PDA

View Full Version : What was so good about the Spitfire anyway?



coolinoz
09-24-2008, 12:11 AM
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

You must admit, it WAS pretty.

coolinoz
09-24-2008, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

You must admit, it WAS pretty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
maybe , but i wouldnt give it one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

You must admit, it WAS pretty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
maybe , but i wouldnt give it one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't have enough wings to count as a proper aeroplane.

P.FunkAdelic
09-24-2008, 12:40 AM
All the pilots that got a kill in a spit used FM hax. That was the real reason Hitler cancelled Sealion. Churchill was using gameshark.

ImpStarDuece
09-24-2008, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

Ask Eric Brown...

Ba5tard5word
09-24-2008, 01:01 AM
I've been wondering this lately...I made some Spitfire missions set in 1944 and quickly got annoyed at how they stall and flip really easily, and are ridiculously slow and pokey compared to a 190 or 109...

I switched to using Russian planes from 1944 like the La-7 and was blown away by the difference.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-24-2008, 01:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??


Ask Eric Brown...



Or Adolph Galland...

Listen (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav)

Whirlin_merlin
09-24-2008, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.


You've missed the F22, Eurofighter and that weird looking thing from that rubbish Stealth film off the list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WTE_Ibis
09-24-2008, 01:43 AM
.

Ask the Luftwaffe pilots why they cried out
"Achtung" just before uttering the word
"Spitfeuer" and you will have your answer.



.

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
quote:
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??


Ask Eric Brown...



Or Adolph Galland...

Listen (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav)


Its a little known fact that Galland use to moonlight as a Polish RAF Spitfire pilot on his nights off. As far as the Brits were concerned all Europeans are the same.


Photo from the summer of 1940 ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/galland.jpg

general_kalle
09-24-2008, 01:56 AM
jeez. how can you state things like that without any proof whatsoever?

how'd you know spitfire couldn't turn?
how'd you know Me109, Fw190 and p51 were better?
better at what?

pretty wierd post with no sense really.


adolf galland got his spitfire? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
ask a pilot, not us.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
09-24-2008, 02:16 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/l_b57288712b7df16c4bd090e75907c003.jpg

DKoor
09-24-2008, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty?? Yes, Hurricane is more sexy.

K_Freddie
09-24-2008, 03:16 AM
The fish are not biting today.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Metatron_123
09-24-2008, 03:22 AM
The Gladiator is better. It turns better AND has cool wheels it doesn't need to hide.

iRuffy
09-24-2008, 03:30 AM
"was not the victor of the Battle of Britain."

No?

Well all I can say is that I don't speak German, and this is in part due to the Fighter Pilots of 1940 and THEIR SPITFIRES!!!

Spitfire not the best fighter ever to take to skies....tut tut tut.

iRuffy
09-24-2008, 03:31 AM
You are gonna need a bigger boat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
09-24-2008, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
The fish are not biting today.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think he got some.

Not even fresh bait but LOL the can't turn part is a real gem in the annals of Spitbait!

luftluuver
09-24-2008, 04:39 AM
Ah, a new graduate from Barbi's Spitfire school. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by P.FunkAdelic:
All the pilots that got a kill in a spit used FM hax. That was the real reason Hitler cancelled Sealion. Churchill was using gameshark.


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

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 05:46 AM
The Spitfire was mediocre and less über than the brilliantly-designed Bf 109, a product of German ingenuity and über genius. The British Spitfire was like 1950s British sports cars: effete, incomprehensible, pretty if you were inclined to effeteness, and non-über. The reputation of the Spitfire is simply due to the effectiveness of British propaganda during and after WWII and the gullibility of effete, non-über people around the world who feel affirmed by a similar airplane. Manly, über people gravitate toward the Bf 109 which won the non-existent "Battle of Britain" hands down.

Since I have spared Kurfurst the time in penning a response, I demand $20.00 US for my service

HuninMunin
09-24-2008, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
.

Ask the Luftwaffe pilots why they cried out
"Achtung" just before uttering the word
"Spitfeuer" and you will have your answer.



.

