PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire Mk V vs Mk IX availibilty in the 2nd half of 1943



Kurfurst__
12-20-2005, 08:24 AM
Hi, I just compiled that from various books, I though it would be of interest to share it.

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228



September 1943

Mk IX
RAF : No.19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,92,111,131,132,152,222, 241,249,682. Total 17 Squadrons.

Allied :No. 306,310,312,315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 421,
RAAF : No. 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501
Total: 12 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 29 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 348


MkV :
Compiled from Mushroom Model/Yellow Series - Supermarine Spitfire MkV by Wojtek Matusiak.

Home based Squadrons
RAF : No. 64,66,118,130,131,132,165,288,
Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,316,317,322,340,349,350,
RCAF : 401,402,411,412,416,
RAAF : 453,
Other Sqn : 501,504,602,610,611,897.
Excluded : various OTU and aux. units/flights.
Total 34 Sqn of Home-based MkV Squadrons.


Mediterranean Squadrons
RAF : No. 32,43,72,73,74,80,81,87,92,93,94,111,123,126,127,1 45,152,154,185,225,229,232,238,242,243,249,253. Total 27 Squadrons.
RCAF : No. 417
RAAF : No. 451
Total 29 MkV Squadrons in the Mediterranean.

Squadrons in Australia
RAF and RAAF : No. 54,452,457. Total 3 MkV Squadrons.

Squadrons in South-East Asia
RAF : No. 607, 615. Total 2 MkV Squadrons.


Grandtotal : 68 Squadrons of Mk V x 12 planes = 816



December 1943
Mk IXs:

RAF : No. 19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,93,111,131,132,152,165,222 ,237,241,249,602,682. Total : 21 Squadrons.

Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,326,341,350
Commonwealth : No. 401, 411, 412, 421,
RAAF : No. 451, 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501. Total : 18 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 39 Sqn x 12 = 468


NOTES :

Uncertain, precise date missing, not added to possible MkIXsqn :
122? - flew MkV Apr-Aug 1943
129? - flew MkV up to June 1943
229? - flew MkV Aug42 - Apr 1944
232? - flew MkV Apr42 - Nov 1942
238?
316?
331?
332?
521?

What's 1435 Sqd ? Some sort of special unit? Was not included. Seems to operate MkV Aug42-Nov43 and May-Sept1944. Another mixed squadron....? Curiously, many of the "MkIX Squadron"s are also listed amongst MkV Squadrons (ie. No 64, No 66, No 131 etc.), which probably means they run mixed types, so the actual number of MkIXs in service was even less than the pure Sqn listing would suggest.


CONCLUSION :

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

In September 1943, with all Spitfire Squadrons being inspected, shows there were 17 Squadrons of MkIXs in the RAF, further 12 in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 29 Squadrons.

At the same time, there were 35 Squadrons of MkVs in the RAF, further 28 in in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 63 MkV Squadrons in Europe : 34 Home based and 29 in the Mediterranean. Further 5 were in SE-Asia and Australia.

That's 68 MkV Spitfire Squadrons vs. 29 MkIXs Spitfire Squadrons in service in September 1943; a ratio of 2.35 : 1 in favour of the MkV. Thus the MkV can be considered as the mainstay RAF Spitfire Mark until ca early-mid 1944.

Kurfurst__
12-20-2005, 08:24 AM
Hi, I just compiled that from various books, I though it would be of interest to share it.

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228



September 1943

Mk IX
RAF : No.19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,92,111,131,132,152,222, 241,249,682. Total 17 Squadrons.

Allied :No. 306,310,312,315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 421,
RAAF : No. 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501
Total: 12 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 29 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 348


MkV :
Compiled from Mushroom Model/Yellow Series - Supermarine Spitfire MkV by Wojtek Matusiak.

Home based Squadrons
RAF : No. 64,66,118,130,131,132,165,288,
Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,316,317,322,340,349,350,
RCAF : 401,402,411,412,416,
RAAF : 453,
Other Sqn : 501,504,602,610,611,897.
Excluded : various OTU and aux. units/flights.
Total 34 Sqn of Home-based MkV Squadrons.


Mediterranean Squadrons
RAF : No. 32,43,72,73,74,80,81,87,92,93,94,111,123,126,127,1 45,152,154,185,225,229,232,238,242,243,249,253. Total 27 Squadrons.
RCAF : No. 417
RAAF : No. 451
Total 29 MkV Squadrons in the Mediterranean.

Squadrons in Australia
RAF and RAAF : No. 54,452,457. Total 3 MkV Squadrons.

Squadrons in South-East Asia
RAF : No. 607, 615. Total 2 MkV Squadrons.


Grandtotal : 68 Squadrons of Mk V x 12 planes = 816



December 1943
Mk IXs:

RAF : No. 19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,93,111,131,132,152,165,222 ,237,241,249,602,682. Total : 21 Squadrons.

Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,326,341,350
Commonwealth : No. 401, 411, 412, 421,
RAAF : No. 451, 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501. Total : 18 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 39 Sqn x 12 = 468


NOTES :

Uncertain, precise date missing, not added to possible MkIXsqn :
122? - flew MkV Apr-Aug 1943
129? - flew MkV up to June 1943
229? - flew MkV Aug42 - Apr 1944
232? - flew MkV Apr42 - Nov 1942
238?
316?
331?
332?
521?

What's 1435 Sqd ? Some sort of special unit? Was not included. Seems to operate MkV Aug42-Nov43 and May-Sept1944. Another mixed squadron....? Curiously, many of the "MkIX Squadron"s are also listed amongst MkV Squadrons (ie. No 64, No 66, No 131 etc.), which probably means they run mixed types, so the actual number of MkIXs in service was even less than the pure Sqn listing would suggest.


CONCLUSION :

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

In September 1943, with all Spitfire Squadrons being inspected, shows there were 17 Squadrons of MkIXs in the RAF, further 12 in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 29 Squadrons.

At the same time, there were 35 Squadrons of MkVs in the RAF, further 28 in in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 63 MkV Squadrons in Europe : 34 Home based and 29 in the Mediterranean. Further 5 were in SE-Asia and Australia.

That's 68 MkV Spitfire Squadrons vs. 29 MkIXs Spitfire Squadrons in service in September 1943; a ratio of 2.35 : 1 in favour of the MkV. Thus the MkV can be considered as the mainstay RAF Spitfire Mark until ca early-mid 1944.

JtD
12-20-2005, 08:55 AM
It took until 1944 for the Spit IX to become the most numerous variant. However, Spit V's were upgraded to higher boost levels all the time and became more competetive. Sadly there is no 43 Mk.V in the game except for the LF variants.

ploughman
12-20-2005, 09:20 AM
Wow, Lufties lost to a cr@p Spitfire. How humiliating.

berg417448
12-20-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wow, Lufties lost to a cr@p Spitfire. How humiliating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

Kurfurst__
12-20-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It took until 1944 for the Spit IX to become the most numerous variant. However, Spit V's were upgraded to higher boost levels all the time and became more competetive. Sadly there is no 43 Mk.V in the game except for the LF variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but the increased boosts only increased the Spit V speed at low altitudes, the med/high alt performance and maximum level speed remained the same, about 600 kph. At low altitudes the MkV was quite competitive, but anywhere over that it's poor supercharger was felt - pretty much like Russian planes in this respect.


Neil Stirling just posted some interesting extra info on butch's board :


[QUOTE]As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.

Neil.[/QUOTE[

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wow, Lufties lost to a cr@p Spitfire. How humiliating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
worth getting out of bed this afternoon for that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kernow
12-20-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What's 1435 Sqd ? Some sort of special unit? Was not included. Seems to operate MkV Aug42-Nov43 and May-Sept1944. Another mixed squadron....? Curiously, many of the "MkIX Squadron"s are also listed amongst MkV Squadrons (ie. No 64, No 66, No 131 etc.), which probably means they run mixed types...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1435 would be a flt and not a sqn. It probably was some sort of special unit (Met or ASR perhaps?). I may have some info... No, not on 1435 Flt, but in 44 there were various 140? (Met) Flts, which operated a variety of types including Spit VI, IX.

I'm not sure that sqns normally operated a mix of types at the same time (operational, engineering and logistic reasons). Perhaps they re-equipped at some point in the time period in question, so are listed with both types?

neural_dream
12-20-2005, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wow, Lufties lost to a cr@p Spitfire. How humiliating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-20-2005, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wow, Lufties lost to a cr@p Spitfire. How humiliating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*TITTER!*

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/cymbalspengy.jpg

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 11:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tomtheyak
12-20-2005, 11:19 AM
As far as I can tell Kurfies info is accurate; tho what he is suggesting with it is open to speculation... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Two points:

1) The most important aspect that you miss here is that MkIXs stayed at the southern bases and were used by whatever unit was rotated to and assigned to operate them from that base. So while many units do still operate the V, as soon as they are posted to an area which encounters with Fw190s are likely to occur they are equipped with the IX.

2)The tactics developed would see the Vs operating at their more competitive altitudes acting as close escorts to medium bombers while IXs provided top cover or foward sweeps at the higher alts where their performance is competitive with the interceptors.

Don't forget that with the USSAF raids stripping many units from the Channel front to Germany centre that only JG2 and JG26 operated over France at this point. With a nominal 3 or 4 Gruppen in each with 30 aircraft that only leaves between 180-240 aircraft to cover a front running from the dutch border to the Brest Peninsula whereas the numbers involved with all Allied fighter aircraft available on that front was in the thousands. PS - Plus the standard equipment of every RAF squadron was 18 a/c.

luftluuver
12-20-2005, 12:20 PM
Kurfurst, here is a nice site for the RAF, http://www.stable.demon.co.uk/sqncodes/rafcode.htm

ImpStarDuece
12-20-2005, 01:59 PM
Regular squadron strength of a RAF frontline fighter squadron is 20 planes, not 12. 12 planes are considered to be 'frontline' aircraft and the other 8 are considered to be 'reserve' aicraft.

danjama
12-20-2005, 02:04 PM
Many engagements in 1943 and 1944 over France were fought below 20,000ft and even 10,000ft, so the boosted MkV's would of shined nicely!

Maybe this means nothing to any of you, but it means +1 post to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
12-20-2005, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JtD:
It took until 1944 for the Spit IX to become the most numerous variant. However, Spit V's were upgraded to higher boost levels all the time and became more competetive. Sadly there is no 43 Mk.V in the game except for the LF variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but the increased boosts only increased the Spit V speed at low altitudes, the med/high alt performance and maximum level speed remained the same, about 600 kph. At low altitudes the MkV was quite competitive, but anywhere over that it's poor supercharger was felt - pretty much like Russian planes in this respect.


Neil Stirling just posted some interesting extra info on butch's board :


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.

Neil.[/QUOTE[ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why spitvs were not used at high altitudes, they had ample mk9s for that.

faustnik
12-20-2005, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.

Neil.[/QUOTE[ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why spitvs were not used at high altitudes, they had ample mk9s for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would imagine that almost all of the Spit Vs were with second lines units by then, so even this list would distort the picture some.

luftluuver
12-20-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I would imagine that almost all of the Spit Vs were with second lines units by then, so even this list would distort the picture some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, another of Kurfurst's data manipulations. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Kurfurst, do you have a Spitfire voodoo doll you stick pins in beside your sacred 109 shrine?

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-20-2005, 05:31 PM
Never mind, Kurfy - it's Christmas. Come on in and have a beer on us.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/glass.gif

berg417448
12-20-2005, 05:36 PM
I'm sure he'll be along in a while to claim that Messerschmitt beer has more horsepower!

ElAurens
12-20-2005, 08:49 PM
This just in...

May 7, 1945...

Germany unconditionally surrenders.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/jodl-signs.jpg

danjama
12-20-2005, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
This just in...

May 7, 1945...

Germany unconditionally surrenders.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/jodl-signs.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

horseback
12-20-2005, 09:22 PM
Note: In 1943, a steadily increasing flow of high performance, high altitude fighters were based in the southeast corner of Great Britain by the 8th AF, allowing a sizeable portion of the new Mk IX and VIII Spitfires to be fielded in Norht Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Far East.

This made eminent sense in view of the fact that US & Commonwealth bombing operations were increasingly directed at targets within Germany and the requirements of the Russian Front and the Mediterranean had caused the LW to limit offensive operations across the Channel and withdraw much of their own fighter strength beyond the optimum range of Spitfires of whatever Mark.

The RAF wisely maintained sufficient strength of their most capable fighter in southern England to discourage German incursions into their domestic airspace while still deploying it where it had the best offensive effect.

The radar systems the RAF had available to them meant that high altitude attacks would give sufficient warning to send hordes of blood (and newsprint) thirsty Yanks into the air in plenty of time to greet a largescale German raid properly, even in the slow-climbing P-47, with a reasonable number of British Spitfires there ahead of them to show them how it was done (and reassure British subjects that it was done properly).

The mere existance of Spit IXs and the American high altitude fighters in Britain limited German intrusions in daylight to small high speed, low-level or ultra-high level pinprick attacks of next to no military value. Meanwhile, Mk VIIIs and IXs were making their presence felt whereever the RAF was covering Allied offensive efforts.

Sounds like a well planned distribution of resources to me.

cheers

horseback

danjama
12-20-2005, 09:38 PM
Indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 09:41 PM
the Vb's, and the hurri's would be ok against the german bombers, if a day offensive was launched

JG53Frankyboy
12-21-2005, 03:28 AM
some things out of Alfred Price' Osprey Spitfire Volumes:

-the Spitfire LF.MkV was still a dangerous foe at low altitude for the german fighters , espacially with Mk.IX above !

