PDA

View Full Version : BOB 109E vs Spits and Hurris kill loss ratio



Freiwillige
09-09-2008, 08:23 PM
I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.

So vs. spitfire the 109 had 2/1 ratio
and VS. Hurricane it had a 4/1 ratio

the argument was that Hurricanes were usually focused on the bombers when hit by the 109's
and that the Luftwaffe had far more trained pilots at that time.

Can anyone confirm this as I cannot remember or locate my source

hop2002
09-09-2008, 08:56 PM
I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.


Unlikely.

Total losses on operations for both sides were:

600 109s
235 110s
605 Hurricanes (approx)
395 Spitfires (approx)

That's a raw ratio of 1.67 Spits and Hurris lost per 109 lost, ignoring all the other German types. I expect the combats between the single engined fighters were even less in the Luftwaffe's favour, as large numbers of Spits and Hurris were lost to bombers and 110s, whilst 109s, concentrating on the fighter battle, suffered few casualties to other types.

Freiwillige
09-09-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.


Unlikely.

Total losses on operations for both sides were:

600 109s
235 110s
605 Hurricanes (approx)
395 Spitfires (approx)

That's a raw ratio of 1.67 Spits and Hurris lost per 109 lost, ignoring all the other German types. I expect the combats between the single engined fighters were even less in the Luftwaffe's favour, as large numbers of Spits and Hurris were lost to bombers and 110s, whilst 109s, concentrating on the fighter battle, suffered few casualties to other types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Large numbers of spits and hurris were lost to bombers and 110's? What do you beleive that the 109's were doing. 110's performed below average and ended up being escorted by 109's! Also keep in mind that the bombers were the primary target of the RAF and that the 109's ranged well above them giving them a huge advantage over the R.A.F. who were usually co-alt with the 111's, ju-88's and Do-17's. I doubt that the bombers shot down more aircraft then the escort fighters (109's and 110's) accompanying them. Also a huge ammount of luftwaffe losses were to flak.

WTE_Galway
09-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.


Unlikely.

Total losses on operations for both sides were:

600 109s
235 110s
605 Hurricanes (approx)
395 Spitfires (approx)

That's a raw ratio of 1.67 Spits and Hurris lost per 109 lost, ignoring all the other German types. I expect the combats between the single engined fighters were even less in the Luftwaffe's favour, as large numbers of Spits and Hurris were lost to bombers and 110s, whilst 109s, concentrating on the fighter battle, suffered few casualties to other types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do also remember that some of those 109 losses were low flying E4B with a 250kg bomb attached.

Also, sufficient damage to bring a 109 down in the channel only halfway home would merely have a Spitfire limping back to base 10 minutes away.


Historical figures are not going to give you more than a rough indication of how the types will fair in a SOW dogfight server. Which I assume is the point of the question.

Freiwillige
09-09-2008, 09:16 PM
The daily telegraph article "Battle of britian pilots could not shoot straight"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567824/Battle-o...shoot-straight'.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567824/Battle-of-Britain-pilots-'could-not-shoot-straight'.html)

Kettenhunde
09-09-2008, 09:21 PM
whilst 109s,

Fought over enemy territory with 20 minutes of fuel.....

Anyway you slice it the Luftwaffe gave a very good account of themselves in aerial combat with the RAF. The fact the RAF fighters had numerical superiority in single seat fighters and pilots kept them in fight as well as leading to their success in the battle.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_...g_1?tag=artBody;col1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)

Here is a good thread on this subject:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=14214&page=5

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
09-09-2008, 09:42 PM
Large numbers of spits and hurris were lost to bombers and 110's?

Yes. Bungay has done an analysis for 10th July to 11th August. Out of 115 RAF fighters lost in combat, 87 were shot down by 109s. 19 were accounted for by 110s and bombers. That's about 75% for the 109s, without even adding in the losses to accidents, which would push the figure lower.


I doubt that the bombers shot down more aircraft then the escort fighters (109's and 110's) accompanying them.

Of course not.

The point I was making is that 109s likely got a lower proportion of Spits and Hurris than Spits and Hurris got of 109s.


Also a huge ammount of luftwaffe losses were to flak.

Not so many. Britain was very short of anti aircraft guns. I'll try to dig up some figures later.

WTE_Galway
09-09-2008, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also a huge ammount of luftwaffe losses were to flak.

Not so many. Britain was very short of anti aircraft guns. I'll try to dig up some figures later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had the impression that flak, like barrage balloons, was regarded by the British as more of a PR exercise to reassure the public than anything else. Especially at night, radar directed search lights and AAA did not exist this early in the war.

ElAurens
09-09-2008, 09:55 PM
SOW:BoB is going to open up a whole new front in the Red vs. Blue forum ego fights.

Popcorn anyone?

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

WTE_Galway
09-09-2008, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
SOW:BoB is going to open up a whole new front in the Red vs. Blue forum ego fights.

Popcorn anyone?

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


Do you think we might get any 0.303 mg can kill a Panzer III debates as well ?

Kettenhunde
09-09-2008, 11:49 PM
The point I was making is that 109s likely got a lower proportion of Spits and Hurris than Spits and Hurris got of 109s.


Roughly 65% of the casualties would have to come from other sources for the exchange to be even.

M_Gunz
09-10-2008, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.

So vs. spitfire the 109 had 2/1 ratio
and VS. Hurricane it had a 4/1 ratio

Ahhhhh, the ancient art of this means that, or how turn to facts into BS.

TinyTim
09-10-2008, 03:54 AM
One also has to keep in mind that RAF fighters often had to sacrifice their position in order to attack bombers - this put higher flying Luftwaffe 109s at an advantage automatically.

Something very similar was happening 4 years later, with switched sides.

What I ment with this is that kill/death ratio between RAF and Jagdwaffe wouldn't be the same if it was fighters vs fighters only.

Kurfurst__
09-10-2008, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I read somewhere a while back that During BOB the RAF lost 2 spitfires and 4 hurricanes for every 109 shot down. Now thats not counting bombers its just the statistic for fighter vs fighter kill/loss.


Unlikely.

Total losses on operations for both sides were:

600 109s
235 110s
605 Hurricanes (approx)
395 Spitfires (approx)

That's a raw ratio of 1.67 Spits and Hurris lost per 109 lost, ignoring all the other German types. I expect the combats between the single engined fighters were even less in the Luftwaffe's favour, as large numbers of Spits and Hurris were lost to bombers and 110s, whilst 109s, concentrating on the fighter battle, suffered few casualties to other types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These figures for the Luftwaffe include both aircraft lost in combat and in accidents. I am not sure what they include on the British side, but they certainly do not include twin engined fighters, Defiants, Blenheims etc., though they include the 110s, for some reason. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually the Germans attributed writing off 502 SE fighters (~109s) and 224 TE fighters (ie. ~110s) to enemy action. I say writing off because that also includes heavily damaged aircraft that were writtenoff/cannibilised after returning to base, ie. not 'shot down'. The rest 98/11 109s/110s Hop included were lost in typical everyday accidents not related to combat.

