting quality of the RAF and indeed to a great extend to the simple fact of geography.

It doesn't really matter if the antagonists were closely matched in the air, disregarding the fact that the attacker did not have a very favorable superiority in numbers, it was on the ground that the Battle of Britain was lost - or more to the point: in the channel.

Hastatus
07-03-2005, 04:42 PM
Ok well several things. First off my post was a general response, not just to your one quote I highlighted.

I went to pains to say that the RAF in the BoB had ALL of the listed points in their favor, as a *combined factor*. That I am not saying the French and other forces did not possess some of the same qualities...just not all of them at the same time. The French had some good quality fighters in quantity, and brave pilots, thats not in serious dispute. At least not by me. As for Poland you can make a case for brave pilots, and thats about where it ends for them.

I would agree that there are too many generalities thrown around regarding the BoB, but im not sure that accusing "english writers" of some special bias is the way to argue against that. There are several very good books on the BoB written by non Germans, and I dont think that the German WW2 historians possess any special corner on the truth. I dont think that honour falls on any nations historians.

I will also point out that every campaign and battle won or lost in history can be "what-iffed" to death. The BoB is no different than any of the rest. You could argue forever about "Midway" for example, if you like, or "France 1940", or "Gettysburg", or "Austerlitz", or the "US War of Independance", or "Kursk 1943" or "Singapore 1942".

As for the BoB in 1940, it was a campaign of survival for the RAF against a very determined, and capable German air force, and its a fascinating campaign because of that. I will leave it there.

EPP_Gibbs
07-03-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
It's commonly claimed Galland asked for Spitfires because they were better at the close escort the German pilots were being forced to do.

But the truth is Goering was not insisting on close escort. From his orders issued 19th August:

"In the actual conduct of operations, commanders of fighter units must be given as free a hand as possible. Only part of the fighters are to be employed as direct escorts to our bombers. The aim must be to employ the strongest possible fighter forces on free-lance operations, in which they can indirectly protect the bombers, and at the same time come to grips under favourable conditions with the enemy fighters."

Just like a lot of German generals blame all their failings on Hitler, so do a lot of Luftwaffe pilots blame all their's on Goering.

That's why I said only that Goering 'Passed of the KG's request' The Kampfgeschwaderen were clamouring for close escort. It wasn't a direct order from Goering.

DIRTY-MAC
07-04-2005, 02:22 PM
Wasn't there something mentioned about that the Hurri was as fast as the 109 down low, or even faster?!?

JG7_Rall
07-04-2005, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Wasn't there something mentioned about that the Hurri was as fast as the 109 down low, or even faster?!?

LOL

LStarosta
07-04-2005, 04:00 PM
The Hurricane can outclimb the Bf109 in terms of maximum ceiling.



At least in FB...

p1ngu666
07-04-2005, 05:19 PM
but in 3.x it couldnt outturn it or get remotely near above 2k or so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

MLudner
07-13-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
heres a link that says exactly the oposite than yours why yours should be more beliavable:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm
are you kidding ?

that site is full of it

as in BS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, no it wasn't. It matches well with much of what else I have read.

MLudner
07-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by No3 Spit:
Seems no one mentioned Range as a factor. Yet it is historically one of major contributing factors in deciding the BOB.

I have interviewed a surviving 109 pilot at great length, his accounts compare directly to the accounts of survivng RAF pilots, who often saw 109's for fleeting moments before they pushed their noses over and headed for France. Oskar was glued to his fuel gauge, the further North they went the less thought they had for fighting.

"To the guy with 109 could out turn the Spitfire statement"....LOL very funny indeed mate.. you must be an FM designer right! and Marseille as well... lot of pilots in the Desert were still flying around after he claimed to have shot them down!

Pay attention. This is the first rule of understanding what you are reading.

If you comprehended what I was saying it would be evident that in most cases a Spit will out turn a 109 for the reasons stated. The vast majority of LW jagdflieger would not try to turn that tight ... for evident reasons. By all accounts the Spit is a much easier to fly aircraft, this is so because of those big, bat wings.

The basic problem is that you have accounts of 109 pilots swearing up and down they could out-turn Spits, and Spit pilots assuring us that was not the case. Someone such as yourself would simply assume the Germans are lying, others will assume the Brits are lying.
I assume neither. If you read what I wrote you will find the answer to the contradiction. Neither was lying and neither was inaccurate, often in life perception is the key. It can be tricky winding through perception to find reality.
The reality of this is that in some cases a well-flown 109 could out turn a Spit, but only rarely would this happen because of the risk involved.
In Rowan's BoB the a/c were excellently modelled in flight characteristics and you could out turn a Spit, but it was a risky proposition. I attempted to master the maneuver, but I discovered that it was not worth it as it was difficult to judge just when you were reaching that point where the aircraft was about to break. Fortunately, I always practiced such things at 3,000+ meter so when I did hear the obnoxious "CRACK!" and the 109 flipped over and went into a spin I had time to bail. Doing this over Britain would be foolish. What if we're only 200m up and I lose a wing? Won't be getting out in time, scratch one jagdflieger. Even if we were at altitude, still scratch one pilot ... unless he's one he!! of a swimmer! Thus, while you can physically do it it is impractical and risky. Why not just enter a series of violent positive and (preferably) / or negative G maneuvers that the Spit pilot can't follow without his engine cutting out? So much safer.

MLudner
07-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Oh, and on that "you must be an (sic) FM designer" crack:

I am not. And the crack is indefensible anyway, since the Spit will out turn a 109 in this game. I have found that when flying a 109 the Spit is my most unnerving opponent and there is way to match their horizontal turn radius (which is not to say there is no way to counter it). I have no objection to this feature as it is a perfectly reasonable way of handling the situation. Designing the flight characteristics for a game like this must be very challenging and time consuming.