- Ramrod S.36 , flown 6. september 1943 , out of 32 spitfire squads, 18 still flew Mk.V

- at leastr 4 squadrons with LF.Mk.V flew low level combat patrols over the beachheads in june 1944


i personaly like the in game Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (CW) very much , its **** fast down low ! and a Bf109G6 will get trouble if it will be catched there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
12-21-2005, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Note: In 1943, a steadily increasing flow of high performance, high altitude fighters were based in the southeast corner of Great Britain by the 8th AF, allowing a sizeable portion of the new Mk IX and VIII Spitfires to be fielded in Norht Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Far East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't belive US fighter units were employed in the air defence of the United Kingdom at any point. There presence however was probably a good deterent however Luftwaffe raids were not conducted at high altitude but at very low altitude by 190's hence the need for specific low and medium altitude fighters to deal with them.

I know some P47's units were used as reserves and later as active participants in fighter sweeps and escorts over France in 1943 but the initial P47's in the UK had some serious reliabiliy issues.

If you look at records for RAF and 8th AF activity over France against JG2 and JG26 and other priority targets, it was usually US 8th AF twin engined aircraft being escorted by Spitfires, a mix of V's and IX's.

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Regular squadron strength of a RAF frontline fighter squadron is 20 planes, not 12. 12 planes are considered to be 'frontline' aircraft and the other 8 are considered to be 'reserve' aicraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and I know that, but as I researched the FC's 1942 operations in detail, they would only use 12 aircraft anyway on a mission, so that was the effective strenght of the unit, or below it in some case. The trouble is from that the RAF organisation, which seem to be circled around small units like Squadrons, that were ment to be able to operate on their own without a parent unit, which ment ample of reserves must be issued to each to give it endurance to sustained action. It gave them mor endurance vs losses, but otherwise was an inefficient method for deploying available force (but make sense since the RAF had many commitments on many places that required small units, and the fighters were primarly concerned with protection of the British Isles, which called for static defense, not flexible offense).

It is so much different than the other WW2 airforces which backbone was formed by a much larger unit, which's squadrons would normally not be able to operate independently (lacking repair facilities etc.). Also their reserves were more like being issued from large central reserves, with a with spares available only at unit level. The nominal strenght was very close to the actual strenght on operation, that's why I included the RAF units in a similiar manner, to keep a compatible number for comparision, ie. the number that was actually employed on operation, and not the reserves sitting at a, at the RAF squadron airfield b, in some central aircraft holding centre in other airforces. and the x12 stuff serves more like a clue rather than actual numbers.

stathem
12-21-2005, 04:15 AM
I tried to do a calculation to work out the ratio of Griffon engined Spitfires available in May 1944 to the number of K-4s + the number of Doras, but my calculator says something about "not being able to divide by 0"?

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Never mind, Kurfy - it's Christmas. Come on in and have a beer on us.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/glass.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, already engaged....

http://p.vtourist.com/2317863-2_Delirium_Tremens_Christmass_beer-Belgium.jpg

Dunno, I am sceptical about British ale. this is from the same guy responsible for Bishop's Finger, right ? Dunno, I'll try out if any of these make it here and I can find it.

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
This made eminent sense in view of the fact that US & Commonwealth bombing operations were increasingly directed at targets within Germany and the requirements of the Russian Front and the Mediterranean had caused the LW to limit offensive operations across the Channel and withdraw much of their own fighter strength beyond the optimum range of Spitfires of whatever Mark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LW strenght in France was constant from 1941 onwards. The two 'Kanalgeschwaders', plus KG 40, and that's it. It corresponded to the threat caused by RAF daylight operations (ie. negligable), which targeted stuff in France, that were of zero importance to the Germans, thus they kept only small forces there. As for withdrawing these Geschwader beyond the range of Spitfires, never heard of it, unless you suggest the optimum range of Spitfires were limited to just the French coastline.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mere existance of Spit IXs and the American high altitude fighters in Britain limited German intrusions in daylight to small high speed, low-level or ultra-high level pinprick attacks of next to no military value. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was this way from 1941 onwards, hardly anything changed after the IX was slowly introduced. The RAF was trying to get the LW into fight, but there was no point for the LW to get into fights which's outcome had no effect on the air war.

In effect, both the RAF and LW operations were limited to harassment raids across the channel with negligable importance. Trench warfare in the air. The RAF aimed to cause losses to the LW fighters with small bombers attacking unimportant targets with heavy fighter escort, the LW didn't buy this tactic and only attacked when it was advantagous to the them. The loss ratio of JG 2 and JG 26 show the RAF's own strategy was turned against it's user.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Meanwhile, Mk VIIIs and IXs were making their presence felt whereever the RAF was covering Allied offensive efforts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please expand on that. We already seen the numbers of VIIIs and IXs were very limited in 1943. In mid-1944, these units engaged in attacks on subpens with small 250-500lbs bombs, subpens that withstood hits from many times bigger bombs...

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Thats why spitvs were not used at high altitudes, they had ample mk9s for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By 1944, yes. This was not the case in 1942-43, the period under discussion.

JG53Frankyboy
12-21-2005, 05:00 AM
actually i understand it this way :
the Spitfire MkIX (A&B like unofficialy called) were used at higher alts , the Spitfire MkV, espacially the LF one from 1943 on, at lower alt............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
1) The most important aspect that you miss here is that MkIXs stayed at the southern bases and were used by whatever unit was rotated to and assigned to operate them from that base. So while many units do still operate the V, as soon as they are posted to an area which encounters with Fw190s are likely to occur they are equipped with the IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting and good points TtY, but let me briefly attempt to refine it :

1, Encounters with FW 190s in England were quite likely to occur, since 90% of both LW Geschwaders at the channel were using the FW 190.

2, As already pointed out, replacing the MkV units with MkIXs was simply not a possibility due to the lack of MkIX numbers.

Let me remind you :

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

That's 25 MkV Squadrons vs. 10 MkIX Squadrons operating in southern England in June 1943.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2)The tactics developed would see the Vs operating at their more competitive altitudes acting as close escorts to medium bombers while IXs provided top cover or foward sweeps at the higher alts where their performance is competitive with the interceptors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but that was basicall a solution out of neccesity (lack of MkIXs), and was only half an answer : the MkV (nonLF), even at it's highest boost of +16, was only competitive up to about 10 000 feet altitude, and it could not be expected that the interceptors would do a favour and always come down to such low altitudes intstead of taking advantage of their altitude performance and altitude advantage. The LF MkVs were badly outclassed already above 5000 feet altitude..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't forget that with the USSAF raids stripping many units from the Channel front to Germany centre that only JG2 and JG26 operated over France at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually quite the opposite. JG 2 and JG 26 were the only fighter units that were permanently left at the channel after the BoB due to the lack of threat from the direction of Britian. The USAAF when appeared, and for much of 1943, was targetting stuff in France, and was actually DRAWING more LW fighters to France for shorter periods from the Eastern Front, but the JG 2 and JG 26 stayed in France all the time, expect for a bit of 'tourism' of their sub-units to Africa and Russia.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-21-2005, 05:23 AM
Must be something in the name that makes it a world-beater....

Spitfire is the best beer in the world - I have proofs.

http://www.spitfireale.co.uk/spitfire_ale.htm


"To honour the legend, Shepherd Neame's Spitfire Premium Bitter was first brewed to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain in 1990 and raise money for the RAF Benevolent Fund.

And four years later, when victory was announced in the Brewing Industry International Awards €" the Oscars of the brewing industry - it was Spitfire, now one of Britain's fastest€"growing premium ales, which won the Gold Medal and the title The Best Strong Cask€"Conditioned Beer in the World."

Plus when you buy a pint of Spitfire, you're helping the RAF Benevolent Fund, neat, eh?

Correct about Bishop's Finger, there's hope for you yet.

Kurfurst__
12-21-2005, 07:26 AM
It was in 1994. And three years later... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pascalkolkman.com/delirium/images/kallen.jpg

On December 26th 1989, the famous "Delirium Tremens" was born. The particular character and the unique taste of "Delirium Tremens" result from the use of three different kinds of yeast. Its very original packing, which resembles cologne ceramics, and the colourful label contribute to its success. The label depicts the different phases of the production of "Delirium Tremens" the "Pink Elephant" was up and ready to conquer the world. To celebrate the bicentennial of the French Revolution in 1989, the topical beer "La Guillotine" was launched.

In 1997, our show-beer "Delirium Tremens" is nominated "best beer in the world". A gold medal during the "world beer championships" in Chicago (1998) confirmed that worldwide recognition."

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

Anyway, if I come across one of those Spitfires, I'll give a shot, strictly for the purpose of helping the foundation, of course! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
12-21-2005, 11:33 AM
Kurfurst, if you werent so incredibly biased, I would believe some of the stuff you write http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not saying it is all false, just that its always highly slanted to try and make Axis look better.

Why not take a balanced view on things like most people do?

The only problems with the MkV's vs FW190's and later 109's is the speed, it is **** hard to catch any later Axis plane even with a height advantage, if he evades the first pass he can get a away easily. Also the lack of cannon ammo in most of the MkV's is **** annoying compared to the Axis fighters rpg count.

AKA_TAGERT
12-21-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst, if you werent so incredibly biased, I would believe some of the stuff you write http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not saying it is all false, just that its always highly slanted to try and make Axis look better.

Why not take a balanced view on things like most people do? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

tom1502_158
12-21-2005, 12:16 PM
Are you only taking into consideration the UK based squadrons? MkV's were sent to the Middle East and the Med, as well as the Far East were they were more than good enough, and were used as ground attack aircraft as well.

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst, if you werent so incredibly biased, I would believe some of the stuff you write http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not saying it is all false, just that its always highly slanted to try and make Axis look better.

Why not take a balanced view on things like most people do?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then Gibbage won't have any reason to visit GD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

anarchy52
12-21-2005, 12:51 PM
Only the interpretation of the facts can be biased, not the facts themselves.

Anyway, why would any of you DF aces care? I mean you only fly MkIXe, D-9 or K-4...

I'm sure warclouds will get mentioned later in the thread. sigh

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 01:01 PM
And now for something completely different:

A warcloud
http://www.warcloud.net/graphics/warclouds/dustcloud.jpg

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

ploughman
12-21-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Only the interpretation of the facts can be biased, not the facts themselves.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's just the point, Kurfy cherry picks. And besides, you're reading this out of context, you need to view this in the context of a history of posts by Kurfurst which are slyly slanted at denegrating the Spitfire. Fek knows what he's got against it? The guy not enjoy being able to vote or what?

For example he infers that the Spit V/Spit IX mix is born out of necessity. One one level he's right, I dare say Fighter Command would rather all it's Spitfires were of the latest model, but what he doesn't refer to is that many later mks, VIIIs to Australia and so on, are being sent abroad. Seen as any nation is going to defend its homeland to the hilt first I think we can deduce that Britain was quite happy with the arrangements or it would not have been sending it's best fighters elsewhere.

He says only two groups were left behind in France as their was no real percieved threat from the UK. What he doesn't say is that France was an occupied nation and thus of less importance in German thinking than the UK was to the UK. He also doesn't bother to include the rest of the war in his rationale, the UK's war effort switched to other fronts, the North Atlantic, North Africa and the Balkans, the Far East. Germany's war effort switched to other fronts too, Russia, the Balkans and so on. As such the reasoning behind the maintainance of 2 groups in France is not just the assessment of a threat from the UK, but the operational demands elsewhere. Which was more important, according to Kurfy one demand wasn't even worth mentioning. This is what people are one about when it comes to Kurfy's posts, the guy has an agenda that he dresses up as reasoned rationale arguement. Thing is, he's always trying to prove the Spitfire was:

A/ Cr@p.
B/ Not actually there.
C/ Consistently outperformed by it's rivals.

Interestingly, as Kurfy points out, the Reich's newest and grooviest fighter was used to populate those France based units, so at least we know who the Luftwaffe thought was the team to beat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's good to see he's got rid of this silly 'tail' though.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-21-2005, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's good to see he's got rid of this silly 'tail' though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.basilrathbone.net/hbalt.jpg

But did he jump, or was he pushed? Come on Watson! The game's afoot!

luftluuver
12-21-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's 68 MkV Spitfire Squadrons vs. 29 MkIXs Spitfire Squadrons in service in September 1943; a ratio of 2.35 : 1 in favour of the MkV. Thus the MkV can be considered as the mainstay RAF Spitfire Mark until ca early-mid 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet by Dec 42 the number of MkV squadrons in the ETO and MTO had dropped by <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">25</span> by converting to MkIXs. This gives <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">54</span> squadrons of MkIXs and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">38</span> squadrons of MkVs. So how can the MkV be considered the mainstay into early-mid 1944 when the there was 1.4 times as many MkIX squadrons as MkV squadrons at year end 1943 and ~1.9 by mid 1944?

JtD
12-21-2005, 02:32 PM
Well, you should always remember that a IX actually is a V just with a different engine.

So as by 12-43:

92 squadrons of Mk. V, 54 of which have a different engine.

danjama
12-21-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Well, you should always remember that a IX actually is a V just with a different engine.

So as by 12-43:

92 squadrons of Mk. V, 54 of which have a different engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That first sentence is stupid. Did u read it?

JtD
12-21-2005, 02:44 PM
You mean the rest was better?

ImpStarDuece
12-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Availability of Bf 109 squadrons on May 9th, 1945; 0

danjama
12-21-2005, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You mean the rest was better? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point!

HellToupee
12-21-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Interestingly, as Kurfy points out, the Reich's newest and grooviest fighter was used to populate those France based units, so at least we know who the Luftwaffe thought was the team to beat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh shows what the lw thought of the 109s ability to fight the spitfire :P.

tomtheyak
12-21-2005, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

1, Encounters with FW 190s in England were quite likely to occur, since 90% of both LW Geschwaders at the channel were using the FW190.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Affirmitive for the ratio of Fws in ops' negative on the over england statement. Little or no action occurred over the UK; by 1943 the Jagdgeschwader on the channel front were a defensive force; the last tip and run raids were being run without success thanks to Mk XII Spitfire and Typhoon Squadrons precense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

2, As already pointed out, replacing the MkV units with MkIXs was simply not a possibility due to the lack of MkIX numbers.