In any case it is always difficult to work out what shot down what, and what the ratios were. In any case the British losses amounted to 1603 aircraft missing or wrecked beyond repair, out of which 1140 were fighters (SE+TE). I am not sure if this is enemy related only, or includes operational accidents - Wood&Dempster does not make that clear.

However they do give detailed statistics for August and September as far as fighter losses go, and they also make it clear what was lost to combat and what to accidents. In the following I will try to compare combat-related losses only.

For August 1940 they give the following losses,ie.:
Category 3 - missing or wrecked beyond repair
Category 2 - damaged so much it requires factory repairs and is withdrawn from the unit

Cat 3 - lost
Hurricanes: 220 become Cat. 3 in air combat, 15 due to strafing/bombing.
Spitires : 118 become Cat. 3 in air combat, 5 due to strafing/bombing.
Defiants and Blenheims: 17 become Cat. 3 in air combat, 7 due to strafing/bombing.

Cat 2 - damaged
Hurricanes: 49 become Cat. 2 in air combat, 10 due to strafing/bombing.
Spitires : 55 become Cat. 2 in air combat, 10 due to strafing/bombing.
Defiants and Blenheims: 8 become Cat. 2 in air combat, 5 due to strafing/bombing.

Plus there were 85 lost and 85 damaged in flying accidents of all types, but I won't count those here.

That's a total of 355 British fighters lost or written down in/due to air combat, and 27 to enemy aircraft on the ground. A total of 382 enemy related figther losses. 112 were damaged in combat and 25 were shot up a bit on the ground, total 137.

On the German side, in August, you have 177 of the 60-100% damaged (~Cat 3, lost in combat or written down) or 'lost' 109s to enemy action of all kinds, and 114 Bf 110s. That's a total of 291 machines to enemy action. On the other hand you have far less damaged ones - just 24 109s and 32 110s were damaged by enemy action (of all kinds). The reason is probably that there were not many British bombers in the daylight, and, that the return flight to France was much longer than for damaged Spitfires landing in the nearest possible spot.

So, for August, you have 382 British fighters lost to enemy action, and 291 German fighters, a ratio of 1.31: 1. If damaged ones (by enemy action) are included, the figures are somewhat different as you have 519 British fighters lost/damaged to enemy action vs 347 German ones, a ratio of 1.49: 1. Of course this is somewhat crude comparison, as this was not strictly fighter vs fighter engagements, but I dont think it can get any more perfect and that we will ever find out what shot down what. There were RAF BC attacks on Luftwaffe airfields, too, 109s and 110s acted as fighter bombers through the whole Battle, Spitfires and Hurricanes were shot up on the ground, they were shot down by bombers as well, some German losses were to the rather numerous British AAA and balloon barrage, presumably many more damaged German warplanes were lost in return flight etc.

Similair figures for September, more briefly, but with the same methods as above.

Cat 3, 132 Spits, 229 Hurris, 2 Blenheims/Defiants/Beaufighters, all to enemy action, total 363 lost to enemy action.
Cat 2, 80 Spits, 96 Hurris, no Blenheims/Defiants/Beaufighters, all to enemy action, total 176 damaged to enemy action.
* Note: This does not include 1 Battle and 14 training aircraft that were also lost.

60-100% or ~=Cat 3, 187 109s, 81 110s, all to enemy action, total 268 lost to enemy action.
40-59%, or ~=Cat 2, 17-17 109&110s, all to enemy action, total 34 damaged to enemy action.

Thats 363 British fighters vs. 268 German fighters, a slightly worser ratio for the RAF of 1.35:1. Though if we look at the overall combat results (lost+damaged), we get 539 lost&damaged British fighters vs 302 German ones, a ratio of 1.78:1 in the Luftwaffe's favour, a notable improvement over August's results.

Unfortunately Wood&Dempster does not give figures for July or October, though both months were rather just a preludes and aftermath in terms of losses, which were much lower (about 1/3) than in the two main months of August-September.

No41Sqn_Banks
09-10-2008, 04:49 AM
Well, without taking the bomber looses of the Luftwaffe into account, all this comparisons are useless.
Air war is not about "fighter vs. fighter" but about "fighter and AAA" vs. "bomber and fighter".

luftluuver
09-10-2008, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Anyway you slice it the Luftwaffe gave a very good account of themselves in aerial combat with the RAF. The fact the RAF fighters had numerical superiority in single seat fighters and pilots kept them in fight as well as leading to their success in the battle.
You really should look at the disposition of the RAF fighters and how many were capable of engaging in combat over south east England.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/stations.html

luftluuver
09-10-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Well, without taking the bomber looses of the Luftwaffe into account, all this comparisons are useless.
Air war is not about "fighter vs. fighter" but about "fighter and AAA" vs. "bomber and fighter".
So right Banks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
09-10-2008, 05:24 AM
With other words: RAF fighters lost 1000 while Luftwaffe lost only 500 fighters, fighter loss ratio 2:1 for the Luftwaffe. Good job Jagdflieger, but in the same time the you lost 1000 bombers ...
The numbers are of course very rough but you get the idea.

Kurfurst__
09-10-2008, 05:28 AM
The Luftwaffe lost/written down 488 bombers and 59 Stuka to enemy action during the Battle. Some 205+10 were lost to non-enemy related reasons - accidents are always underestimated.

On the other hand the RAF also lost some 367 bombers, so where does this get us? We do not know how many bombers were lost to fighters, flak, balloons etc..

As I said, there will be probably never a 'perfect' answer.

hop2002
09-10-2008, 07:22 AM
Watch out for Kurfurst's use of "to enemy action" for German losses, and "to all causes" for RAF losses.

The truth is "to enemy action" is a subjective term, and without a further category of "unknown" we don't know how many where the cause of loss is not certain were assigned to each category.


I am not sure what they include on the British side, but they certainly do not include twin engined fighters, Defiants, Blenheims etc., though they include the 110s, for some reason.

They don't include Ju88Cs or Luftwaffe recce aircraft either. It includes the main day fighter types on each side.


In any case it is always difficult to work out what shot down what, and what the ratios were. In any case the British losses amounted to 1603 aircraft missing or wrecked beyond repair, out of which 1140 were fighters (SE+TE). I am not sure if this is enemy related only, or includes operational accidents - Wood&Dempster does not make that clear.

It includes a great many accidents, many of which would be included in "non operational" German losses.