Maybe because Achtung means "attention!" and is used in the very same way as the english word .
It's just part of the legend that saying Achtung would be anything special.
Heck... I say achtung wenn the floor is wet...
And concerning Galland... why not mention that he himself found it "enjoyable" to fight Spitfires, whereas an attack on a Flying Fortress would worry him much more.

And for the famous quote, I ask myself how many people actualy read the man's book before stretching it to fit their view towards history.
He said it to make a political offense and a sarcastic comment on the way the high command changed doctrine against the fighter arm's will and advice ( namely giving the bomber units "close" escort, meaning flying directly with them, in formation ).

Look at the losses and victories throughout 1940/41 and you will see that the Spitfire had nothing special about it as a combat aircraft.
It did it's job, no more no less.
Just like the 109, P-40, early Yaks or Hurricanes.
To be honest, sometimes I doubt that people who connect the outcomes of strategical operations to the technical capabilities of plane designs ( especialy in the early 40s, where the different opponents virtualy were on equal footing ) realise how a war is fought to beginn with.

The "Battle of Britain" or better the successfull denial of operational achivement for the Luftwaffe was won by smart and cohesive leadership on one side and ignorant leadership on the other.

Afterall the mystification of events or items is not surprising though.
The majority of people interested in aviation would rate the P-51s impact on the war as bigger then that of the IL-2, wouldn't they?

jdigris001
09-24-2008, 05:52 AM
and just when I was believing there are no trolls in this forum..........

luftluuver
09-24-2008, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Spitfire was mediocre and less über than the brilliantly-designed Bf 109, a product of German ingenuity and über genius. The British Spitfire was like 1950s British sports cars: effete, incomprehensible, pretty if you were inclined to effeteness, and non-über. The reputation of the Spitfire is simply due to the effectiveness of British propaganda during and after WWII and the gullibility of effete, non-über people around the world who feel affirmed by a similar airplane. Manly, über people gravitate toward the Bf 109 which won the non-existent "Battle of Britain" hands down.

Since I have spared Kurfurst the time in penning a response, I demand $20.00 US for my service
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Went over some ppls head though.

HuninMunin
09-24-2008, 06:10 AM
Oh it didn't.
You just don't comprehend, wich is why I prefer to take it into private now.

Chris0382
09-24-2008, 06:10 AM
The Spitfire was a resposive plane that the pilot became part of once strapped in. It was sensitive to its controls and could easily side-slip. It could out turn the German planes and was a match and had homefield advantage.

The Spitfire was out-gunned and had to get closer to make a kill and was lighter and could not dive as fast as an ME-109.

A sweeping left turn was a favorite maneuver to avoid a 109 in a dogfight as the 109 was limited in fuel in the BOB and eventually dove and departed.

Power assisted ailerons were added after the FW-190 came out (like powersteering) and that helped a lot with a new speed of 410 MPH with a stronger engine.

The Spitfire coolant system was a disadvantage as it was vunerable to a hit and would fail the engine in a matter of 5 minutes if the coolant was lost.

The Hurricane by its self could not have won the BOB but the Spitfife could have. But the Hurricane with its greater numbers played a dominant role and shot down more plane .

Reference : History Channel: The Spitfire

M_Gunz
09-24-2008, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by jdigris001:
and just when I was believing there are no trolls in this forum..........

they have a parade?

Bearcat99
09-24-2008, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Spitfire was mediocre and less über than the brilliantly-designed Bf 109, a product of German ingenuity and über genius. The British Spitfire was like 1950s British sports cars: effete, incomprehensible, pretty if you were inclined to effeteness, and non-über. The reputation of the Spitfire is simply due to the effectiveness of British propaganda during and after WWII and the gullibility of effete, non-über people around the world who feel affirmed by a similar airplane. Manly, über people gravitate toward the Bf 109 which won the non-existent "Battle of Britain" hands down.

Since I have spared Kurfurst the time in penning a response, I demand $20.00 US for my service
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Went over some ppls head though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO!!!


I don't know of any pilots who flew Spitfires who didn't think the plane was a great plane to fly... and fight in.