Let me remind you :

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

That's 25 MkV Squadrons vs. 10 MkIX Squadrons operating in southern England in June 1943.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> by tomtheyak:
2)The tactics developed would see the Vs operating at their more competitive altitudes acting as close escorts to medium bombers while IXs provided top cover or foward sweeps at the higher alts where their performance is competitive with the interceptors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but that was basicall a solution out of neccesity (lack of MkIXs), and was only half an answer : the MkV (nonLF), even at it's highest boost of +16, was only competitive up to about 10 000 feet altitude, and it could not be expected that the interceptors would do a favour and always come down to such low altitudes intstead of taking advantage of their altitude performance and altitude advantage. The LF MkVs were badly outclassed already above 5000 feet altitude..

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A definitive NO. The mkIXs were tasked with the advance interception of the JGs attempting interceptions themselves. They acted as blockers, effectively surprising the JGs forming or breaking up their attacks and removing the value of either A) height or B) concentrated numbers as an advantage. The MkVs were the 'defenders' so to speak, to deter and mop up any opposition that might get through.
When and if the remaining Luftwaffe force get close to their objective they then find three squadrons of MkVs protecting it, then I'm sure I'd think twicw before engaging.

Yes this is an ideal example, and there are undoubtedly occasions when this went wrong and 190s get to the bombers unmolested, but considering the excellent long range RADAR control the RAF had at the time, those probabilities are low.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By tomtheyak:
Don't forget that with the USSAF raids stripping many units from the Channel front to Germany centre that only JG2 and JG26 operated over France at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually quite the opposite. JG 2 and JG 26 were the only fighter units that were permanently left at the channel after the BoB due to the lack of threat from the direction of Britian. The USAAF when appeared, and for much of 1943, was targetting stuff in France, and was actually DRAWING more LW fighters to France for shorter periods from the Eastern Front, but the JG 2 and JG 26 stayed in France all the time, expect for a bit of 'tourism' of their sub-units to Africa and Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no sources thatt indicate that any other units other than JG2 & 26 were based in France during this period. Only Holland & Germany.

By the way, although your comments regarding bombing effectiveness of the RAF raids over Francecan correspond to the activities of 41-42 with the Circus missions, it had little or no bearing on ops from late 42 onwards (Ramrods, Rodeos). By that stage medium bomber stikes were effective and often devastating with accuracy combined with numbers thanks to the RAF Mitchells and USAAF B-24s, -26s and -17s. I think the sheer decimation of both beach defences and in particular the transport system of Continental Western Europe plays testimony to that -

D-DAy ring any bells? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I think that's just the point, Kurfy cherry picks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think you simply don't like the facts about the slow operational introduction of the MkIX, but since you just can't challange the fact, you try to discredit it's poster. Really cheap, isn't it? How much easier is that, no need to do your own research, no need to check if there are errors and point it out, no... just generalize and say ALL needs to be dismissed.

But then, here's the exact source I was using. Feel free to point out errors and to challange IT'S facts :

http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/More-SPits.jpg


http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/IXSquadrons.jpg

Unfortunately, no breakdown for theatres of operation.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For example he infers that the Spit V/Spit IX mix is born out of necessity. One one level he's right, I dare say Fighter Command would rather all it's Spitfires were of the latest model, but what he doesn't refer to is that many later mks, VIIIs to Australia and so on, are being sent abroad. Seen as any nation is going to defend its homeland to the hilt first I think we can deduce that Britain was quite happy with the arrangements or it would not have been sending it's best fighters elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first part is telling. You don't like the facts I posted, even though you have to admit they are correct.

Re : 'Britain was quite happy with the arrangements' which is shown it sent Mk VIII to the Far East... sure, national pride would tell that. But I'd rather say of all Spitfires, ONLY the Mk VIII, which had 120 gallons internal fuel capacity vs. the Mk IX, was technically fit to operate over the much greater operational ranges of the MTO and PTO. Landing on water and hoping that someone finds you is more of a problem when you ran out of fuel than making a belly landing in Enland, or worst case, France or the Channel. Apart from that, there was nothing significant the VIII would offer over the Mk IX. Both were powered by the same engine(s), and were rated at around 404 mph top speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He says only two groups were left behind in France as their was no real percieved threat from the UK. What he doesn't say is that France was an occupied nation and thus of less importance in German thinking than the UK was to the UK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think that it should have been pointed out that Germany is not = France, and UK = UK...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interestingly, as Kurfy points out, the Reich's newest and grooviest fighter was used to populate those France based units, so at least we know who the Luftwaffe thought was the team to beat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe simply didn't have shortage of the most up to date fighters the German industry could offer, and in this regard the Kanalgeschwaders were nothing special, they were just flying 190s mostly, and not 109s, probably because the former was better suited against bombers they faced on the West. It's quite evident when we look in the orders of battle of LW units by mid-1943 : all combat untis are equipped with FW 190A or Bf 109G, there's no reliance on types that are two years old, the 109E and F that are still around are without exception used by OTUs. The Bf 109G-6, that was just introduced in March 1943, was already making up some 40% of the 109G force by June, only 3 months later. They simply upgraded old stuff awfully quick. But that's beyond the subject of this thread.

EDIT : edited for wrong UBB code of the second IX units pic.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 04:43 AM
So what's the source of your 'exact source'? without the name of the compiler, author or publisher it's meaningless. I could type up any old chart, post it on the net and claim it as a source. More details, please.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The Luftwaffe simply didn't have shortage of the most up to date fighters the German industry could offer, and in this regard the Kanalgeschwaders were nothing special, they were just flying 190s mostly, and not 109s, probably because the former was better suited against bombers they faced on the West. It's quite evident when we look in the orders of battle of LW units by mid-1943 : all combat untis are equipped with FW 190A or Bf 109G, there's no reliance on types that are two years old, the 109E and F that are still around are without exception used by OTUs. The Bf 109G-6, that was just introduced in March 1943, was already making up some 40% of the 109G force by June, only 3 months later. They simply upgraded old stuff awfully quick. But that's beyond the subject of this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Debate.
Kurfurst, do you have similar numbers for Luftwaffe squads in France for 1943.
Squadron, type used, and number available.

Telling us what the RAF had is good, but what the LW also had would be better.

The Luftwaffe upgraded its units very quickly with the latest fighters.. good point. But how many squads, and therefore numbers of fighters did it have to replace compared to the RAF?

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 04:47 AM
You can ask Guppy at Aces High forums about it's origin, it's his chart, and I doubt he would take it kindly if you accuse him of typing it himself, being a spitdweeb himself (mkXII)...

I merely extracted the info from his scans.

csThor
12-22-2005, 04:53 AM
I'm not Kurfürst, but the strength reports are available at http://www.ww2.dk (always at the bottom of the Geschader Page).

For example here's the strength report of I./JG 2 --&gt; http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Interesting Debate.
Kurfurst, do you have similar numbers for Luftwaffe squads in France for 1943.
Squadron, type used, and number available.

Telling us what the RAF had is good, but what the LW also had would be better.

The Luftwaffe upgraded its units very quickly with the latest fighters.. good point. But how many squads, and therefore numbers of fighters did it have to replace? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can look it all up at http://www.ww2.dk. This site list the equipment of ALL Luftwaffe units, fighter/bomber/nightfighter/stuka, etc., the losses, received planes, everything, in details between March 1942 and Dec 1944. I think I have already compiled a part of it, the daylight fighters in June 1943.

Bf 109 'on hand', 1st june 1943:
(daylight fighter units only, ie. no recce etc. units)

Bf 109E-1 2
Bf 109E-3/A 5
Bf 109E-4 2
Bf 109E-4/B 1
Bf 109E-7 92
Bf 109T 12
Bf 109 Emil 114*

Bf 109F-1 8
Bf 109F-2 43
Bf 109F-4 63
Bf 109 Friedrich 114**

Bf 109G-1 13
Bf 109G-1/R2 19
Bf 109G-1/R3 3
Bf 109G-2 160
Bf 109G-3 24
Bf 109G-4 261
Bf 109G-4 trop 20
Bf 109G-4/R1 11
Bf 109 G-1 to G-4 511
Bf 109G-4/G-6 (mix) 34
Bf 109G-5 0(2)***
Bf 109G-6 289
Bf 109G-6 trop 198
Bf 109G-6/R1 26
Bf 109 G-6 types 513****
------------------------------
Bf 109 Gustav 1058
Grandtotal Bf 109E/F/G 1286


* Total 109E Enemy-related losses in month : 10. Non-Enemy related : 23.
**Total 109F Enemy-related losses in month : 0. Non-Enemy related : 30.

In comparison Bf 109 G losses in month : 153 enemy related, 141 non-enemy related.
FW 190A : 82 enemy related, 96 non-enemy related.

These indicate the E and F types were retired from active frontline service, used only for operational training.

*** Figures at start of month, "()" show the end of month figure.

**** Not including line 'Bf 109G-4/G-6 (mix)'.


FW 190s 'on hand', 1st june 1943:
(daylight fighter units only, ie. no recce etc. units)

Fw 190A-0 1
Fw 190A-1 7
Fw 190A-2 51
Fw 190A-3 91
Fw 190A-3/U7 3
Fw 190A-4 314
Fw 190A-4/R1 3
Fw 190A-4/U1 1
Fw 190A-5 260
Fw 190A-5/U12 0(2)***
Fw 190A-6 0(15)***
--------------------------------
Total FW 190A 731



Compiled from following units :

Stab JG1
I / JG 1
II JG1
III / JG 1
Stab / JG 2
I JG 2
II JG2
III / JG 2
10 / JG 2
11 / JG 2
12 / JG 2
I / JG 3
II / JG 3
III / JG 3
IV / JG3
I / JG 4
Stab / JG5
I / JG 5
II / JG 5
III / JG 5
IV / JG 5
13.(Z)/JG5
14. (Jabo)/JG5
Stab JG 11
I / JG 11
II / JG 11
III / JG 11
Stab / JG 26
I / JG 26
II / JG 26
III / JG 26
10 / JG 26
11 / JG 26
12 / JG 26
Stab JG 27
I / JG 27
II / JG 27
III / JG 27
IV / JG 27
JG 50
Stab / JG 51
I / JG 51
II / JG 51
III / JG 51
IV / JG 51
15 / JG 51
Panzerjagdstaffel/JG51
Stab JG 52
I JG 52
II JG 52
III JG 52
15 JG52
Stab JG 53
I JG 53
II JG 53
III / JG 53
stab JG 54
I / JG 54
II JG 54
4 / JG 54
III / JG 54
IV / JG 54
Stab JG 77
I JG 77
II JG 77
III JG 77
Erg¤nzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost
Erg¤nzungs-Jagdgruppe Süd
Jagdgruppe West
Jagdlehrer-œberprufungsstaffel
Jagdstaffel Helgoland

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 05:40 AM
Regarding the stregnht in France, it's more complicated, since you'd have to check the deployement of each and every unit, which is a huge task...

However, JG 2 and 26 looked as the following on the 1st June 1943 :

Total aircraft on hand :

JG 2
176 aircraft : 102 FW 190A, 74 Bf 109G

JG 26 :
172 aircraft : 142 FW 190A, 30 Bf 109G

Total 348 fighters : 244 FW 190As, 104 Bf 109Gs 'on hand'.

Note that I didn't check any other unit that may have been in France at the time, or that subunits of JG 26 or JG 2 may have been located elsewhere at the time. This is just JG 2 and JG 26 on hand strenght in 1st June 1943, nothing more.

To put into proper context however :

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

This means 120 Spitfire IX on operation at a time from England, in best case at the same time period.

ploughman
12-22-2005, 06:19 AM
Kurfy, I find most of your posts quite illuminating but you do have an agenda. I don't know why you would think it matters to me whether or not all or some of Allied Spitfires in the summer of 1943 were Mk Vs or Mk IXs any more than it mattered to me whether or not the Mk XIV was available in significant numbers in late 1944. You presume to assume I have a belief that Spitfire IXs proliferated early during the war. I did not before your intial post and do not now. It seems to me that, given the competing demands on production, the air defence of the UK was considered to be amply provided for even though many high value targets were relatively close to the enemy but then by 1943 the threat posed by the Luftwaffle was negligible.

As to "And I think you simply don't like the facts about the slow operational introduction of the MkIX, but since you just can't challange the fact, you try to discredit it's poster. Really cheap, isn't it? How much easier is that, no need to do your own research, no need to check if there are errors and point it out, no... just generalize and say ALL needs to be dismissed." I actually wasn't responding directly to you or your posts, I was just demonstrating to another poster that, whilst facts are facts, interpretation is not and for that I assumed that your research in your initial post was correct, I certainly have no reason to suspect anything other than that, but your subsequent interpretations were biased, blinkered and served your agenda, as usual, just like last time, just like the next time. You 'cherry pick.' If you don't believe me go back through your posts and have a look for one which, in reference to a Spitfire isn't trying demonstrate one of the following:

The Spitfire is:

A/ Cr@p.
B/ Not actually there.
C/ Consistently outperformed by it's rivals.

Have a Merry Christmas. I wouldn't worry too much about the Spitfire beer, it's not that great and, although their advertising is a source of much amusement, there are many finer ales to be had in this fair kingdom.

mynameisroland
12-22-2005, 06:40 AM
The Spitfire LF VB is an excellent fighter under 15000ft. Its initial rate of climb is in the region of 4500ft at sea level which is very competitive and it is more manuverable than the Bf 109 or the Fw 190.

Kufurst I dont deny the Spitfire IX wasnt the most numerous fighter in 1942/3. The Spitfire IX was introduced in enough numbers to make its presence felt however. As for Germany re equipping its squadrons with newer aircraft. There are several reasons for this.