Wood and Dempster give a figure of 162 British fighters (of all types) lost 10th July to 11th August. Bungay gives the same 162 figure, but breaks it down according to cause of loss:

Bf 109 - 87
Bf 110 - 6
Bombers - 13
Collision - 4
Flak - 1
Friendly - 1
Unknown - 3
Accidents - 47

Bungay gives further details on the accidents. One was Josef Frantisek, who at the time was in 303 squadron, which was in training an non operational. A large proportion of the accidents occurred at night as the RAF was trying to give single engined fighters night fighting capability.

So the comparable losses for the battle are:

663 Bf 109s
252 Bf 110s
605 Hurricanes
395 Spitfires


Also a huge ammount of luftwaffe losses were to flak.

OK, found some partial figures from Bungay. In the period 10th July to 11th August the Luftwaffe lost:

In combat
72 bombers
22 Stukas
61 Bf 109s
27 Bf 110s
18 Reconnaissance
16 Seaplanes

To accidents
85 aircraft

Bungay breaks down the Luftwaffe combat losses as:

80% definitely to British fighters
32 unknown losses
4 collisions with British aircraft
10 to Anti Aircraft
7 due to Bomber Command

That's 10 aircraft shot down by British flak out of 216 combat losses, and 301 total losses. That's about 3% of total Luftwaffe losses to flak, and I suspect that includes a higher proportion of bombers than fighters. Of course that was mostly over the Channel where the flak would be provided by the RN rather than anti-aircraft command.

Kurfurst__
09-10-2008, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Watch out for Kurfurst's use of "to enemy action" for German losses, and "to all causes" for RAF losses.

Now I can't really remember using such double standards, so dear Sir, don't get upset if I say that you are intentionally misrepresenting the statements of others, and that is cheap but very fitting tactics for someone with your reputation.

It has been stated very clearly what I was comparing: German combat related losses to British combat related losses. Anyone who can read could see that. It has been also stated where the figures come from, so anyone who has Wood&Dempster can double-check it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am not sure what they include on the British side, but they certainly do not include twin engined fighters, Defiants, Blenheims etc., though they include the 110s, for some reason.

They don't include Ju88Cs or Luftwaffe recce aircraft either. It includes the main day fighter types on each side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is that you included all German fighter types (109s and 110s) from your statistics, and excluded some British fighter types (Defiants, Beufighters, Blenheims etc.)to manipulate the statistics.

Frankly if one wants to be very through, aircraft of Coastal Command which operated as fighter should be included as well.


So the comparable losses for the battle are:

663 Bf 109s
252 Bf 110s
605 Hurricanes
395 Spitfires

See above. Total British fighter losses (ie. Cat 3) were 1140, not 1000 (see Wood&Dampster). Hop simply excluded some 140 British fighters (two seaters like the Blenheim, Defiant and Beaufighter), but naturally keep true to himself he included German two-seaters like the 110s.

110s count as loss, Blenheim, Beuafighters, Defiants don't count. That's Hops presentation.

See:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/RAFcasulties.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/LW_lossBOB.jpg

Holtzauge
09-10-2008, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
One also has to keep in mind that RAF fighters often had to sacrifice their position in order to attack bombers - this put higher flying Luftwaffe 109s at an advantage automatically.

Something very similar was happening 4 years later, with switched sides.

What I ment with this is that kill/death ratio between RAF and Jagdwaffe wouldn't be the same if it was fighters vs fighters only.

A very good observation! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

While a defending fighter force is positioning for an attack on the bombers, the escorts can hit them in a vulnerable position and at a time when a lot of focus will be on setting up the attack on the bombers leaving less time to watch out for the escorts.

So higher loss statistics (even corrected for losses due to bombers and AAA etc.) for a defending fighter would come as no surprise IMHO, even if the opposing sides would have comparable equipment and training levels. So I would not be inclined to draw to much in the way of a conclusion on the relative merits of the opposing fighter designs based on loss statistics. There are to many factors to bone out for this but from history we at least know which side came out on top when all variables in the equation were taken into account http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mr_Zooly
09-10-2008, 01:32 PM
But its not the planes that are all important, its the pilot losses, A German pilot shot down over blighty becomes a prisoner (unless he's one of the lucky ones that escaped) where as an RAF pilot was a train ride away and ready for combat moreoften than not in the same day (barring injury and of course death).

La7_brook
09-10-2008, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
One also has to keep in mind that RAF fighters often had to sacrifice their position in order to attack bombers - this put higher flying Luftwaffe 109s at an advantage automatically.

Something very similar was happening 4 years later, with switched sides.

What I ment with this is that kill/death ratio between RAF and Jagdwaffe wouldn't be the same if it was fighters vs fighters only.

A very good observation! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

While a defending fighter force is positioning for an attack on the bombers, the escorts can hit them in a vulnerable position and at a time when a lot of focus will be on setting up the attack on the bombers leaving less time to watch out for the escorts.

So higher loss statistics (even corrected for losses due to bombers and AAA etc.) for a defending fighter would come as no surprise IMHO, even if the opposing sides would have comparable equipment and training levels. So I would not be inclined to draw to much in the way of a conclusion on the relative merits of the opposing fighter designs based on loss statistics. There are to many factors to bone out for this but from history we at least know which side came out on top when all variables in the equation were taken into account http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All so you got to keep in mind the 109,s had like 10mins gas to do there dogfighting in over England

Buzzsaw-
09-10-2008, 04:46 PM
Salute

Big surprise, we have the usual fanatic German apologists putting up their smokescreens and attempting through a lot of number twisting to portray the battle as a German victory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Facts:

Strength

RAF as of 1st July:

754 single-seat fighters
149 two-seat fighters
560 bombers
500 coastal

1,963 total 903 Fighters

Luftwaffe as of 29th June:

1,107 single-seat fighters
357 two-seat fighters
1,380 bombers
428 dive-bombers
569 reconnaissance
233 coastal

4,074 total 1,464 Fighters


Losses:

RAF

Aircraft Losses:

Fighters: 1,023
Bombers: 376
Maritime: 148 aircraft (Coastal Command)

Total: 1,547

RAF; Pilots and Aircrew Killed (Fighter Command): 544

Luftwaffe:

Aircraft Losses:

Fighters: 873
Bombers:1,014

Total: 1,887 aircraft destroyed

Luftwaffe; Pilots and Aircrew Killed: 2,500. (includes Bomber aircrew)


Pretty clear what the results were, and no amount of bogus camoflauge can disguise them.

As far as the fact the British lost more Fighters than the Germans, that is not surprising, since their targets were the bombers. That includes the Spitfire Squadrons, the myth that the Spitfires took on the 109's while the Hurricanes attacked the bombers is just that, a myth.

The loss of a bomber for the Germans was far more significant, they were the aircraft capable of doing damage to the British industrial infrastructure and the RAF ground instellations, and each bomber cost roughly three times the amount that a fighter required to produce. Plus the Germans lost 4 or 5 crewmembers with each medium bomber, and could not replace these aircrew who were lost with their 1940 training scheme.