Bremspropeller
09-24-2008, 06:52 AM
It could out turn the German planes
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Not only that turing wasn't worth horse's ****, it isn't true anway, as some Luftwaffe pilots would like to tell you.

HuninMunin
09-24-2008, 06:59 AM
Why drag it to individual pilot quotes to begin with?
Any person with 2 days into an aeronautical introduction course is able to tell you that a statement like "plane A turns better then plane B" is not worth the paper it's written on.
M@****ille was a great turn n' burner, not because of the 109 F but because of his ability to substain tremendous ( for the time ) g-loads and remain SA throughout.
Wingloading doesn't win turnfights; slats don't either for that matter.

Kurfurst__
09-24-2008, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Spitfire was mediocre and less über than the brilliantly-designed Bf 109, a product of German ingenuity and über genius. The British Spitfire was like 1950s British sports cars: effete, incomprehensible, pretty if you were inclined to effeteness, and non-über. The reputation of the Spitfire is simply due to the effectiveness of British propaganda during and after WWII and the gullibility of effete, non-über people around the world who feel affirmed by a similar airplane. Manly, über people gravitate toward the Bf 109 which won the non-existent "Battle of Britain" hands down.

Since I have spared Kurfurst the time in penning a response, I demand $20.00 US for my service

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

http://www.atlaseditorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/palpandanakin.jpg

Feathered_IV
09-24-2008, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, difficult to manufacture, not especially well armored or armed. Couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. The me109, fw190, p51 were better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon were better etc. etc.


Quite right. Absolutely on the money.

Spitfire pilots during the Battle of Britain were all begging to be transferred to P-51, Tempest, Typhoon and Thunderbolt units. But those crazy brasshats denied all knowledge of those aircraft.

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 07:31 AM
Dammit, I can't stand sentimentality---the P-51 won the Battle of Britain by buoying up the dispirited, defeated British with the knowledge they would be bailed out eventually by an American überfighter!

Feathered_IV
09-24-2008, 08:09 AM
The P-51's main advantage was that it was made entirely of nylon. Very highly regarded by British nancies and a far better war-winner than the kapok pantyliner Hawker Hurricane.

Skoshi Tiger
09-24-2008, 08:23 AM
Going deep into my aeronautical tome of all things spitfire("the legendary spitfire Mk1/11 )(only joking) Werner Molders is attributed as stating the following after flying both the spitfire and the hurricane.

"Both types are very simple to fly compared with our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land(compared with the Bf109)."

and

"The spitfire is one class better, it handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of a Bf109"

He then went on to say it was miserable because of the negitve G cutout and 2 pitch prop on the model he flew.

Sounds like it wasn't too bad at the time.

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 08:52 AM
To put it in Spenglerian terms, the Bf 109 was a Culture-creator and the Spitfire was a Culture-destroyer, thus, the world-project of the Bf 109 was superior to that of the Spitfire, thus, the rationale of the Bf 109 was a magnitude more über than that of the Spitfire Unterjäger.

Blood_Splat
09-24-2008, 09:03 AM
We all know why Germany lost the Battle of Brittan. It was Shift+F1! That was the very down fall of the 109 pilot.

DrHerb
09-24-2008, 09:28 AM
To the original poster.......dude put the crack pipe down

BashChelik
09-24-2008, 09:33 AM
The guy who started the thread is obviously fishing. However, the subject is worth writing a line or two...

WWII caught almost all nations of Europe unprepared. Germany has by then developed an excellent army, including the famous Bf-109, while few other nations had a fighter that could match its performance or weaponry. Hawker Hurricane was the chosen design for the RAF, but was slower and lacked climbing performance. Thanks to personal efforts of a few people who had vision, means and knowledge (cannot exactly remember the exact roles and names right now), Britain got the fighter that was sorely needed to tip the balance during the Battle of Britain. Spitfire Mk. 1 perhaps wasn't the super fighter of its time, but it was good enough to give the Brits a fighting chance, that's all there is to it.

Anyways, I'd recommend two books to anyone interested in the topic: "Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend and "The First and the Last" by Adolf Galland. Reading these books may not make one an expert in WWII history, but will certainly provide a good picture of what was actually going on.