1: Rate of attrition of the Bf 109 was horrific, either through combat or pilot errors.
2: Germany equpped channel units with the Fw 190 not because they felt that it was better at shooting down bombers? Where did you read this? How many bomber intrusions were made over France in 1941/42 that were actually intercepted by the Luftwaffe anyway? They positioned the Fw 190 there because they respected the RAF and needed the best fighter to counter them and also the prestige of the units positioned there demanded it.
3: If Germany had a choice they would probably have kept the Bf 109 F4/G2 in service longer however needs must and the G6 was inferior to either of the two models it replaced. By re equipping with G6 the Luftwaffe to a retrograde step in fighter vs fighter capability.

Other things to consider are

1:Spitfire IX was the most produced Spitfire marque. There were an awful lot of them in service and the Luftwaffe never really equalled this numerous type at high altitude until the K4 and the Ta 152.
2: The Spitfire VB was capable of doing a job. Hey if germany still had thousands of 109 F's Im sure we would have seen them deployed fact was they didnt because they were either run in to the ground or destroyed one way or another.
3: The introduction of the Spitfire IX spelled the end of Fw 190 absolute dominance. It matched it in vital areas and enabled the RAF to take high altitude operations to a whole other level. A wing of Spitfire IX's could and regularly did (according to Johnny Johnson's memoirs) cruise at 42,000ft with impunity.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

This means 120 Spitfire IX on operation at a time from England, in best case at the same time period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

circa. 120 on Operation yes, but also circa. 200 planes in total

RocketDog
12-22-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In effect, both the RAF and LW operations were limited to harassment raids across the channel with negligable importance. Trench warfare in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly. By the end of 1943 the RAF could put more than 740 heavy bombers over Berlin whereas the LW had almost given up offensive operations against the UK mainland.

RAF operations were built around a central idea of nocturnal strategic bombing. With the LW unable to mount any credible threat against the UK there would have been little point in stuffing the island full of thousands of new fighters when the resources were required to build bombers.

Don't forget, fighters in themselves have little military value. They are important only in that they allow an airforce to use its own bombers or deny their opponent the use of their bombers.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

stathem
12-22-2005, 07:07 AM
OK, so I totted up total strength of Jg2 and Jg26 at the start of June 1943

FW190
A3/U7 - 3
A4 - 92
A5 - 147
A6 - 0

Bf109
G3 - 22
G4 - 23
G6 - 66

Totals

Fw190 - 242
Bf109 - 111


Total - 353 all types

Note that Stafflen 10, 11, 12 Jg 26 were formed at start 6/43 €" these planes are included.

Note also that at this time all Gustavs were limited to 1.3 ATA, the new spark plugs enabling 1.42 ATA not being developed until Summer 1943.

Since the above numbers are taken as unit strength, not operational strength, we must use the figure of 20 for RAF squadron strength, to be fair.

So British based

Mk IXs €" 19 * 20 = 380 planes
Mk XIIs €" 2 * 20 = 40 planes
Mk Vs €" 34 * 20 = 680 planes.

As you can see, there are 1.076 Mk IXs for every €˜Kanal Front€ Luftwaffe plane.

The Mk Vs are Jam.

There are over 3 Spitfires (all types but ignoring the high altitude VI and VII and PRU types) for every Luftwaffe plane.

This also ignores Typhoons and RAF Mustangs, and last but defiantly not least, the Americans.

Since the air war was lost in the West, it would appear to be a grave mistake not to contest the airspace above France.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:

Since the above numbers are taken as unit strength, not operational strength, we must use the figure of 20 for RAF squadron strength, to be fair.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! Something Kurfurst "forgot" to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This also ignores Typhoons and RAF Mustangs, and last but defiantly not least, the Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

Even by Kurfursts numbers, 200 SpitfireIX as on hand aint bad considering we haven't even mentioned Typhoons and Mustang MK1

Kurfurst has enlightened me to just how strong and competitive the RAF was in 1943.

stathem
12-22-2005, 07:14 AM
Oh yes, a word on MkXIIs for the uninitiated,

A single stage Griffon engined, Clipped wing Spitfire faster at low level than the opposing Fw190 types, used to good effect in catching and killing the hit and run raiders bombing English seaside towns.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 07:15 AM
so that's 240 (Kurfurst's figures) on hand Spitfires of the latest and ergo most competitive variants for that time period.

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

RocketDog
12-22-2005, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Luftwaffe simply didn't have shortage of the most up to date fighters the German industry could offer, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure that's true. But if they weren't short of fighters, they were short of everything else.

From Richard Overy's "The Air War 1939 - 1945" I have the following figures.

Aircraft weight produced per year (units are millions of aircraft pounds):

1941 Germany 88; UK 87; USA 81.5
1942 Germany 114; UK 134; USA 275
1943 Germany 163; UK 185; USA 651
1944 Germany 199; UK 208; USA 952

Ratio of German to Allied tonnage:

1941 52%
1942 28%
1943 19%
1944 17%

So by 1943 the UK and USA alone were producing more than 500% of the aircraft tonnage produced in Germany. I don't have aircraft weight figures to include for the USSR, but in 1943 the total number of aircraft produced by the Allies (UK, USA and USSR) was 151,761 vs a German production of 24,807 - giving the LW a production in numbers equal to only 16% of their opponents.

Now we can reduce the ratio a little because of the diversion of resources to the far East, but the overall pattern is clear. German aircraft production was being completely outclassed by the Allies.

The Germans had already lost by 1943. They just didn't know it.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 07:18 AM
stathem,

if Kufurst whats to use only 12 a/c per RAF squadron then only those servicable 109s and 190s should be counted. As of May 17 1943, the LW only had 980 servicable se fighters on all fronts.

I would say Kurfurst is doing another of his famous data manipulations and posting erronious statements, again.

stathem
12-22-2005, 07:22 AM
Meglie, note :-

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hi, I just compiled that from various books, I though it would be of interest to share it.

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but later;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
CONCLUSION :

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy appears to be a little confused there.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 07:23 AM
You mean you didn't realise that when he first posted this topic? :P

panther3485
12-22-2005, 07:24 AM
Hello mynameisroland,

I like your post and in general principle, I agree with the thrust of your statements HOWEVER, the Mk. IX most definitely was not the 'most produced Spitfire marque'. That particular distinction goes to the Mk. V.

Mk. I - 1,567
Mk. II - 921
Mk. V - 6,487
Mk. VI - 100
Mk. IX - 5,665
Mk. XVI - 1,054
Mk. VII - 140
Mk. VIII - 1,658
Mk. XII - 100
Mk. XIV - 963

I have not included a number of minor production types, separately built PR variants, Seafires or post-war marks.

Numerous sources can be quoted if required, but start with 'Spitfire', by Stewart Wilson (Aerospace Publications).


Best regards,
panther3485

stathem
12-22-2005, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
You mean you didn't realise that when he first posted this topic? :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't paying that much attention - but I had a free afternoon to go through the Abbeville Boys figures

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Meglie, note :-


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He must have had a calculator malfunction.

An honest mistake...

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

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Meglie, note :-
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He must have had a calculator malfunction.

An honest mistake...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be more than a calculator malfuntion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For he claimed: That's 68 MkV Spitfire Squadrons vs. 29 MkIXs Spitfire Squadrons in service in September 1943; a ratio of 2.35 : 1 in favour of the MkV. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Thus the MkV can be considered as the mainstay RAF Spitfire Mark until ca early-mid 1944.</span>

There was 25 less squadrons of MkVs in Dec because they had converted to MkIXs.
So there is 54 squadrons of MkIXs and 38 squadrons of MkVs in Europe (the major theatre) alone.

Another of Kurfurst's erronious statements in his quest to 'put down' his hated Spitfire.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 08:11 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/AnotherFineMess.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
OK, so I totted up total strength of Jg2 and Jg26 at the start of June 1943

Totals
Fw190 - 242
Bf109 - 111

Total - 353 all types </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are very similiar to my figure, ie. 348 planes.



[QUOTENote also that at this time all Gustavs were limited to 1.3 ATA, the new spark plugs enabling 1.42 ATA not being developed until Summer 1943.[/QUOTE]

Note that MkIXs were ALSO limited to +15 in all Merlin 61 MkIXs which formed tha majority of MkIXs at the time. The Merlin 61 was never cleared for anything higher.

Besides, I don't think the Gustav ould have to complain about it's competitiveness even at 1.3ata. It was faster than +15 MkIXs, and climbed better, it was just as fast at the rare of the rare +18 Spit IXs, and the poor mainstay MkV just couldn't compete, being at least 30 mph slower..

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5288901



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since the above numbers are taken as unit strength, not operational strength, we must use the figure of 20 for RAF squadron strength, to be fair.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, you are wrong. The actual strenght, the actual number of planes present with JG 2 and JG 26 1st june 1943 was 348, not including reserves at all. There were no immidiate reserves issued the LW Staffeln until late 1944.

You wish to compare to the LW actual frontline strenght without reserves vs RAF paper strenght WITH reserves (ie. 12+8 aircraft in a RAF squadron).

And this you call 'fair'.

20 planes per squadron was a RAF squadrons ESTABLISHED strenght, or in other words, strenght on paper, INCLUDING the 8 reserve aircraft that DID NOT fly combat mission.

12, sometimes 13 of these planes flew missions, ie. :

31. July 1943
11 Group Ramrod 181/II
TRICQUEVILLE

11 Group Biggin Hill
RAF 11 Gp. 485 Sqn. 12 x Spitfire F.IX 15.45-17.15 Ramrod

83 Group 122 Airfield
RAF 83 Gp. 132 Sqn. 12 x Spitfire LF.Vb 16.36-17.30 Ramrod

RAF 83 Gp. 65 Sqn. 12 x Spitfire LF.Vb 16.36-17.30 Ramrod



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So British based

Mk IXs €" 19 * 20 = 380 planes
Mk XIIs €" 2 * 20 = 40 planes
Mk Vs €" 34 * 20 = 680 planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source for these numbers? What's your source to the claim that every single british squadron was filled up to 100% operational strenght and 100% reserves 100% the time?

Because that's what you assumed here.

You made up 19 MkIXs in Britain - that's true for the total June 1943, including all units around the world, but you narrow down on the LW units stationed in France alone. Why not like with the like, MkIX Squadrons in Britian, which numbered only 10 :

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

10 Squadrons in Britain. 19 total all around the world, inc. the ones just refitting. I am quite sure MkIXs in Africa didn't really come into play over Calais.

Not only that you somehow assume the RAF was 100% on strenght all the time, AND include the immidiate unit reserves as well, now how ridiculus is that?

Sure, it's 'fair' pick the theoretical maximum number of MkIXs in service everywhere in the world in RAF, and compare that to the actual LW strenght alone in France.[/i]

It's fair to use the actual unit strenghts (below established strenght) for the LW and compare them to full established strengt of a RAF squadron, including those that weren't even there.

It's fair to count reserves for the RAF, and do not count them for the Luftwaffe.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As you can see, there are 1.076 Mk IXs for every €˜Kanal Front€ Luftwaffe plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only see that you are manipulating without any moral reservation, or just being blatantly wrong.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are over 3 Spitfires (all types but ignoring the high altitude VI and VII and PRU types) for every Luftwaffe plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, the so-called 'high altitude' Mk VI - i fact just a pressurized Mark V with the same engine - really counted, but not as much as the hidden hordes of UNARMED photo-recce Spits! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

In the south :

25 Sqn of Spit V
10 sqn of Spit IX
2 Sqn of Spit XII
2 Sqn of Spit VI/VII
Total 39 squadrons in action.

The maximum number of planes a Sqn could put for action was 12, PROVIDED it actually had those planes ready.. even in this optimum case, we have 39 x 12 = 468 Spitfires in in the air. Nowhere near 1000+, and this assumes they are all 100% ready for action. Sure, they always were, no exception.

Oh, let me not forget those up to 8 reserve Spitfires sitting on the airfields in England,(39x8=312) though I wonder for what purpose, since RAF squadrons were always 100% matched established strenght, and had 100% servicibility rates 100% the time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This also ignores Typhoons and RAF Mustangs, and last but defiantly not least, the Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, but since we are talking about the ratio of Spitfire V vs. IX in 1943, I don't see how those come into the picture, unless they are to pave the road for more advanced arguements like 'because Germany lost the war in 1945, MkIXs were more numerous than MkV from the first day they come to service'..... wait... prey assure me... this isn't what was on your mind, right?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since the air war was lost in the West, it would appear to be a grave mistake not to contest the airspace above France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, that's a different matter on it's own right, USAAF vs. LW operations in the West, let's not compare the scale of that to RAF nuisance raids over France that the German High Command didn't take seriously, and with a good reason.

mandrill7
12-22-2005, 08:28 AM
Kurfurst, even accepting all your figures as correct, what does it prove?? By June 1943, the LW was almost completely on the defensive in France and was mainly concerned with intercepting US and British bomber and fighter-bomber raids. So any real analysis would have to factor in the US Lightnings and T-bolts, as well as the various types of Spits and Typhoons.

The real goods is that the LW was so outnumbered in the West that the Spit V's are - as someone just said - "gravy". They could be used as back-up machines or in a low-level role. If the defence of Britain was ever truly threatened - as in 1940 - all GB would have to do is slow down bomber construction and produce more Spit IX's. Didn't happen, because it didn't need to happen.

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Meglie, note :-

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hi, I just compiled that from various books, I though it would be of interest to share it.

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but later;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
CONCLUSION :

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy appears to be a little confused there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You have reading comprehension problems, my friend. It's you who are confused here, but you know what do they say, when to keep your mouth shut, so they don't recognize it... I hope you will figure out, as will those people how needed your signal when to laugh. Chain reaction, one fool pulling the rest, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

and my statement :

"In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

correctly : 'the RAF Fighter command based in Britain', but that shouldn't have caused difficulties to any able-minded person.