Compared to the ratio of losses of fighters in the Battle of Britain to the results later in the Battle of Germany, and you can see the Luftwaffe had much poorer results as the attacker vs the RAF, than the USAAF had versus the Luftwaffe.

No doubt we will see some more convoluted number twisting from the other side, some people have trouble understanding the facts even when they are staring at them.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2008, 06:20 PM
I think its safe to say, Buzzsaw, that the quality of the average German pilot explains the Luftwaffes problems in 1944.

Gunther Rall even states the loss of trained pilots as early as the Battle of Britian to have been a bitter blow to the Luftwaffe for Barbarossa. By 1944 it was ten times worse. Attrition meant that there were lots of young German pilots with low numbers of hours. In 1940 the Luftwaffe had the most experienced Air Force in the world.


Both Kurfy and Hopp provide some excellent information, and enough information to make up your own mind.

Its great to have well researched opinions from BOTH sides of the battle.

Its inevitable that there will be a big debate, as each is representing the view from 'his' side, but some of these debates contain some excellent information for all of us.

Basically

the Bf109 pertformed very well in the battle,

the SPitfire performed very well in the battle.

The Hurricane performed well in the battle.

The Me110 did not perform so well in the battle.

The Defient performed terribly in the battle.

It was basically a draw, but a draw meant that Germany failed to achieve her objectives.

WTE_Galway
09-10-2008, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

It was basically a draw, but a draw meant that Germany failed to achieve her objectives.

Germany never could have regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

Operation Sealion was a fantasy.

I have read reports from the time basically stating that the jury rigged river style barges they were intending to use would be lucky to make it across a mill pond without sinking if children threw stones never lone cross the channel in potentially poor weather whilst under attack.

The Wehrmacht command were not happy about Sealion and saw it as a potential disaster.

If you look into Sealion you see two things:

- the British were very vulnerable, they got a lot of men out of Dunkirk but no equipment. There was something insane like 3 tanks left in all of southern England and the nearest viable British armor was in India.

- the Germans were equally ill prepared for a seaborne invasion, had virtually no proper landing craft or troop transports and were trying to improvise using jury rigged barges never intended to operate in the open ocean.



Regardless of all that the RAF did an astounding job in very difficult circumstances.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2008, 07:27 PM
Oh I totally agree, Galway.

It seems to me that whoever conceived Sealion as even a 'possible' plan had only looked at the Channel on a map and never actually been there.

A ten mile stretch of water sounds quite tame until you actually stand and look at it.

Possibly in their minds it was seen as a large river, when in fact its quite a rough stetch of sea.

Buzzsaw-
09-10-2008, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think its safe to say, Buzzsaw, that the quality of the average German pilot explains the Luftwaffes problems in 1944.



Not exactly. The Battle of Germany began in July of '43, when the calibre of the German pilots was very high, and when they had the advantage of fighting bombers which could not be escorted all the way to their targets. For the USAAF, the lack of range of their fighters was a worse handicap than the Luftwaffe faced in 1940. Bombers could be escorted all the way to London in 1940, in 1943, they barely made the German border.

The USAAF overcame that handicap, and destroyed the Luftwaffe as a fighting force.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Both Kurfy and Hopp provide some excellent information, and enough information to make up your own mind.



As usual, Hop has provided accurate material, and true to his standards, Isegrin/Kurfurst has tried to skew the facts by comparing Luftwaffe losses in combat in the battle, to all losses by the RAF, including non-operational losses.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

It was basically a draw, but a draw meant that Germany failed to achieve her objectives.

How is the BoB a draw, when the German side lost far more value in aircraft, far more trained aircrew, and had to give up all their intended objectives?

Not a draw, except in the minds of those like Isegrin/Kurfurst who want to keep plugging this myth of the Luftwaffe as unbeatable, and their aircraft as better than anything else.

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was basically a draw, but a draw meant that Germany failed to achieve her objectives.

Agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Oh I totally agree, Galway.

It seems to me that whoever conceived Sealion as even a 'possible' plan had only looked at the Channel on a map and never actually been there.

A ten mile stretch of water sounds quite tame until you actually stand and look at it.

Possibly in their minds it was seen as a large river, when in fact its quite a rough stetch of sea.

The relevant source: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVPPTV-bQM

No41Sqn_Banks
09-11-2008, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
As usual, Hop has provided accurate material, and true to his standards, Isegrin/Kurfurst has tried to skew the facts by comparing Luftwaffe losses in combat in the battle, to all losses by the RAF, including non-operational losses.


I'm not sure about this, the table from Kurfürst is titled "Battle casualties." which IMHO means the total of operational looses due to enemy action and not to enemy action. Then the corresponding values for the Luftwaffe would be those of "total on operations". (I don't know if Kurfurst used this values for his calculations.)

According to the tables the Luftwaffe lost 1789 aircrafts "total on operations" (to enemy action and not due to enemy action). On the other hand the "Metropolitain Air Force" had "battle casualties" of 1603 aircraft.

LW : RAF
1789 : 1603

As for the damaged aircraft it is

LW : RAF
646 : 876


BTW: The LW casualties "on operations due to enemy action only" were 1388 total looses and 303 damaged

(The Luftwaffe had of course less damaged but more total looses as they were operating over enemy territory.)

To me this looks very even, but it's still like comparing the weight of apples and oranges as the RAF was defending and LW was attacking.
For the RAF the fighter looses were primary, the bomber looses only secondary. For the LW the bomber looses were primary and the fighter looses were secondary.

Gumtree
09-11-2008, 02:23 AM
I am actually quite surprised that the BOB could be viewed as anything other than a victory for the Allies.

Regardless of who shot down more or who damaged more the basic facts are that in order to win the Germans had to achieve Air superiority over the channel and SE Britain.

On the other hand, a victory for the British was to avoid Germany's victory conditions.

From what I understand happened the Germans failed to gain Air superiority and launch their doomed -IMHO- invasion thus the only conclusion that I can see possible is that victory went to the British. To claim anything other like a draw seems to sell this victory short. Just my opinion.

No41Sqn_Banks
09-11-2008, 02:35 AM
Well, propably the BoB had one winner but no looser.
With exception of course of the men and women that died or were wounded, they were the loosers on both sides.

Freiwillige
09-11-2008, 03:17 AM
The British won and the Germans lost, I doubt anybody is disputing that. But how much of that victory was gained by the Luftwaffe's own mistakes?

1.Giving up on attacking radar sites too soon.

2.Later in the battle Goering making the escort fighters fly close escort to the bombers thereby giving up all the advantages of alt and speed and robbing them of any initiative.

3.Switching from attacking RAF sector fields and the RAF directly to attacking London which put the 109's almost out of fuel entirely and gave the RAF time to rest and repair while denying the Luftwaffe that same luxury.