Xiolablu3
09-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Galland tells us exactly why he said the 'give me Spitfires' quote to Goering in his book.

Because the Bf109 was not so good at manouvring defense as the Spitfire, the Bf109's strengths were flying striaght ahead, diving and climbing, he states. This was obviously a disadvantage when Goering said they must stay close to the bombers and give up their speed and surprise. Goering was making the fight a Turning dogfight which the Bf109 was not so good at when compared to the RAF fighters.

His exact words were 'The Bf109 could not manouvre anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.'

Mr_Zooly
09-24-2008, 11:10 AM
I was under the impression that Galland's tongue was firmly in cheek when he made that statement.
Oh well cant be right all/any of the time.

Chris0382
09-24-2008, 11:20 AM
What was so good about the Spitfire anyway?

Well lets put aside its attributes and go to the bottom line. It and a slightly lesser advantageous Hurricane threw back the German air offensive.

Not too shaby IMO and earns a big Kudos.

snafu73
09-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Could it really be that the most eulogised fighter of the 2nd world war was also the biggest lemon of the war?

Only revisionists would have you think so.

Mr_Zooly
09-24-2008, 12:10 PM
What was good about the Spitfire?
How about the command and control system used in the battle?
Or maybe the will and determination of the pilots from all sides that flew in it?
And lets not forget that she is a beaut (in my humble opinion).

Bremspropeller
09-24-2008, 01:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

OMK_Hand
09-24-2008, 02:13 PM
At 4.30pm on 5 March, 1936 at Eastleigh airport near Southampton, Hampshire, test pilot Joseph 'Mutt' Summers flew the hand-built prototype of the Type-300, 'K5054', for the first time.

The first Spitfire Mk I was delivered to 19 Squadron, RAF Duxford in Cambridgeshire on 4 August 1938.

Every theatre of war and operations saw the Spitfire involved in some way, shape and form. Variants were designed and produced at an incredible rate, from the Mk I to the Mk XXIV, with a total of some 40 distinguishing types.

With greater horsepower and performance in the engine department, the later models of the Spitfire had the ability to carry heavier armament, in particular bombs or even air-to-ground rockets. There are even stories of Spitfires making runs across the Channel from France with kegs of beer strapped under their wings.

With such success the Royal Navy even ordered the Spitfire for their aircraft carriers.

Apart from the RAF, Spitfires also served with most of the allied air forces in the Second World War. Amongst them were the Polish Air Force, Czechoslovak Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, South African Air Force and Royal New Zealand Air Force. The Spitfire was also one of the few foreign aircraft to see active service with the United States Army Air Force and several European countries also operated Spitfires through the RAF during the war, most notably the Armée de l'Air as part of the Free French Air Force, the Forces Aériennes Françaises Libres (FAFL). In the Swedish Air Force the Spitfire was given the designation S.31 and was in service right up until 1955.

Following the Second World War, the Spitfire continued to be a mainstay of many air forces, including Egyptian Air Force, Hellenic Air Force, Irish Air Corps, Israeli Air Force, Italian Air Force, Syrian Air Force, Danish Air Force, Royal Norwegian Air Force and Turkish Air Force. The Spitfire was also a part of the Royal Canadian Navy, Indian Air Force, Royal Netherlands Air Force, the French Aeronavale, Portuguese Air Force, Southern Rhodesian Air Force, the Yugoslav Air Force, Hong Kong Auxilary Air Force, and the Union of Burma Air Force to name but a few!

The last Spitfire was built in 1947 and at the end of its career in 1954 the Spitfire was being used primarily as an unarmed photo-reconnaissance plane.

The Spitfire was the only Allied plane that was in production from the start of the war to the end, retaining its superiority throughout. Er, possibly...

Hme... beer....

crucislancer
09-24-2008, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

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

The poor Spitfire. It gets no repect on this forum.

crucislancer
09-24-2008, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I've been wondering this lately...I made some Spitfire missions set in 1944 and quickly got annoyed at how they stall and flip really easily, and are ridiculously slow and pokey compared to a 190 or 109...