If you still don't get it, read it again, slowly. If still not, try to figure out the difference between MkIXs Sqdns under Fighter Command based in Britain, and all MkIXs Squadron in the RAF, based in Britian, Africa, Malta and other places.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 08:30 AM
The German high command clearly didn't take it seriously enough. I bet they did when the woke up on the 6th of June to find 150,000 allied soldiers in Normandy, most of the serious fire power of the Royal Navy pounding there defences, the air so full of Spitfires and allied fighters the Luftwaffe could even mount 1 effective sortie and within a month RAF 2nd TAF Spitfires flying out of JG26's old airstrips :P

That just points out the utter idiocy of German high command.

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
There was 25 less squadrons of MkVs in Dec because they had converted to MkIXs.
So there is 54 squadrons of MkIXs and 38 squadrons of MkVs in Europe (the major theatre) alone.

Another of Kurfurst's erronious statements in his quest to 'put down' his hated Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice fiction.

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The German high command clearly didn't take it seriously enough. I bet they did when the woke up on the 6th of June to find 150,000 allied soldiers in Normandy, most of the serious fire power of the Royal Navy pounding there defences, the air so full of Spitfires and allied fighters the Luftwaffe could even mount 1 effective sortie and within a month RAF 2nd TAF Spitfires flying out of JG26's old airstrips :P

That just points out the utter idiocy of German high command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-day landings were not executed by the British, but a joint Allied command, the Allied Exp. Force, or AEF.

Though the Americans believed the AEF abbrevation was actually meaning something different.

"After England Failed".

stathem
12-22-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Meglie, note :-

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hi, I just compiled that from various books, I though it would be of interest to share it.

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but later;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
CONCLUSION :

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy appears to be a little confused there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You have reading comprehension problems, my friend. It's you who are confused here, but you know what do they say, when to keep your mouth shut, so they don't recognize it... I hope you will figure out, as will those people how needed your signal when to laugh. Chain reaction, one fool pulling the rest, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

and my statement :

"In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

correctly : 'the RAF Fighter command based in Britain', but that shouldn't have caused difficulties to any able-minded person.


If you still don't get it, read it again, slowly. If still not, try to figure out the difference between MkIXs Sqdns under Fighter Command based in Britain, and all MkIXs Squadron in the RAF, based in Britian, Africa, Malta and other places. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Throwing insults already?

Well, you see before i posted it I checked, as a sample, the location of 501 squadron.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h501.html

Just checked the Polish 315 Sq.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h315.html

Care to explain your 19/10 confusion a little better?

stathem
12-22-2005, 08:50 AM
315 Flying IXs (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/hannig/hannig.htm)

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 08:56 AM
btw, the offensive against britain didnt stop, was a off on thing, that wasnt terribly effective in 43, or 44.

the loss rate for the german bombers often ran to 7%, which is rather bad considering the distance, and time over enemy territory.

bomber command losses where 2-4% on average, with more dangerous missions compaired to raiding britain.

mossies alone where being more effective than the german bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 09:00 AM
Fiction Kurfurst? You dispute your own data? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It got those numbers from the data you posted. Of the squadrons you list as having MkVs in Sept in Europe, the following are in the list you have listed for squadrons having MkIXs in Dec.:

32, 43, 72, 74, 93, 111, 152, 249, 64, 66, 131, 132, 165, 401, 411, 412, 453, 451, 501, 602, 302, 306, 308, 312, 315, 350

That is 26 squadrons, not the 25 I stated before, that had converted to MkIXs before year end 1943.

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Spitfire LF VB is an excellent fighter under 15000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it was. But it's rated altitude was only 5900 feet... I am quite certain that rated altitude is a good measure of about how high a plane is competitive.

At 2000 ft, it would do 337mph, about as fast as the 109G and slower 190A.
At it's rated altitude 5900 feet, it would do 350 mph, about as fast as the 109G and slower 190A.

Above that it died. At 15 000 feet it would do 342 mph, about as fast as the Bf 109 EMIL from 1940, and was some 40+ mph slower than either 109G or FW 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its initial rate of climb is in the region of 4500ft at sea level which is very competitive and it is more manuverable than the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was manouverable and climbed very well at low altiudes but this didn't help much if the enemy just refused to come down, or to stay in a turnfight. Much like the Zero in the pacific, it's manouveribility was in vain if it's low speed made it vulnerable.

Kufurst I dont deny the Spitfire IX wasnt the most numerous fighter in 1942/3. The Spitfire IX was introduced in enough numbers to make its presence felt however.[/QUOTE]

OK, I think we can agree on this.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As for Germany re equipping its squadrons with newer aircraft. There are several reasons for this.

1: Rate of attrition of the Bf 109 was horrific, either through combat or pilot errors </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any such figures, or you simply assume that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2: Germany equpped channel units with the Fw 190 not because they felt that it was better at shooting down bombers? Where did you read this? How many bomber intrusions were made over France in 1941/42 that were actually intercepted by the Luftwaffe anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hundreds, literally. I think you should research RAF FC losses a little bit, I did this comprehensevily for 1942.

For starters, try google 'Dieppe'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They positioned the Fw 190 there because they respected the RAF and needed the best fighter to counter them and also the prestige of the units positioned there demanded it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure they respected the RAF, and concluded it's aircraft material is of higher standard than the Soviets. That's why the 109F, 109G and 190A made it's debut on the West. And why not equip them with the latest fighters, if there were plenty available of them? If the 109F was bad for the RAF, why not make it even worser for them with the 190A?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3: If Germany had a choice they would probably have kept the Bf 109 F4/G2 in service longer however needs must and the G6 was inferior to either of the two models it replaced. By re equipping with G6 the Luftwaffe to a retrograde step in fighter vs fighter capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, while the G-6 was marginally slower than the G-2, it did offer better armament,much improved cocpit visibility, better navigational and radio systems and other improvments, which overall counted a lot more than a few kph of max level speed that would be reached after 2-3 minutes of straight level flight.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
1:Spitfire IX was the most produced Spitfire marque. There were an awful lot of them in service and the Luftwaffe never really equalled this numerous type at high altitude until the K4 and the Ta 152.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had an equal of it before it appeared, the Bf109G. The British produced some 350 MkIX in 1942 (and many more old MkVs). Germany produced well over 2000+ 109Gs in the same year.

Actually 109K surprassed it so much already that it could cruise as fast as altitude as the MkIX on all out power. The 109G was very competitive to the MkIX at altitude, and the GM-1 carrying variants actually much better high altitude fighters.

No offense meant, but I think you have very vague idea of the alt performance of these planes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2: The Spitfire VB was capable of doing a job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in 1941.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hey if germany still had thousands of 109 F's Im sure we would have seen them deployed fact was they didnt because they were either run in to the ground or destroyed one way or another... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a nice fiction about 'run in to the ground or destroyed one way or another'. Truth is they simply didn't need to keep them in production anymore after more advanced types appeared, and they gradually discharged aging planes at the first opportunity. Why keep them if brand new types ARE available? The 109F production lasted only about a year, and then was replaced by the more capable Gustav, whereas the Brits continued to build the increasingly obsolate Spit MkV well into 1943, with the MkIX being produced only in penny pocket numbers.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
3: The introduction of the Spitfire IX spelled the end of Fw 190 absolute dominance. It matched it in vital areas and enabled the RAF to take high altitude operations to a whole other level. A wing of Spitfire IX's could and regularly did (according to Johnny Johnson's memoirs) cruise at 42,000ft with impunity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, with the MkIX the RAF had something that could match the 109G and 190A in performanc, but not in numbers.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The German high command clearly didn't take it seriously enough. I bet they did when the woke up on the 6th of June to find 150,000 allied soldiers in Normandy, most of the serious fire power of the Royal Navy pounding there defences, the air so full of Spitfires and allied fighters the Luftwaffe could even mount 1 effective sortie and within a month RAF 2nd TAF Spitfires flying out of JG26's old airstrips :P

That just points out the utter idiocy of German high command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-day landings were not executed by the British, but a joint Allied command, the Allied Exp. Force, or AEF.

Though the Americans believed the AEF abbrevation was actually meaning something different.

"After England Failed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said Allied didn't I? Please tell me what I got wrong there? Or you just being pedantic?

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Well, you see before i posted it I checked, as a sample, the location of 501 squadron.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h501.html

Just checked the Polish 315 Sq.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h315.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thus basically : you checked 2 Squadrons out of 19 being stationed in Britain, and based on that, without any idea where the rest were, you claim all 19s were based in Britian.

No comment needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Care to explain your 19/10 confusion a little better? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To rehearse : There were 19 Spitfire Squadrons in June 1943.
10 of these were based in Britain under Fighter Command.

hop2002
12-22-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems to me that, given the competing demands on production, the air defence of the UK was considered to be amply provided for even though many high value targets were relatively close to the enemy but then by 1943 the threat posed by the Luftwaffle was negligible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can get an idea of just how effective the daylight air defence of Britain was from the Luftwaffe reconisance record.

RV Jones was involved in the deception effort regarding the V-1. The British convinced the Germans that the V-1s were overshooting London, causing the Germans to reduce the range, making most of them fall short, into the less densley populated SE suburbs. RV Jones couldn't work out why the Germans believed the double agent's reports, rather than their own recce flights.

After the V-1 launch units were overrun, he found out why. The first recce sortie the Luftwaffe managed over London in 1944 was on the 10th September. It showed damage to North London that the Germans believed was caused by V-1s. In fact, the damage had been caused in the Blitz in 1941, but the Luftwaffe hadn't managed a recce sortie over London since 10th January 1941. For over 3 and a half years, they hadn't managed a single recce sortie over London. (half the Blitz was fought blind, with no post raid BDA at all)

Spitfires, of course, flew almost at will over Germany, and the RAF could make multiple recces after each of their raids. (as an example, the post raid BDA sorties for Cologne covered 4 consecutive days, 7 sorties, and covered "the whole of the town and suburban districts". The sorties took place 1 - 5 May, the previous set were completed 9th April)

ploughman
12-22-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">True, with the MkIX the RAF had something that could match the 109G and 190A in performance, but not in numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's fallacious though isn't it Kurfy? After all the Luftwaffle wasn't just fighting the IX was it? So the IX didn't have to match the 109 or 190 of whatever series in production numbers. After all World War Two wasn't the Luftwaffe verses the Spitfire Mk IX was it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Sure they respected the RAF, and concluded it's aircraft material is of higher standard than the Soviets. That's why the 109F, 109G and 190A made it's debut on the West. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is it that or is it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Interestingly, as Kurfy points out, the Reich's newest and grooviest fighter was used to populate those France based units, so at least we know who the Luftwaffe thought was the team to beat. Wink2 . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe simply didn't have shortage of the most up to date fighters the German industry could offer, and in this regard the Kanalgeschwaders were nothing special, they were just flying 190s mostly, and not 109s, probably because the former was better suited against bombers they faced on the West. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The German high command clearly didn't take it seriously enough. I bet they did when the woke up on the 6th of June to find 150,000 allied soldiers in Normandy, most of the serious fire power of the Royal Navy pounding there defences, the air so full of Spitfires and allied fighters the Luftwaffe could even mount 1 effective sortie and within a month RAF 2nd TAF Spitfires flying out of JG26's old airstrips :P

That just points out the utter idiocy of German high command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-day landings were not executed by the British, but a joint Allied command, the Allied Exp. Force, or AEF.

Though the Americans believed the AEF abbrevation was actually meaning something different.

"After England Failed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said Allied didn't I? Please tell me what I got wrong there? Or you just being pedantic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well I said the LW didn't take RAF bait-bombings in France seriously with a good reason, to which you replied it was a mistake from them, and it resulted in the allied (indeed) landings in Normandy, with lots of reference to the Royal Navy, Spitfires and the British 2nd TAF, like it would some british effort only.

So I just thought you credit in some way the Normandy landing to the effect of RAF circuses, rhubarbs and rodeos, taking all the credit from the Americans, undeserved, for the air war truely wasn't anything else over the chanell until the Americans arrived than a small garrison of LW fighters skirmishing with negligable sized RAF operations - if one doubts the comment about the neglibable size of it, just compare the number of Fighter command sorties flown on a SINGLE week during the Battle of Britain, and in a whole MONTH in 1942...

hop2002
12-22-2005, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You wish to compare to the LW actual frontline strenght without reserves vs RAF paper strenght WITH reserves (ie. 12+8 aircraft in a RAF squadron).

And this you call 'fair'.

20 planes per squadron was a RAF squadrons ESTABLISHED strenght, or in other words, strenght on paper, INCLUDING the 8 reserve aircraft that DID NOT fly combat mission.

12, sometimes 13 of these planes flew missions, ie. : </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not "reserves".

Look at it this way. No unit ever has 100% serviceability. Pilots get ill, so do planes. If you have 12 planes in a staffel, you will rarely be able to fly all 12 on operations at once.

If you have 20 planes in a squadron, you will usually be able to fly 12 planes at once.

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
You can get an idea of just how effective the daylight air defence of Britain was from the Luftwaffe reconisance record.

RV Jones was involved in the deception effort regarding the V-1. The British convinced the Germans that the V-1s were overshooting London, causing the Germans to reduce the range, making most of them fall short, into the less densley populated SE suburbs. RV Jones couldn't work out why the Germans believed the double agent's reports, rather than their own recce flights.

After the V-1 launch units were overrun, he found out why. The first recce sortie the Luftwaffe managed over London in 1944 was on the 10th September. It showed damage to North London that the Germans believed was caused by V-1s. In fact, the damage had been caused in the Blitz in 1941, but the Luftwaffe hadn't managed a recce sortie over London since 10th January 1941. For over 3 and a half years, they hadn't managed a single recce sortie over London. (half the Blitz was fought blind, with no post raid BDA at all)

Spitfires, of course, flew almost at will over Germany, and the RAF could make multiple recces after each of their raids. (as an example, the post raid BDA sorties for Cologne covered 4 consecutive days, 7 sorties, and covered "the whole of the town and suburban districts". The sorties took place 1 - 5 May, the previous set were completed 9th April) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Richter tells it differently in Edmund Blandford's 'Target England'. He desribes easily penetrating British defenses at 9000meters in his He 177 on a reconnaisance mission in the summer of 1943. He took off from Amsterdam, with the goal of making photos weapons factories in middle-England. They were to photograph Rugby, then Birmingham, then Manchester. NOTHINHG came to them, the first attempt from the British AAA over Derby (too low). They were already over Birmingham when they spotted first fighter trail well below them. They did the shots on Birmingham too.