Yea the RAF won. They came back in the second half of a close match indeed.

M_Gunz
09-11-2008, 03:25 AM
544 Fighter Command lost vs 2500 LW including bomber crew.
But... Kurfurst puts up skewed numbers.

stathem
09-11-2008, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The British won and the Germans lost, I doubt anybody is disputing that. But how much of that victory was gained by the Luftwaffe's own mistakes?

1.Giving up on attacking radar sites too soon.

2.Later in the battle Goering making the escort fighters fly close escort to the bombers thereby giving up all the advantages of alt and speed and robbing them of any initiative.

3.Switching from attacking RAF sector fields and the RAF directly to attacking London which put the 109's almost out of fuel entirely and gave the RAF time to rest and repair while denying the Luftwaffe that same luxury.

Yea the RAF won. They came back in the second half of a close match indeed.

Well, I am sure that somewhere there is a saying, words to the effect 'the side that makes fewest mistakes in War is usually the winner'

The British also made mistakes - sticking to rigid pre-war formations, gun harmonisation ranges, the arguements about the use of 12 Group.

But they evidentally made fewer mistakes then the Germans. That's part of war.

WTE_Galway
09-11-2008, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The British won and the Germans lost, I doubt anybody is disputing that. But how much of that victory was gained by the Luftwaffe's own mistakes?

1.Giving up on attacking radar sites too soon.

2.Later in the battle Goering making the escort fighters fly close escort to the bombers thereby giving up all the advantages of alt and speed and robbing them of any initiative.

3.Switching from attacking RAF sector fields and the RAF directly to attacking London which put the 109's almost out of fuel entirely and gave the RAF time to rest and repair while denying the Luftwaffe that same luxury.

Yea the RAF won. They came back in the second half of a close match indeed.


1. Futile exercise ... a few bits of wire between some posts connected to a hut with some techo gear that was easily replaced. Not that easy to effectively neutralise.

2. A definite mistake but the bomber crews were about to mutiny.

3. Also a mistake but even before the switch to London the RAF was replacing planes and pilots faster than they were losing them.

hop2002
09-11-2008, 07:02 AM
I'm not sure about this, the table from Kurfürst is titled "Battle casualties." which IMHO means the total of operational looses due to enemy action and not to enemy action. Then the corresponding values for the Luftwaffe would be those of "total on operations". (I don't know if Kurfurst used this values for his calculations.)

According to the tables the Luftwaffe lost 1789 aircrafts "total on operations" (to enemy action and not due to enemy action). On the other hand the "Metropolitain Air Force" had "battle casualties" of 1603 aircraft.

LW : RAF
1789 : 1603

Actaully looking at the figures Wood and Dempster's "Battle casualties" include combat, accident and non operational losses.

I also assumed they were "total on operations", but Bungay makes clear that wasn't the case, with the figures even including training accidents from 303 squadron prior to 11th August, when they had just formed and were non operational.

So the figures should include German non operational losses too. That would push the German total to 2,069

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 07:13 AM
nd excluded some British fighter types (Defiants, Beufighters, Blenheims etc.)

What Beaufighters? They weren't delivered for service until August and weren't operational until October, after BoB.

There were so few Benheim and Defiant sorties they might as well be ignored.

M_Gunz
09-11-2008, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
1. Futile exercise ... a few bits of wire between some posts connected to a hut with some techo gear that was easily replaced. Not that easy to effectively neutralise.

Trained crew were not easily replaced but there's always OJT!


3. Also a mistake but even before the switch to London the RAF was replacing planes and pilots faster than they were losing them.

If you check out the quality of pilots they replaced them with not counting them finally using
foreign nationals (esp the Polish and Czech) then you'll see they were sending up barely
trained pilots with 10 and fewer hours in type. If you want to call that replacing then at
least recognize that the school's out early rush was not sustainable.

The bit that went around came back to Germany later only grown larger.

hop2002
09-11-2008, 07:23 AM
The British won and the Germans lost, I doubt anybody is disputing that. But how much of that victory was gained by the Luftwaffe's own mistakes?

1.Giving up on attacking radar sites too soon.

The problem for the Luftwaffe is they had a time limit. How long could they spend attacking radar stations? They had to get the job done quickly.

There was also a strong view in the Luftwaffe that the radar stations shouldn't be attacked. The Luftwaffe plan was to bring the RAF to battle where their superior fighters would be able to shoot them down in large numbers. The radar stations were actually an aid to that.


2.Later in the battle Goering making the escort fighters fly close escort to the bombers thereby giving up all the advantages of alt and speed and robbing them of any initiative.

The jagdwaffe was failing to protect their fighters earlier in the battle. 1st July to 4th August their bomber loss rates were 8.7% and fighter losses 1.7%. 5th August to 1st September the bombers lost 7.9% and the fighters 2.9%

Those are extremely high losses for the bombers, way beyond sustainable rates.

2nd September to 29th September the bomber losses fell to 4.7%, which is still high but on the verge of sustainability. Fighter loss rates rose to 3.3%

Of course it's hard to separate the effect of the change in targets and strategy from the effect of more close escorts, but even if the close escort order didn't improve things, it's clear that any air force suffering 8% loss rates has to change tactics.


3.Switching from attacking RAF sector fields and the RAF directly to attacking London which put the 109's almost out of fuel entirely and gave the RAF time to rest and repair while denying the Luftwaffe that same luxury.

Again the problem is time was ticking away and nothing was being achieved. The Luftwaffe was bleeding itself dry in the campaign against the airfields. On the 1st August the Luftwaffe had 869 Bf 109 pilots fit for duty. By 1st September that had fallen to 735. Serviceability rates were falling fast.

In contrast the RAF had 586 Spits and Hurricanes serviceable on 1st August. On 1st September they had 613. In terms of pilots, on the 3rd August they had 1,434 fighter aircrew (this includes all Fighter Command aircrew, not just pilots of single engined fighters). On 31st August they had 1,422.

Again, the Luftwaffe had to do something. Continuing to batter themselves against Fighter Command airfields was going to lose the battle. A change in strategy at least had a chance of working.

hop2002
09-11-2008, 07:36 AM
If you check out the quality of pilots they replaced them with not counting them finally using
foreign nationals (esp the Polish and Czech) then you'll see they were sending up barely
trained pilots with 10 and fewer hours in type. If you want to call that replacing then at
least recognize that the school's out early rush was not sustainable.

That's true of the Luftwaffe as well. When Milch toured the forward airfields in late August the units complained some of the replacements they were being sent had only 10 landings in 109, and had never fired a cannon in training.

What's the typical duration of a training flight? I doubt 10 landings on type equals more than 10 hours flying, possibly a lot less.