Really? I haven't had a problem like that since I learned how to fly the Spitfire in game. Give it some time, perhaps try a Spitfire campaign or two, once you get used to it, the Spitfire won't stall on you.

JSG72
09-24-2008, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by coolinoz:
It was fragile, diffricult to manufacture, not especially well armoured- or armed, couldnt turn, was not the victor of the Battle of Britain. me109, fw190, p51 where better. tempest, p-47 and typhoon where better ground attackers.
the Ausies favoured the P-40. does its fame rest on the fact the Spitfire had a sexy name and was pretty??

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

The poor Spitfire. It gets no repect on this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
"American Spitfire Aces" Darn! Those pilots. They couldn't wait to get rid.
If only their mounts had been P-38/47/51s or T-6s They swear! They coulda got more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
09-24-2008, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Galland tells us exactly why he said the 'give me Spitfires' quote to Goering in his book.

Because the Bf109 was not so good at manouvring defense as the Spitfire, the Bf109's strengths were flying striaght ahead, diving and climbing, he states. This was obviously a disadvantage when Goering said they must stay close to the bombers and give up their speed and surprise. Goering was making the fight a Turning dogfight which the Bf109 was not so good at when compared to the RAF fighters.

His exact words were 'The Bf109 could not manouvre anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.'

Exactly.

In addition to that the 109 was often refered to as an offensive air to air intruder ( read fighter sweeps ) and interceptor.
It was not build to do close in fighting, it was build to strike.
To do that it was given all the means to gain tactical superiority ( climb, speed, relativly strong armament for it's time ).
Often I hear that the Fw 190 was a new kind of plane and offered a completely new possibility in doctrine.
The truth is that the 109 was build with exactly the same philosophy in mind.
The 190 was just better at it and rocksolidly proofed yet again that air combat is about energy and the relations in energy between combatants.

As Günther Rall put it:
"In case you want to get a bunch of hedgehogs over an intensly used highway, you don't do it by flanking them left and right, trotting along at their speed.
You do it by blocking the road a wide area around them."
Gallands quote has to be seen in that context.
The Spitfire was definatly the better traditional escort fighter.

WTE_Ibis
09-24-2008, 05:33 PM
HuninMunin
Quote:
Maybe because Achtung means "attention!" and is used in the very same way as the english word .
It's just part of the legend that saying Achtung would be anything special.
Heck... I say achtung wenn the floor is wet...

.
==========================================

.
Yes I understand that Hunen,(my son-inlaw is German). I was just trying to make the point that the Spitfire was treated with respect by the Luftwaffe.
Cheers,
Ibis


.

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:

Really? I haven't had a problem like that since I learned how to fly the Spitfire in game. Give it some time, perhaps try a Spitfire campaign or two, once you get used to it, the Spitfire won't stall on you.

I have never even flown the Mk IX in game to be honest. Not even once in QMB. Then again I rarely flew anything later than 1940/41 anyway.

ElAurens
09-24-2008, 06:52 PM
I actually find these troll posts to be quite revealing.

We all get defensive about our own nation's premier fighter aircraft, be it Spitfire, P51, Bf109, or whatever.

The real truth is that with rare exception (The early success of the A6M or the combat introduction of the FW 190 as a couple of examples) the major combatant types, especially in Western Europe were all very close to one another in ability, and most of their success or failure was dependant on the men who flew them.

Gumtree
09-24-2008, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://www.atlaseditorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/palpandanakin.jpg

I have to say this is showing a humerous side I don't often see from you Kurfy....lmao

Sillius_Sodus
09-24-2008, 10:36 PM
What's so great about the Spitfire?

It's Stalkervisions favorite airplane of course! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Feathered_IV
09-25-2008, 12:35 AM
Galland would have been better off asking for a squadron of A6M2's. He could have provided fighter cover as far as Scapa' and back.

WTE_Galway
09-25-2008, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Galland tells us exactly why he said the 'give me Spitfires' quote to Goering in his book.