Then they turned the bomber towards the home/the see in a swallow dive, and shaked off the interceptor, loosing it before they even reached the English coast, then they RTB.

A few days later bought some present for Birmingham on the nex recce mission, in a form of two 1 ton bombs. Penetrated the British coast from the East, made the photos, dropped the bombs, left the airspace to the South. No interceptors.

Kinda make me doubt about those London photos, Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
They are not "reserves".

Look at it this way. No unit ever has 100% serviceability. Pilots get ill, so do planes. If you have 12 planes in a staffel, you will rarely be able to fly all 12 on operations at once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True in this way, but in the Luftwaffe the Staffel was only a tactical unit, with no capabilities to operate on it's own, no repair facilities, nothing. It only operated under the Gruppe, or Wing, which had the facilities for repair, the reserves and so on. It was a rare exception for a Staffel to operate at an other place than it's parent Gruppe.

It didn't have reserves attached (until 1944), but that doesn't mean reserves were not in reach.

There were specific reserve units (Erganzungseinheiten) created that held the planes for reserve, and provided the last phase of the training for the pilots. They amounted to ca 1/3 of the frontline force in Jan 1945. When needed, they flew-in the replacement planes, or the Staffel's pilots flew them in themselves from the aircraft storage facilities that were erected in the area of operations. They could simply use the ready planes of another Staffel of the same Gruppe that wasn't in action that time. With the air war intensity low, it worked well and provided an optimum deployment of the material : planes that don't fly are just dead weight, and they could be needed elsewhere. It didn't change until 1944, when the air war started to really rage on, when they were issued 12+4 planes per staffel.

It was just differently organized than in the RAF, where Squadrons were independent units.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have 20 planes in a squadron, you will usually be able to fly 12 planes at once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I counted with 12 planes per RAF Squadron.

ploughman
12-22-2005, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
You can get an idea of just how effective the daylight air defence of Britain was from the Luftwaffe reconisance record.

RV Jones was involved in the deception effort regarding the V-1. The British convinced the Germans that the V-1s were overshooting London, causing the Germans to reduce the range, making most of them fall short, into the less densley populated SE suburbs. RV Jones couldn't work out why the Germans believed the double agent's reports, rather than their own recce flights.

After the V-1 launch units were overrun, he found out why. The first recce sortie the Luftwaffe managed over London in 1944 was on the 10th September. It showed damage to North London that the Germans believed was caused by V-1s. In fact, the damage had been caused in the Blitz in 1941, but the Luftwaffe hadn't managed a recce sortie over London since 10th January 1941. For over 3 and a half years, they hadn't managed a single recce sortie over London. (half the Blitz was fought blind, with no post raid BDA at all)

Spitfires, of course, flew almost at will over Germany, and the RAF could make multiple recces after each of their raids. (as an example, the post raid BDA sorties for Cologne covered 4 consecutive days, 7 sorties, and covered "the whole of the town and suburban districts". The sorties took place 1 - 5 May, the previous set were completed 9th April) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Richter tells it differently in Edmund Blandford's 'Target England'. He desribes easily penetrating British defenses at 9000meters in his He 177 on a reconnaisance mission in the summer of 1943. He took off from Amsterdam, with the goal of making photos weapons factories in middle-England. They were to photograph Rugby, then Birmingham, then Manchester. NOTHINHG came to them, the first attempt from the British AAA over Derby (too low). They were already over Birmingham when they spotted first fighter trail well below them. They did the shots on Birmingham too.

Then they turned the bomber towards the home/the see in a swallow dive, and shaked off the interceptor, loosing it before they even reached the English coast, then they RTB.

A few days later bought some present for Birmingham on the nex recce mission, in a form of two 1 ton bombs. Penetrated the British coast from the East, made the photos, dropped the bombs, left the airspace to the South. No interceptors.

Kinda make me doubt about those London photos, Hop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would've been more use if he'd dropped the bombs and then made the photos don't you think?

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 10:09 AM
But he could do that the next day, too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The German high command clearly didn't take it seriously enough. I bet they did when the woke up on the 6th of June to find 150,000 allied soldiers in Normandy, most of the serious fire power of the Royal Navy pounding there defences, the air so full of Spitfires and allied fighters the Luftwaffe could even mount 1 effective sortie and within a month RAF 2nd TAF Spitfires flying out of JG26's old airstrips :P

That just points out the utter idiocy of German high command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-day landings were not executed by the British, but a joint Allied command, the Allied Exp. Force, or AEF.

Though the Americans believed the AEF abbrevation was actually meaning something different.

"After England Failed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said Allied didn't I? Please tell me what I got wrong there? Or you just being pedantic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well I said the LW didn't take RAF bait-bombings in France seriously with a good reason, to which you replied it was a mistake from them, and it resulted in the allied (indeed) landings in Normandy, with lots of reference to the Royal Navy, Spitfires and the British 2nd TAF, like it would some british effort only.

So I just thought you credit in some way the Normandy landing to the effect of RAF circuses, rhubarbs and rodeos, taking all the credit from the Americans, undeserved, for the air war truely wasn't anything else over the chanell until the Americans arrived than a small garrison of LW fighters skirmishing with negligable sized RAF operations - if one doubts the comment about the neglibable size of it, just compare the number of Fighter command sorties flown on a SINGLE week during the Battle of Britain, and in a whole MONTH in 1942... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't see how I was incorrect in anyway or in fact implied the invasion of Normandy was in anyway anything other than a joint allied effort.

You really should put in your sig you distain the RAF, Spitfire and anything British so your agenda is clear to those who are not familiar with your postshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Monty_Thrud
12-22-2005, 10:10 AM
Well i can tell you exactly what Kurfurst_ is on about...The Bf109 won the war...NOW BACK OFF CHUMPS!,...with your silly little Schpitfeuers...or i will taunt you a second time...there...that raps this one up...NEXT!

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//mp_frenchtaunter.gif


http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//holygr3.jpg

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 10:11 AM
then again, theres stalingrad, where 2 rather large armies appeared from nowhere, crashed through the weak flanks and encircled the germans in stalingrad. the german generals had no idea there was anything on the flanks.

and they missed a fair bit of D Day stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

only 8 or so of v1 launch sites wherent found by photo recon, and thats impressive as there was 120-30ish total, and often all one was was a "ski ramp"

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 10:15 AM
BTW, the first victory of the 109G very shortly after it's introduction was a recce Spit in July 1942. Heinz Knoke also shot down one, still flying an old 109E in the Norway backyard he was stationed at. Then he shot down a recce Mosquito in his new Bf 109G1.

Just off the top of my head.

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 10:19 AM
just off the top of my head, PR losses where 1 per 487hours of operational flying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
then again, theres stalingrad, where 2 rather large armies appeared from nowhere, crashed through the weak flanks and encircled the germans in stalingrad. the german generals had no idea there was anything on the flanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Russia is small and weather is just perfect for recce work during the winter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and they missed a fair bit of D Day stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"
only 8 or so of v1 launch sites wherent found by photo recon, and thats impressive as there was 120-30ish total, and often all one was was a "ski ramp" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about British recce work at Arheim... did miss a few SS Panzer Divisions, tough for the paras... also in the Ardnennes they did missed about a thousend Panzers ready to go.


You get the point, there were success and failings on both sides. Generalisation leads no-where.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 10:21 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/P.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-22-2005, 10:24 AM
I recognize her!

Miss England 2005, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Looks so! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 10:25 AM
Big deal Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Losses are expected. The recon Spits and Mossies still operated over German controlled territory with relative impunity. It was not till the 262 appeared that they had really anything really to worry about and even then there was not enough 262s to worry about.

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Only the interpretation of the facts can be biased, not the facts themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree, if you leave out some of the facts (CONS) and therfore only show some of the FACTS (PROS) than it could be tailored to result in something other than the truth. Just like taking something said out of context, you can make it mean something 180 out of what was actully said. In short, a sub set of the FACTS are not FACTS imho.

Krusty has done this many times in the past, thus anythig he says has to be taken with a 1/2 grain of salt.

ploughman
12-22-2005, 10:30 AM
Interestingly Reinhard Heydrich, architect of the Holocaust and all round bad guy, was a Luftwaffe pilot for a while and held the Luftwaffe Reconnaissance Flying Clasp.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I recognize her!

Miss England 2005, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Looks so! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again, bozo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Eng.jpg

hop2002
12-22-2005, 10:35 AM
Oh, I've no doubt they managed the odd sortie, but the SE was better defended.

You've only got to look at their attempts before and after D Day. No hint the invasion force had sailed, no successful high alt daylight recce of the invasion area until the 2nd of August, 2 months after the landing (flown by an Ar 234)

horseback
12-22-2005, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The D-day landings were not executed by the British, but a joint Allied command, the Allied Exp. Force, or AEF.

Though the Americans believed the AEF abbrevation was actually meaning something different.

"After England Failed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, Kurfurst, but I heard that expression before, from both of my grandfathers who served in France in the First World War, with the American Expeditionary Force (AEF). My recollection was reinforced while reading An Army At Dawn, by Rick Atkinson, just this week.

The expression was used while referring to the attitude of the career American Army officers who had dealt with the British in WWI, and generally had come away with a poor opinion of the the British Army's leadership at that time. They had to overcome a certain amount of prejudice before they were able to work with the British Army's leadership of 1941/2.

As for the relative numbers of fighters available to the Allies or the LW vs the 'authorized strengths' of the units, my copy of The First and the Last by Galland and Caldwell's JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, among others, indicate that the Kanalfront fighter geschwader rarely had more than 70% of their available aircraft (which was much less than their authorized strength, in most cases) operational at any time, while post BoB, the Allies seem to have been able (with the most notable exception of the P-38 groups) to get the assigned number of pilots assigned to a given mission into the air.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
then again, theres stalingrad, where 2 rather large armies appeared from nowhere, crashed through the weak flanks and encircled the germans in stalingrad. the german generals had no idea there was anything on the flanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Russia is small and weather is just perfect for recce work during the winter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and they missed a fair bit of D Day stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"
only 8 or so of v1 launch sites wherent found by photo recon, and thats impressive as there was 120-30ish total, and often all one was was a "ski ramp" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about British recce work at Arheim... did miss a few SS Panzer Divisions, tough for the paras... also in the Ardnennes they did missed about a thousend Panzers ready to go.


You get the point, there were success and failings on both sides. Generalisation leads no-where. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm in winter, depending on if its snowing or not, u can see the trails from tanks, troops etc, and there would be a few of them, u can see similer in summer actully, grass is flattened by troops and tanks and cars, and u can see a different colour from above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. while russia is rather big, u can only move such a large bod(ies) of men and equipment so fast.

PR found the tanks etc at arheim, so did others infact. one mossie was gonna bomb some target that looked easy but on closer inspection it was full of tanks and stuff...

the opperation was blindly pushed forward too much tbh :\

noace
12-22-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by p1ngu666:
then again, theres stalingrad, where 2 rather large armies appeared from nowhere, crashed through the weak flanks and encircled the germans in stalingrad. the german generals had no idea there was anything on the flanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(OT I know but) That is just pure nonsense. The germans were well aware of the russian buildups. Even Hitler(!!) was extremely worried. An anti tank group was especially sent to the Rumanians as they had nothing in this area. The germans just hoped that they could finish off Stalingrad before the storm breaks loose. This had worked to often in the past - not this time.

stathem
12-22-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Well, you see before i posted it I checked, as a sample, the location of 501 squadron.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h501.html

Just checked the Polish 315 Sq.

Based South of England flying sweeps over France.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h315.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thus basically : you checked 2 Squadrons out of 19 being stationed in Britain, and based on that, without any idea where the rest were, you claim all 19s were based in Britian.


No comment needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I said it was a sample. Considering the obvious bias and mis-intepretation which pervades your 'work', both previously and in this case, I considered a sample of 2 to be adequate. It is you who should have provided the locations of squadrons, thus obviating the need for us to check.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Care to explain your 19/10 confusion a little better? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To rehearse : There were 19 Spitfire Squadrons in June 1943.
10 of these were based in Britain under Fighter Command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then Kurfurst, let me explain.

In your original post you gave the numbers of ten squadrons as flying the MkIX, identifying them specifically as RAF squadrons, to wit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you then post a paragraph stating that in RAF Fighter Commmand there are 10 squadrons eqipped with the Mk IX

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."
- Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You then add in another nine squadrons which you avoid identifying as RAF squadrons, and use a total of 19 squadrons to derive a figure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But in your 'Conclusion' you revert back to a figure of ten without identifying clearly where this figure comes from. You do not state that nine squadrons are overseas, nor do you make any attempt to clarify the locations of any of the Squadrons.



When posting things as 'proofs' and drawing 'conclusions', it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that your proofs are clear, concise, and unambiguous. It is NOT the readers responsibility to try to make sense of confusing and contradictory statements. If statements are made in this fashion, the reader is free to deliberately mis-interpret your statements in order to annoy you, and mis-use the data to provide counter arguments which suit their own world-view.

What you should have done is to

a) clearly state at the outset that you were referring only to RAF Fighter Command, or fighters based in Britain.
b) include only the units covered by a)
c) kept one total throughout.

I hope this has proved a salutary lesson about the requirements when attempting to prove things, and trust that in future your posts will be better constructed.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Thus basically : you checked 2 Squadrons out of 19 being stationed in Britain, and based on that, without any idea where the rest were, you claim all 19s were based in Britian.