Steinhilper wrote of the replacements they were sent:


Now we were getting replacements for the experienced pilots we had lost straight from Jagdfliegerschule (fighter school]. At that time we still tried our best to take care of these fledglings until they could accrue some experience.
Typical of these youngsters was a young Gefreiter who arrived in late September. His flying time was minimal - he had only fired a few shots at a ground target, had never flown on oxygen and still had no idea how to use his radio. We tried to increase their experience before they actually came along on combat missions by taking them up on patrols between missions. Then we would talk on the radio, climb to altitudes in excess of 8,000 metres (25,000 ft) and make them use oxygen. Of special importance was teaching them how to change the pitch of their propeller to get maxmum pull from the engine at high altitude. A flat pitch would allow the engine to rev up to its maximum so that the super-charger would deliver the maximum volume of air to the cylinders and produce optimum power; changing to a co****r pitch would have that engine power converted into more pull and consequently speed our rate of climb. It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle-climb or at high altitude.5
After about ten hours of 'tuition' we would take them out over the Channel to shoot at shadows on the water or cross to Dungeness and shoot at a black medieval tower which stood there (the old Dungeness Lighthouse). Finally when we could not excuse them combat duty any more we would have to take them along with us. This became the case with the Gefreiter and so I took him as my Rottenhund Iwingman]. We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half-way across the Channel and at 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) Kiihle told him to leave the formation and return to base. He broke away but in his confusion he turned not for home but towards Dover. Kiihle realised what was happening and ordered me to give chase and take him home. I rolled out and soon overhauled him, just before we reached the balloon barrage at Dover. I had tried to raise him on the radio but he was in such a state of anxiety that he wouldn't or couldn't respond. Positioning myself in front of him I rocked my wings, using the signal for him to follow me. He dutifully hung onto my tail and we were soon back at Coquelles. This was one of only two missions I missed during the whole of our time in the Battle of Britain.
As a result we decided that we would not take any more replacements on high altitude missions until we could give them more, much more, training. They were supposed to be replacements but in the event they were more of a problem for us than reinforcement for the squadron.

The advantage for the RAF in this was that Dowding instituted a scheme of A, B and C squadrons. As and Bs were to be kept at full strength, but Cs were posted well away from the battle area and were to receive rookie pilots and train them up before posting them to squadrons actually involved in the battle. This was easy for the RAF because they maintained a large proportion of their strength in the north and west throughout the battle, but the Luftwaffe devoted almost their entire single engined fighter force to attacks on Britain.

M_Gunz
09-11-2008, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you check out the quality of pilots they replaced them with not counting them finally using
foreign nationals (esp the Polish and Czech) then you'll see they were sending up barely
trained pilots with 10 and fewer hours in type. If you want to call that replacing then at
least recognize that the school's out early rush was not sustainable.

That's true of the Luftwaffe as well. When Milch toured the forward airfields in late August the units complained some of the replacements they were being sent had only 10 landings in 109, and had never fired a cannon in training. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During the BoB! That speaks volumes!


Steinhilper:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of special importance was teaching them how to change the pitch of their propeller to get maxmum pull from the engine at high altitude. A flat pitch would allow the engine to rev up to its maximum so that the super-charger would deliver the maximum volume of air to the cylinders and produce optimum power; changing to a co****r pitch would have that engine power converted into more pull and consequently speed our rate of climb. It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle-climb or at high altitude.

....

We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, well. I wonder what mode they were in to do that?

Xiolablu3
09-11-2008, 09:04 AM
I didnt mean to imly that the BOB was not a victory for the RAF, it was. What I missed out of my last post.

'It was basically a draw, but a draw meant that Germany did not acheive her objectives, and a draw meant a victory for the British/Allies in surviving to fight another day...'

It was a victory as it was the first time the Nazi rollercoaster had been stopped.

It was a victory in repelling the attacker, but not defeating the attacker, as he withdrew most of his forces to fight on another front.

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The jagdwaffe was failing to protect their fighters earlier in the battle. 1st July to 4th August their bomber loss rates were 8.7% and fighter losses 1.7%. 5th August to 1st September the bombers lost 7.9% and the fighters 2.9%

Those are extremely high losses for the bombers, way beyond sustainable rates.

2nd September to 29th September the bomber losses fell to 4.7%, which is still high but on the verge of sustainability. Fighter loss rates rose to 3.3%

Of course it's hard to separate the effect of the change in targets and strategy from the effect of more close escorts, but even if the close escort order didn't improve things, it's clear that any air force suffering 8% loss rates has to change tactics.

Luftwaffe possessed 1,380 level bombers on 29 June 1940, prior to the Battle, and 1,423 level bombers on 2 November 1940, after the Battle.

Unsustainable bomber losses? Hardly, it would seem.


3.Switching from attacking RAF sector fields and the RAF directly to attacking London which put the 109's almost out of fuel entirely and gave the RAF time to rest and repair while denying the Luftwaffe that same luxury.

Again the problem is time was ticking away and nothing was being achieved. The Luftwaffe was bleeding itself dry in the campaign against the airfields. On the 1st August the Luftwaffe had 869 Bf 109 pilots fit for duty. By 1st September that had fallen to 735. Serviceability rates were falling fast.

In contrast the RAF had 586 Spits and Hurricanes serviceable on 1st August. On 1st September they had 613. In terms of pilots, on the 3rd August they had 1,434 fighter aircrew (this includes all Fighter Command aircrew, not just pilots of single engined fighters). On 31st August they had 1,422.[/QUOTE]

Number of Luftwaffe fighter pilots fit for duty.
Number of RAF Figther Command pilots present with Squadrons (ie. both fit and unfit for duty).


That's true of the Luftwaffe as well. When Milch toured the forward airfields in late August the units complained some of the replacements they were being sent had only 10 landings in 109, and had never fired a cannon in training.

To clarify, Hop is speaking of the replacements that already left fighter school, and were assigned to the operational training units of the LW, before being transferred to an operational combat unit.

Hop simply does not understands how the German system worked, it much easier for him to make up stuff about it.

Some of the replacements. Never fired a cannon in training (though they did practice gunnery with machineguns. Dodgy sentences, eh?
Isn't its one of Hops favourite arguments to point out the most numerous of all E models was the E-1 with an all machine-gun armament?

Of course it is. Sometimes.

Now the difference of course that British drastically shortened fighter pilot training - they had to. Before the Battle a fighter pilot got 3 months of training. It was soon cut down to just six weeks. The numbers were there, the quality wasn't. On the German side, there was no cutting back of the training time, and no particular rush of the cadets into combat. Heinz Knoke comes into mind.


The advantage for the RAF in this was that Dowding instituted a scheme of A, B and C squadrons. As and Bs were to be kept at full strength, but Cs were posted well away from the battle area and were to receive rookie pilots and train them up before posting them to squadrons actually involved in the battle.