Because the Bf109 was not so good at manouvring defense as the Spitfire, the Bf109's strengths were flying striaght ahead, diving and climbing, he states. This was obviously a disadvantage when Goering said they must stay close to the bombers and give up their speed and surprise. Goering was making the fight a Turning dogfight which the Bf109 was not so good at when compared to the RAF fighters.

His exact words were 'The Bf109 could not manouvre anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.'


yes well ... in terms of traditional maneuverable fighter escorts the Italians tried sending a few Fiats into the fray and they got massacred. The Fiat biplanes gave a good account of themselves in the desert and over Malta but BoB was a different kind of air battle.

M_Gunz
09-25-2008, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Galland tells us exactly why he said the 'give me Spitfires' quote to Goering in his book.

Because the Bf109 was not so good at manouvring defense as the Spitfire, the Bf109's strengths were flying striaght ahead, diving and climbing, he states. This was obviously a disadvantage when Goering said they must stay close to the bombers and give up their speed and surprise. Goering was making the fight a Turning dogfight which the Bf109 was not so good at when compared to the RAF fighters.

His exact words were 'The Bf109 could not manouvre anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.'

Was that all he said? Wasn't there something about the 109's being tied to the bombers at
low speeds that could not? Nothing about the free hunters that were not so hampered?
The request for Spitfires was in response to the orders for close escort.

The whole text has been posted here before.

Blutarski2004
09-25-2008, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ah, a new graduate from Barbi's Spitfire school. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

..... But he missed some obvious and important points!

[1] Spitfire had no leading-edge slots.

[2] The engine was installed upside down.

[3] No fuselage mounted guns.

[4] No stein holder in the cockpit, which was not snug enough anyways.

[5] Instruments not calibrated in metric units.

[6] To many complicated trim tabs.

Krakkers
09-25-2008, 07:20 AM
This thread does stink of a troll that has met too many TrackIR equiped Spitfire pilots and can't believe that his own skills (which are immaculate against AI) have been beaten.

But just in case it is not...

What made the Spitfire a superb plane wasn't necessarily its ability - as someone else has already said, most planes were about equal at any given time in the war as there was a constant desire to improve performance. What did make the difference was generally situational awareness and how well the pilot knew how the plane would handle.

the 109 while being a great BnZ plane, had a cockpit that wasn't great when it came to giving the pilot good visability, which the Spitfire did. (that bubbled out bit that moves is there for more than making the plane look nice) and as even a lot of german pilots that got to fly both planes said, the spitfire was an easier plane to pick up, and fly.

and lastly and in my opinion most importantly, this is a combat flight simulation, that is used for entertainment, enjoy that you can get anything like the quality experiences you can while playing this and not have to worry about the consequences of getting bounced by someone with a gun. Be glad that this is in a lot of places a safer way to have fun and pass the time than walking down your street.

luftluuver
09-25-2008, 11:42 AM
Now, now. I remember reading a thread here where it was emphatically stated that pilot of the 109 had better vision than any bubble canopy a/c.

HuninMunin
09-25-2008, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
HuninMunin
Quote:
Maybe because Achtung means "attention!" and is used in the very same way as the english word .
It's just part of the legend that saying Achtung would be anything special.
Heck... I say achtung wenn the floor is wet...

.
==========================================

.
Yes I understand that Hunen,(my son-inlaw is German). I was just trying to make the point that the Spitfire was treated with respect by the Luftwaffe.
Cheers,
Ibis


.

Roger that.
And I agree with your point - it's just that when you get asked for the 20th time on TS to say "Achtung Spitfire" cause people love to hear it you start to go balistic sooner or later http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
09-25-2008, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ah, a new graduate from Barbi's Spitfire school. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

..... But he missed some obvious and important points!

[1] Spitfire had no leading-edge slots.

[2] The engine was installed upside down.

[3] No fuselage mounted guns.

[4] No stein holder in the cockpit, which was not snug enough anyways.

[5] Instruments not calibrated in metric units.

[6] To many complicated trim tabs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, horrendous faults. I would add ...

[7] Engine too quiet when in cockpit

[8] Far to many guns

[9] Take off and landing characteristics a bit boring

[10] Most warnings and name plates in English