No comment needed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm not quite.

Kurfurst it is YOU who claimed ONLY 10 squadrons were based in the UK, without checking the location of the other 9 squadrons.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 01:22 PM
A shovel clearly isn't big enough to dig this hole. Want a JCB?

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 01:36 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Every one</span> of the MkIX squadrons Kurfurst lists for June 1943 were stationed in Great Britain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we can put another of his falsehoods to rest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">19</span> MkIX squadrons.

This site gives the bases for RAF FC squadrons.
http://www.rafcommands.currantbun.com/Fighter/indexF.html

danjama
12-22-2005, 01:39 PM
Kurfust, you are a W A N K E R

RocketDog
12-22-2005, 01:58 PM
That may be true, but it's fun to speculate what motivates him. He used to go under the name of "Issegrim" and was one half of the uber-twins. I had the impression they were both eastern-european right-wing nationalists who hated the West because it hadn't prevent the communist takeover of their countries at the end of WWII. In his friend Huckie's case there also seemed to be a strong element of mental instability. Their posting styles are/were similar too - both spend a lot of time accusing everyone else of being liars or biased.

Anyway, some interesting psychology there.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 04:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nice sig rocket dog

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nice sig rocket dog </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

noace, never heard that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Xiolablu3
12-22-2005, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Only the interpretation of the facts can be biased, not the facts themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree, if you leave out some of the facts (CONS) and therfore only show some of the FACTS (PROS) than it could be tailored to result in something other than the truth. Just like taking something said out of context, you can make it mean something 180 out of what was actully said. In short, a sub set of the FACTS are not FACTS imho.

Krusty has done this many times in the past, thus anythig he says has to be taken with a 1/2 grain of salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agree 100%

Mr_Nakajima
12-23-2005, 02:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Karl Richter tells it differently in Edmund Blandford's 'Target England'. He desribes easily penetrating British defenses at 9000meters in his He 177 on a reconnaisance mission in the summer of 1943. He took off from Amsterdam, with the goal of making photos weapons factories in middle-England. They were to photograph Rugby, then Birmingham, then Manchester. NOTHINHG came to them, the first attempt from the British AAA over Derby (too low). They were already over Birmingham when they spotted first fighter trail well below them. They did the shots on Birmingham too.

Then they turned the bomber towards the home/the see in a swallow dive, and shaked off the interceptor, loosing it before they even reached the English coast, then they RTB.

A few days later bought some present for Birmingham on the nex recce mission, in a form of two 1 ton bombs. Penetrated the British coast from the East, made the photos, dropped the bombs, left the airspace to the South. No interceptors.
QUOTE]

Kurfurst€s anecdote about the use of the He 177 for reconnaissance over Great Britain does not demonstrate that the Luftwaffe had such a strategic reconnaissance capability during the middle years of the war. Nor are such He 177 missions mentioned by Manfred Griehl and Joachim Dressel in their book on to the aircraft (ISBN 1-85310-364-0), despite devoting several pages to reconnaissance operations.

Here is what €˜The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force, 1933-1945€ has to say. The book was originally a RESTRICTED document written by RAF intelligence officers just after the end of the war who had access to German commanders and records, and is now published by Public Records Office (ISBN 1-903365-30-9). Discussing the preparations for the inevitable Allied assault on occupied France in 1944 it says:

€œOne of the chief (German) handicaps in assessing both the area and scale of the Allied build up for the invasion was the shortage of photographic reconnaissance of the British Isles. The strength of the (UK) defences had long prevented any attempt during 1943 or the early part of 1944 to obtain such cover, and it was not until the middle of April (1944) that efforts were made to fill this gap. Even so, it was extremely limited in extent; the main effort over southern England had to be restricted to coverage by short-range reconnaissance aircraft over the South and south-west coast, but long-range reconnaissance of Scapa Flow and northern Scotland was also increased. No attempt was made by reconnaissance aircraft to penetrate overland and, in fact, by the end of May there was a falling off in the scale of effort compared with the situation at the beginning of the month. Lack of frequent cover prevented any reliable estimates being made of the progress of Allied preparations; in many cases vertical overhead pictures could not be taken owing to the strength of the defences and in consequence it was frequently impossible to obtain more than occasional distant, oblique photographs of objectives. The failure of German air reconnaissance at this time is outstanding, and contrasts vividly with the strength and activity of their reconnaissance forces during the early stages of the war both on the western front and in the East; this failure was a major factor in the inability of the German High Command to formulate any accurate ideas as to the direction from which the assault would be undertaken, and its consequently contributed to a widespread dispersal of German forces throughout the western front from Brittany to the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway€.

Needless to say all the usual sources (Overy, Murray,etc.) agree.

German raiders did frequently penetrate British airspace during the day in 1942, but the did so only in bad weather, singly and in widely dispersed areas. Such nuisance raids, like the more famous €˜tip and run€ attacks by fighter-bombers on the southern coast, were a major headache for the RAF. But like the fighter clashed fought out over the channel they had no strategic impact whatsoever.

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 02:32 AM
OK lets get things in perspective, whatever you can post, I can post the same for the red side...

This was taken from locutis post on warclouds, I read it and found it fits in quite well here, hope he doesnt mind me quoting it...

Quote - 'If blue is using historical accuracy to argue for alteration of plane sets then it is only logical to restrict the planes like the TA 152 and the 190D-9 or remove them as well. The D-9 was a stop gap production unit in the development of the TA152. It was not mass produced and it didn€t see large deployments. The TA 152€s were produced very late in the final stages of the war and did not even see with variants included 150 units produced. You have to put this in relation to the 13,000+ fighters produced by in Focke-Wulf's Marienburg plant alone. Why this aircraft is allowed to fly based on the historical accuracy argument makes no sense.

I found an interesting link to the TA below

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/focke_ta152.htm

€œBetween October 1944 and February 1945 when production ended, Focke-Wulf managed to roll 67 completed Ta 152 aircraft (H-0, H-1, and C-1 models) off the line but these fighters put on a disappointing show. Some aircraft were lost to engine fires while a variety of other engine problems and spares shortages grounded most of the fleet. By April 30, 1945, only two Ta 152C-1s remained operational. The Luftwaffe had grounded all H-models--an ignominious end for combat aircraft with great potential.€



My problem with these two aircraft is that the 152 and 190D-9 appears to be 40-60% of typically deployed (chosen) aircraft. This is way out of scope for historical deployment scenarios.

So where is the historical argument backing this up? Are we simulating a €œsecret weapons of the LW€ scenario? The LW could never supply these aircraft in those numbers so why should blue get this unrealistic historical deviation when in their own logic they are requesting realism?

The P-63 was used as an equalizer for the US plane sets that have been largely unattended and sometimes seriously messed up by Oleg. While the German AC set has been supplied with almost every bizarre last resort creation that really never made a significant impact on the war the Allied sets are missing key elements of the Air war from British and American units. Key spitfires and P-47€s are simply not available and the 47€d that are available are not even coming close to supplied performance data (but that€s another thread.)

So blue players its time to either move into realistic WF deployments or stop using one sided logic that only applies when its used in your favor. If we could restrict the TA and D9 to a realistic % of units I would be fine but currently this isn€t available so I opt for a realistic approach that removes these until the game supports balanced deployment options. After all the Axis never had mass deployments of these units, if we went with realistic scenarios you would be flying 109G10€s or earlier and some older 190 variants, stukas and 110's. Still a deadly plane set and historically accurate. Somehow though I am sure to see a giant revolt of the application of your own logic.'

This logic also applies to the 109K4 which was only available in the same numbers as the Spit 14, this plane is not available to the Allies and therefore the 109K4 should be removed.

Bf 109K4, of the 896 produced from october 44 thru december 44, many never made it into operation due to numerous reasons, mostly due to sabotage and accidents.

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 03:20 AM
Sorry, what Locutis wrote simply isn't true. The D9 wasn't a stop gap, it was a major variant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The P-63 was used as an equalizer for the US plane sets that have been largely unattended and sometimes seriously messed up by Oleg. While the German AC set has been supplied with almost every bizarre last resort creation that really never made a significant impact on the war the Allied sets are missing key elements of the Air war from British and American units. Key spitfires and P-47€s are simply not available and the 47€d that are available are not even coming close to supplied performance data (but that€s another thread.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not true. The bulk of Spitfires in 1945 were IX's, to think anything else is revisionist, the XIV was in very short supply and really had no impact, the Tempest was a different story. The bulk of the P51's were C's and D's,we got those? The bulk of the P47's in 1945 were in the ETO were D model variations and we got those and they do meet performance figures for D's. Forget them M, like the TA152, it was a failure despite its high performance. Only 130 built and pilots felt them unreliable. The N was not a key model in the ETO, the H mustang wasn't either. Neither was the Spitfire XIV. Don't get me wrong, I'd like the N jug and spitfire XIV but they ain't important to the ETO.

What we've got is a semi realistic plane set for the western front. Late Gustavs, Antons and Dora's were all used. The Dora was like the Tempest, not a great deal built but all were sent straight from the factory to the front line.

We got a D model Jug, D model P51, IX Spitfires, V Spitfires, L model 38's. Those made up most of the fighter and fighter bomber aircraft on the western front 1944-1945.

The only allied plane of real significance were missing on the western front is the Typhoon and Mosquito. The Tempest is arguable as it was signifcant but the war wouldn't have gone on a day longer without it.

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 03:28 AM
jeez that ta152 is pretty rare isnt it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 03:33 AM
yup and totally overated.

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 03:34 AM
think someone posted awhile ago that XIV's shot down more luftwaffles than tempests.

XIV/25lb boost IX is contemporary to the alcholic 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 03:38 AM
XIV's shot down something like 402 aircraft compared to the Tempest 253.

But then compare the number of trains, vehicals, APC's, light tanks, aircraft on the ground, Jets etc the Tempest destroyed, it eclipses the XIV's by a massive margin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Theres also the 700+ V1's shot down by a handful of Tempests compared with the XIV's few dozen.

luftluuver
12-23-2005, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">€œBy April 30, 1945, only two Ta 152C-1s remained operational. The Luftwaffe had grounded all H-models--an ignominious end for combat aircraft with great potential.€ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is hard for 2 152C-1s to be operational when there was none built. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just because it says NASM in the link does not mean one can believe what it says.

Mondo, there was quite a few P-51Ks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Sorry, what Locutis wrote simply isn't true. The D9 wasn't a stop gap, it was a major variant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The P-63 was used as an equalizer for the US plane sets that have been largely unattended and sometimes seriously messed up by Oleg. While the German AC set has been supplied with almost every bizarre last resort creation that really never made a significant impact on the war the Allied sets are missing key elements of the Air war from British and American units. Key spitfires and P-47€s are simply not available and the 47€d that are available are not even coming close to supplied performance data (but that€s another thread.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not true. The bulk of Spitfires in 1945 were IX's, to think anything else is revisionist, the XIV was in very short supply and really had no impact, the Tempest was a different story. The bulk of the P51's were C's and D's,we got those? The bulk of the P47's in 1945 were in the ETO were D model variations and we got those and they do meet performance figures for D's. Forget them M, like the TA152, it was a failure despite its high performance. Only 130 built and pilots felt them unreliable. The N was not a key model in the ETO, the H mustang wasn't either. Neither was the Spitfire XIV. Don't get me wrong, I'd like the N jug and spitfire XIV but they ain't important to the ETO.

What we've got is a semi realistic plane set for the western front. Late Gustavs, Antons and Dora's were all used. The Dora was like the Tempest, not a great deal built but all were sent straight from the factory to the front line.

We got a D model Jug, D model P51, IX Spitfires, V Spitfires, L model 38's. Those made up most of the fighter and fighter bomber aircraft on the western front 1944-1945.

The only allied plane of real significance were missing on the western front is the Typhoon and Mosquito. The Tempest is arguable as it was signifcant but the war wouldn't have gone on a day longer without it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I should check up what I post before I post it, also I should have asked him for permission to post it, too.

I think what he means is that the FW190D makes up most FW190's on a server if its there, yet it wasnt available in large numbers, therefore his point still stands, really.

Like the Spit 14, the 190D had no impact on the war, yet the blues still get it if they want it on 1944 maps.

There simply were not big groups of FW190D's and 109K4's flying around in 1944/45, yet they are there for most Axis pilots to fly, to balance it up the Spit 14 should be there or the FW190D and 109K4 should be removed.

Most of the FW190's were FW190A's and most of the 109's were 109G6-109G10's. There were very few 190D's and 109K's.

panther3485
12-23-2005, 03:57 AM
Hi there, Kurfurst_,

Thanks for posting the info on establishments for Mk. V and Mk IX Spitfires in 1943.

It is interesting to see that the Mk. V continued to be employed in such large numbers throughout 1943, with the Mk. IX not starting to become really numerous until end '43/beginning '44 (have I got that right?).

In your opinion, what is significant about this information?


Best regards,
panther3485

ImpStarDuece
12-23-2005, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
XIV's shot down something like 402 aircraft compared to the Tempest 253.

But then compare the number of trains, vehicals, APC's, light tanks, aircraft on the ground, Jets etc the Tempest destroyed, it eclipses the XIV's by a massive margin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Theres also the 700+ V1's shot down by a handful of Tempests compared with the XIV's few dozen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire Mk. XIVs got 303 V1 kills, the 3rd highest scoring fighter type. It's behind the Tempest (638 kills) and then the Mosquito (428), which had the benefit of being the only aircraft considered capable of intercepting V1s at night. To be fair, there were more Tempests on interception duties against V1s, but there were also more Spitfire XIV squadrons than Tempest squadrons on strength in the RAF for the last 12 months of the war.