Hmmm, what took so long in Britain to figure out something - dividing the force into 1st and 2nd line units - that was centuries old practice in other armed forces across the world..? At least you seem to think it was some kind of wondrous innovation by Dowding.

Actually it merely illustrates how ignorant you are about the Luftwaffe. These kind of 'rookie boot camps' existed in the LW as well, merely in a different set of organisation. Each Geschwader had its own seperate Ergänzungseinhet where rookies were who left the fighter schools - where they only learned the basics - received their actual training for the operation type from pilots with plenty of experience. Only then they were assigned to combat units and sent into combat. Even there they weren't expected anything more in the first five or ten sorties than just to stay with leader, observe what he does and stay alive.


This was easy for the RAF because they maintained a large proportion of their strength in the north and west throughout the battle, but the Luftwaffe devoted almost their entire single engined fighter force to attacks on Britain.

That's simply bull. The absurdity of your arguments is that claim at the same time that the RAF Fighters were grossly outnumbered, and while the daily sortie statistics show that they were flying as much or sometimes even more sorties than the Luftwaffe's fighters and bombers combined and yet still they also rested more..

There were only a couple of 'maximum effort operations' where most of the fighters were sent into the attack during the whole four months in 1940 from the LW's part, ie. Adlertag, September 7, 15 etc. On most operational days only about a third of the available LW fighter force was actually employed in operations and flying offensive sorties. The rest were doing some R&R.

Truth is the RAF was cycling Squadron personnel in and out of the battlezone, while the LW was simple cycling which Geschwadern were taking part of the offensive operations on the day or week, and which ones were resting, and refitting.

But go on with the story, its always sort of entertaining to see you try.

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 02:42 PM
The Luftwaffe in the Battle of France
10 May 40

45 2/3 Kampfgruppen

West 1607 1093 On-hand Svcble
Norway 143 80 On-hand Svcble
Reich 10 7 On-hand Svcble
Grand Totals 1760 1180 On-hand Svcble

The Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
13 Aug 40

42 1/3 Kampfgruppen 1482 1008

The Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain
7 Sept 1940

43 Kampfgruppen 1291 798

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">nd excluded some British fighter types (Defiants, Beufighters, Blenheims etc.)

What Beaufighters? They weren't delivered for service until August and weren't operational until October, after BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Beuafighters that were there since August. For september, 3 Beau's are listed as Cat2(damaged), and one as Cat3 writen off - all in accidents.


There were so few Benheim and Defiant sorties they might as well be ignored.

Actually there are plenty of them on the butcher's bill. But hey, why don't we just ignore 110s as well..? Same standards applied and all..

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

So the figures should include German non operational losses too. That would push the German total to 2,069

... and we shouldn't count Blenheims and Defiants, and it would be probably be more proper to include German losses on the Eastern front in 1943 as an indirectly related to Fighter Command in 1940.

That would be pushing the German losses even more! Don't be shy, be creative!

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 03:38 PM
The Beuafighters that were there since August. For september, 3 Beau's are listed as Cat2(damaged), and one as Cat3 writen off - all in accidents.

They were not operational as fighters so listing them would be spurious, unless you are going to also list landing accidents by Supermarine Walruses or Tiger Moths too.

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 03:50 PM
... and I have not listed them for August or September either. They were all lost in accidents. Not sure if that would be still true for October, however W&D has no figures for that month.

If you would have taken time it is clearly written that none of the accidents were included in the comparison.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 04:14 PM
Actually there are plenty of them on the butcher's bill.

How many squadrons of Blenheims and Defiants, how many of 110s? How many sorties by each type. I think you will quickly find that the Blenheims and Defiants fighters were a very small component of the Battle of Britain and not in the least comparable to the contribution by 110s. (although they did form the beginnings of the nightfighter force, but there were very few night intercepts in 1940)

So lets look at the Defiant. A total of two Defiant squadrons took part. Even one Gladiator squadron saw action, which shows you how few took part. 35 Hurricane squadrons took part, or over 50 total single engined, about 60 total squadrons. In other words Defiants comprised about 3% of the total force, but saw far less than 3% of all RAF sorties. If you are arguing about the contribution in the low single figure percentages you are truly splitting hairs.

The Blenheim fighters were almost exclusively used as night fighters, with and without AI. Intercepts were rare.

Now I don't know how many squadrons of 110s were involved, but I am guessing more than the 2 squadrons of Defiants used in day operations, or the similar number of Blenheim day fighter squadrons (still less than 10 including the NF squadrons). Perhaps you could tell us how many 110 squadrons took part?

Operational Beaufighter squadrons? Still zero.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Yout Statement was:

Hop simply excluded some 140 British fighters (two seaters like the Blenheim, Defiant and Beaufighter), but naturally keep true to himself he included German two-seaters like the 110s.

And my points are:
1. The Beaufighter was not operational and should be exluded.
2. The 110 was operational and should be included.
3. So few Blenheim and Defiant sorties were flown excluding them makes no significant difference so your objection is a strawman. Perhaps hop should have included them, but the overall thrust of the figures will be the same due to the small numbers in operational service in the context of the Battle as fighters. You might have a valid argument in terms of Blenheims lost on raids on German assets in the period, though. But they were not important as fighters as the were almost entirely unused by day and night fighter techniques were not developed enough for them to be effective. In fact they were being used to develop the techniques and equipment that would later be successful in the Blenheim and Mosquito.

Kurfurst__
09-11-2008, 04:33 PM
Something like 100-200 Blenheim Fighter Marks and Defiants were lost. Too lazy to count them now.

Decide yourself wheter it is fine to exclude some 150* British twin engined day/night fighters from the losses but include something like some 200* German day/night fighters and bombers and recce aircraft (as 110s took all four tasks).

I find it very odd to do so. Manipulative, even.

Night'.

* like I am said, I am too lazy right now to count them

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 04:50 PM
At the start of BoB the FC had less than 100 of these types servicable, probably 120-130 total. This means you are saying they saw over a 100% casualty rate?

In reality, in combat, the total Blenheim and Defiant losses (destroyed) 30. I suspect it is unlikely that anything up to 170 crashed in various accidents in that period.

M_Gunz
09-11-2008, 05:01 PM
Do losses count strafed or bombed while sitting empty at an airfield?

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 05:03 PM
23 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded YP, Operated from Colyweston & Wittering
25 SQUADRON: Blenheims & Beaufighters, Coded ZK, Operated from North Weald
29 SQUADRON: Blenheims & Beaufighters, Coded RO, Operated from Debden
219 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded FK, Operated from Catterick & Redhill
235 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded LA, Operated from Thorney Island & Bircham Newton
236 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded FA, Operated from Thorney Island
248 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded WR, Operated from Dyce

141 SQUADRON: Defiants, Coded TW, Operated from West Malling & Biggin Hill
264 SQUADRON "Madras Presidency": Defiants, Coded PS, Operated from Fowlmere & Hornchurch

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 05:05 PM
Most of them were NFs squadron - some from 1939, some converting prior to BoB in 1940. From memory only 2 were still operating as day fighters. 23 was famously inventive at night with Bleheims, Bostons and Mosquitos.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 05:07 PM
Do losses count strafed or bombed while sitting empty at an airfield?