The Spitfire XIV also flew lots of ground attack sorties in the last 6 months of the war, so don't completely write off their contribution there. MET and airfields tended to be a favorite target of Spitfires, as were, for some bizarre reason, the roofs of factory complexes. Still, they were primarily a high cover fighter, except for the 3 low level FR XIVe squadrons who began serving in November and December 1944

luftluuver
12-23-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, Kurfurst_,

Thanks for posting the info on establishments for Mk. V and Mk IX Spitfires in 1943.

It is interesting to see that the Mk. V continued to be employed in such large numbers throughout 1943, with the Mk. IX not starting to become really numerous until end '43/beginning '44 (have I got that right?).

In your opinion, what is significant about this information?

Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no. He said the MkV was the <span class="ev_code_RED">mainstay into early-mid 1944</span>, which would be March-April-May 1944.

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 04:05 AM
Ah, but there were large groups of D9's flying about in late 44 and 45. Just read the 2nd TAF volumes or memoirs from 2nd TAF pilots operating in North west Germany. They encountered Doras all the time. Two 'Tempest' killer pilots who shot down over 30 Tempests between them both flew Doras.

If your talking accuracy then in mid 1944, get rid of that P51D and make everyone fly C's. Get rid of that late P47 and make everyone fly D22's and the old D27, get rid of the VIII Spitfire and make half the pilots fly VB's. You can forget about that Mustang MkIII as well, exchange it for a Mustang MK1A unless your doing photo recon only. Thats accuracy for youhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 04:23 AM
mid 44 would mean, g6, g6late, g14, maybe a g6as. 190s would be a5,6 and 8, maybe the odd a4 too.

spit vb's, vc's *perhaps*, ix's, typhoons, mustangs,mossies. plus a few uber tempests and XIV's sprinkled on top http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
12-23-2005, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Thats not true. The bulk of Spitfires in 1945 were IX's, to think anything else is revisionist, the XIV was in very short supply and really had no impact, the Tempest was a different story. The bulk of the P51's were C's and D's,we got those? The bulk of the P47's in 1945 were in the ETO were D model variations and we got those and they do meet performance figures for D's. Forget them M, like the TA152, it was a failure despite its high performance. Only 130 built and pilots felt them unreliable. The N was not a key model in the ETO, the H mustang wasn't either. Neither was the Spitfire XIV. Don't get me wrong, I'd like the N jug and spitfire XIV but they ain't important to the ETO.

What we've got is a semi realistic plane set for the western front. Late Gustavs, Antons and Dora's were all used. The Dora was like the Tempest, not a great deal built but all were sent straight from the factory to the front line.

We got a D model Jug, D model P51, IX Spitfires, V Spitfires, L model 38's. Those made up most of the fighter and fighter bomber aircraft on the western front 1944-1945.

The only allied plane of real significance were missing on the western front is the Typhoon and Mosquito. The Tempest is arguable as it was signifcant but the war wouldn't have gone on a day longer without it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Numbers of squadrons, as of Jan 1st, 1945,

Spitfire V

1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif (Go you good thing!)

Spitfire VII/IX/XVI

41

Spitfire XIV

10

Typhoon IB

21

Tempest V

7

Mosquito (predominantly VI, XIII and XXX, but some XVII and XIX in the mix as well) )

26

Mustang I/II

2

Mustang III

9

Meteor I/III

1


By VE day, another 2 squadrons had re-equipped with Spitfire XIVs and another 2 squadrons had re-equipped with Tempest Vs. There were also about half a dozen squadrons that re-equipped with Mustang IVs by the end of the war in Europe.

There were over 120 squadrons (counting PR squadrons) in the RAF in Europe by the end of the war, operating well over 2000 aircraft. You have to also factor in the fact that Costal Command operated around 10 squadrons of Beaufighters and Mosquitos as strike aircraft.

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 04:58 AM
oks
so 1 in 50spits is cr@p
1 in 5 spits is uber
4 out 5 of spits are good

1 in 3 of the hawker stable are uber
2 of 3 look like they will bash ur face in with a mallet, or one of your own limbs.
1 in 3 look like they will use a knife.

26 out of 26 mossies are uber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1 in 5 stangs have a worse sounding engine, but handle better.

all metoers moonlight by cooking sausages and burgars on sticks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

stathem
12-23-2005, 04:58 AM
Thank you, ImpStarDuece.

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 05:02 AM
That V squadron was an artillery spotter wasn't it? During the actual invasion the Mk V was very much still in operation though.

I wasn't writing of the XIV as a ground attack platform however it was no where near the level that Tempests were used to attack airfields and Nazi gubbins on the ground. Lots of XIV's did fall to flak though which does give indication that they were used for ground attack but allot seemed to be used for armed photo recon.

MEGILE
12-23-2005, 05:05 AM
Hehe

What does some guys inconsistent, and incorrect drawl on the warclouds forum have anything to do with the Mk V vs. MK IX debate?

Seriously, you won't get any sympathy here about it if the original poster forgets to check his own evidence.
Much like Kurfy.

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 05:16 AM
vb vs k4 and dora, and ta152? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


There were over 120 squadrons (counting PR squadrons) in the RAF in Europe by the end of the war, operating well over 2000 aircraft. You have to also factor in the fact that Costal Command operated around 10 squadrons of Beaufighters and Mosquitos as strike aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a few images of some real oddities as well operating from 2nd TAF airfields like Wellingtons (painted white so assume there coastal command) and even Stirlings. Theres a even one of a burnt out Stirling sitting on one of the fields attacked during the boddenplate raids.

panther3485
12-23-2005, 05:47 AM
Hi there, luftluuver,

Quote:
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, Kurfurst_,

Thanks for posting the info on establishments for Mk. V and Mk IX Spitfires in 1943.

It is interesting to see that the Mk. V continued to be employed in such large numbers throughout 1943, with the Mk. IX not starting to become really numerous until end '43/beginning '44 (have I got that right?).

In your opinion, what is significant about this information?

Best regards,
panther3485


No, no. He said the MkV was the mainstay into early-mid 1944, which would be March-April-May 1944.


Thanks for the input, luftluuver but....
....a little faith and patience, if that's not too much to ask....thanks!


Kurfurst_, I would like to see your response please, if you can spare the time.


Best regards,
panther3485

Monty_Thrud
12-23-2005, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hello mynameisroland,

I like your post and in general principle, I agree with the thrust of your statements HOWEVER, the Mk. IX most definitely was not the 'most produced Spitfire marque'. That particular distinction goes to the Mk. V.

Mk. I - 1,567
Mk. II - 921
Mk. V - 6,487
Mk. VI - 100
Mk. IX - 5,665
Mk. XVI - 1,054
Mk. VII - 140
Mk. VIII - 1,658
Mk. XII - 100
Mk. XIV - 963

I have not included a number of minor production types, separately built PR variants, Seafires or post-war marks.

Numerous sources can be quoted if required, but start with 'Spitfire', by Stewart Wilson (Aerospace Publications).


Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk IX and XVI were the same, so really the Mk IX was the most produced...

"The Mk XVI was a Mk IX airframe fitted with the Merlin 266 engine, a Merlin 66 manufactured under licence by the US Packard company. Externally the Mk IX and XVI were identical in appearance and they were a little different in performance. The Packard engine was manufactured to American measurements, however and sevicing tools and spare parts were not interchangeable between the Rolls Royce and Packard engines. To prevent confusion, therefore, the Packard engined version was designated the Mk XVI."

"Four major improvements to the Mk IX and the Mk XVI...The Spitfire Mks IX and XVI were the last Merlin engined fighter variants in production. To improve their combat capabilities, both had four major improvements incorporated: the gyro gunsight, the fitting of the 'E'-type wing and armament, the fitting of the bubble canopy and the installation of additional fuel tanks" ~ Air Combat Legends - Vol.1

p1ngu666
12-23-2005, 05:54 AM
think the VII was also IXish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
12-23-2005, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Thus the MkV can be considered as the mainstay RAF Spitfire Mark until ca early-mid 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MEGILE
12-23-2005, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:



Uncertain, precise date missing, not added to possible MkIXsqn :
122? - flew MkV Apr-Aug 1943
129? - flew MkV up to June 1943
229? - flew MkV Aug42 - Apr 1944
232? - flew MkV Apr42 - Nov 1942
238?
316?
331?
332?
521?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the website supplied by Luftluuver

No. 129 - Spitfire IX, 06/43
No. 331 - Spitfire IX, 10/42
No. 332 - Spitfire IX, 11/42

Both 331 and 332 flew their Spitfire IX well into 1944, continuing to do so when they changed to the 2TAF.
I assume then they would have changed to SpitfireIXc/e from the b in 1943.

But feel free to correct me.

All 3 were based in the UK.

60 more Spitfire IX for June 1943 to the pile? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
12-23-2005, 06:45 AM
Hi there, Monty_Thrud

Quote:
The Mk IX and XVI were the same, so really the Mk IX was the most produced....

Look, first up, I know the Mk. XVI and the Mk. IX were very similar (but not 'the same'); all the info you supplied and more (I've read the WHOLE of that book I quoted, and others, not just the production figures for the various marks!!!!)

While the XVI was essentially a late production IX with the Packard Merlin, ALL XVI's were built as LF.XVI's with low/medium rated engines. The vast majority had clipped 'E' type wings (unlike most IX's) and MOST featured the cut-down rear deck and bubble canopy. Therefore, while the XVI was virtually indistinguishable in APPEARANCE from SOME late IX's, it was noticeably different from early IX's (many of which were converted V's) as well as MOST mid-production IX's.

There are other different Spitfire marks whose production figures could also be combined, if you want to go down that particular road. Different Mark numbers were allocated for what were sometimes fairly small changes. But DIFFERENT MARK NUMBERS ARE STILL DIFFERENT MARK NUMBERS!!!!!

Second, though there may not have been much difference between the IX and the XVI, they were neverthless DIFFERENT marks AS DESIGNATED BY THE BRITISH DURING THAT TIME. Muddying the waters by blurring distinctions between the various marks does nothing to help the discussion and merely serves, if anything, to confuse the issue. It's just bending the goal post to make the ball go in.

When we talk about Mk. IX, we mean JUST Mk. IX, we do not include Mk. VIII or Mk. XVI.

There were more Mk. V's built than there were Mk. IX's. Not a heck of a lot more, but more. Fact. End of story.


panther3485

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 07:08 AM
The Mk9's would be all along the frontlines from the beginning of their introduction and the Mk5's relegated to 'less likely to see action' squadrons.

The Mk9 was rushed through specifically to meet the FW190A on more equal terms and so they would keep these along the front.

As it was developed specifically in response to the FW190A, the Mk9 would be used as much as possible.

Monty_Thrud
12-23-2005, 08:58 AM
Have to disagree with you there panther3485...they were given different Mk's to avoid confusion with the service tooling at airfields

panther3485
12-23-2005, 11:06 AM
Quote:

Have to disagree with you there panther3485...they were given different Mk's to avoid confusion with the service tooling at airfields

(Sigh of exasperation here)....
I think you're missing my point somewhat, Monty_Thrud. Even if you ignore all the other points I made (which I didn't invent - those facts have been lifted directly from the book I quoted), the differences in the engines and mark designations ALONE clinch the argument.

No matter how small the differences, they were given DIFFERENT MARK DESIGNATIONS. The precise reasons DON'T MATTER and its not for any one of us to brush aside the different designations just because it suits our particular argument at the time!!!! Different marks are different marks, and that's that!!!!

If the original poster has said "Mk. IX and Mk. XVI" or even "Mk. IX and its derivatives" I could not have objected. But he DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!! He said Mk. IX (only).

This is NOT a matter of opinion, mate!

panther3485

Monty_Thrud
12-23-2005, 11:32 AM
...Still disagreeing with you...i'll do a little experiment...i'm going out for a goodly amount of mucky water tonight, if that helps change my mind, i'll post back...if i can focus...that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

danjama
12-23-2005, 02:40 PM
I always laugh at these kinds of threads, especially at all th people who is teh wrong, when they think they is right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

panther3485
12-23-2005, 07:02 PM
Hi there, Monty_Thrud

Quote:

...Still disagreeing with you...i'll do a little experiment...i'm going out for a goodly amount of mucky water tonight, if that helps change my mind, i'll post back...if i can focus...that is

Good on yer mate, no wuckers!

I think I know how we can resolve this, even if you DON'T change your mind.....

Here's my proposal, which I hope you'll accept:

Various Spitfire models were given Type numbers by Supermarine, the parent manufacturer. These numbers started from Type 300 for the 1936 Spitfire prototype, through to Type 388 for the final Seafire variant. They were independent of, and sometimes did not co-relate to, the Mark numbers. For example, the Mk. V alone was divided into three main Types, as follows:

Mk. VA/B - Type 331
Mk. VC - Type 349
Mk. VB (Tropicalised) - Type 352

On the other hand, Mks IX and XVI were considered similar enough to be given the same Type number - 361.

Since the total of Spitfire Type 361 production was 6,719 (5,665 Mk. IX + 1,054 Mk. XVI), we can see that the Type 361 was easily the MOST PRODUCED SPITFIRE VARIANT.

Note; we are talking about Spitfire TYPES here, not Spitfire MARKS. If you want to be strictly correct, this difference is important. Therefore, while the IX and XVI were different MARKS , they were nevertheless the same TYPE .

Stay away from the word 'Mark' and we now agree, OK?

Regardless of whether I hear from you again or not, please do have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year!!!!

In fact, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you, and your families.


Sincere best regards,
panther3485

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-23-2005, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you, and your families. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to you and yours, Panther. Have a good one.

danjama
12-23-2005, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you, and your families. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to you and yours, Panther. Have a good one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I wont be on after tonight until new year or so, so Happy christmas everyone, including Kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ploughman
12-24-2005, 05:43 AM
Merry Christmas fellas.

Monty_Thrud
12-24-2005, 11:02 AM
Ok panther3485, i'll meet you halfway and a Merry Christmas to you aswell, have a good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Slickun
12-24-2005, 12:34 PM
Great, fun, enjoyable thread here, Gents. Thanks.

Merry Christmas as well.