Pass about whether they ae include in the 30 losses to combat causes, but there were definitely Blenheim losses at bombed airfields.

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 05:10 PM
Something to read
http://www.battleofbritain.net/0019.html

WTE_Galway
09-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
23 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded YP, Operated from Colyweston & Wittering
25 SQUADRON: Blenheims & Beaufighters, Coded ZK, Operated from North Weald
29 SQUADRON: Blenheims & Beaufighters, Coded RO, Operated from Debden
219 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded FK, Operated from Catterick & Redhill
235 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded LA, Operated from Thorney Island & Bircham Newton
236 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded FA, Operated from Thorney Island
248 SQUADRON: Blenheims, Coded WR, Operated from Dyce

141 SQUADRON: Defiants, Coded TW, Operated from West Malling & Biggin Hill
264 SQUADRON "Madras Presidency": Defiants, Coded PS, Operated from Fowlmere & Hornchurch

Two Gladiator squadrons flew in the Battle of France and whilst combat against Luftwaffe bombers occurred there were no claims of kills.

607 squadron used its last few gladiators (they had just received Hurricanes)to defend Mansfield during Dunkirk but they did not see action.

No. 247 Squadron, stationed in Robourgh, was operational throughout the Battle of Britain. The main combats however took place well above the Gladiator's operational height so again little or no actual combat.

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Most of them were NFs squadron - some from 1939, some converting prior to BoB in 1940. From memory only 2 were still operating as day fighters. 23 was famously inventive at night with Bleheims, Bostons and Mosquitos.
For sure Aaron. Was just listing the squadron, not what their 'job' was.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 05:30 PM
I know - just adding emphasis to your addition.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-11-2008, 11:26 PM
I will not touch this topic since both sides propagandised their kill/loss ratio so heavily.

Typical losses in single engined fighters were usualy near 50% non combatant!
(source "A Strategy for Defeat, the Luftwaffe")

Some were higher, some were lower. P-51s for example had
a low non combatant loss rate because most were flown by
experianced pilots transitioning from other types, notably P-47s.

Spits and 109s had similar trecherous ground handeling issues.
I will venture a guess that they ran a non combatant loss ratio
above the average.

When all types are figured in the kill/loss ratio should show near 50-50.

Vinnie

M_Gunz
09-11-2008, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
I will not touch this topic since both sides propagandised their kill/loss ratio so heavily.

Typical losses in single engined fighters were usualy near 50% non combatant!
(source "A Strategy for Defeat, the Luftwaffe")

Some were higher, some were lower. P-51s for example had
a low non combatant loss rate because most were flown by
experianced pilots transitioning from other types, notably P-47s.

Spits and 109s had similar trecherous ground handeling issues.
I will venture a guess that they ran a non combatant loss ratio
above the average.

When all types are figured in the kill/loss ratio should show near 50-50.

Vinnie

Aces such as Bud Anderson and Chuck Yeager trained on P-51's before going to combat.
That wasn't at the end of the war, Yeager had been shot down over occupied France.
And yet still more pilots were being trained on P-51's.
You think maybe the training program........................?

Kurfurst__
09-12-2008, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
At the start of BoB the FC had less than 100 of these types servicable, probably 120-130 total. This means you are saying they saw over a 100% casualty rate?

Fighter Command itself saw over 100% casulty rate did it not..?


In reality, in combat, the total Blenheim and Defiant losses (destroyed) 30. I suspect it is unlikely that anything up to 170 crashed in various accidents in that period.

What is the source of this reality? In Wood and Dempster`s listings of Cat 3 losses (missing or total write-off) between 4th July and 2nd November (they only give weekly listings) Blenheims go as 112, and 23 Defiants, without the damaged ones, concerning which I again have make reference for my lazy habits. Note that these are Blenheims only belonging to Fighter Command - BC etc. Blenheim losses are counted with BC losses seperately, and in addition to that.

See 'The Narrow Margin', page 312, Appendix 13 in my edition of 2003.

Aaron_GT
09-12-2008, 04:07 AM
Fighter Command itself saw over 100% casulty rate did it not..?

Indeed it did, but combat causes were more important here than training accidents.


In Wood and Dempster`s listings of Cat 3 losses (missing or total write-off) between 4th July and 2nd November (they only give weekly listings) Blenheims go as 112, and 23 Defiants

112 plus 23 is 135, which is well short of you initial suggestions of 150 to 200.

It includes dates well after the Battle of Britain.

A large number of the losses represent night flying accidents.

The figures include quite a number lost to bombing.

In terms of dayfighter used Blenheims and Defiants represent 4 squadrons or about 1/10 the Hurricane force and even the the Defiants were withdrawn before the end of the Battle of Britain and time was required before the crews were operational as nightfighters.

So your Blenheim and Defiant figures include losses outside the Battle of Britain and from non-operational squadrons, much like your Beaufighter figure.

If non-combat losses from non-operational sqadrons not in contact with the enemy from squadrons converting to night fighters are to be included then why not include accidents from 109s and 110s in Germany's nascent night fighter home defence forces in the Battle of Britain loss figures?

Kurfurst__
09-12-2008, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fighter Command itself saw over 100% casulty rate did it not..?

Indeed it did, but combat causes were more important here than training accidents.


In Wood and Dempster`s listings of Cat 3 losses (missing or total write-off) between 4th July and 2nd November (they only give weekly listings) Blenheims go as 112, and 23 Defiants

112 plus 23 is 135, which is well short of you initial suggestions of 150 to 200. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who can read can read that I said the numbers are approximiate, because I wasn't counting them at the time. This has been clearly been stated.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It includes dates well after the Battle of Britain.

It includes two Blenheims becoming Cat 3 that were lost on November 1 and 2, two days after the British understanding of the Battle of Britain, 31 October, as has been clearly stated. It does not include three Blenheims that become Cat 3 losses on the week ending 4th July, when the Battle of Britain has already started, and for which German losses, on the other, are counted, but for which Aaron is not complaining.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
A large number of the losses represent night flying accidents.

'Large number'? You made me curious!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The figures include quite a number lost to bombing.

'Quite a number'? Rhere were seven Fighter Command Blenheims written off on the ground to enemy action between 21 August - 25 September. See W&D.

And of course the 109s, 110s written off on ground due to enemy bombing are included in the German losses already, but you don't complain about that for some reason.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In terms of dayfighter used Blenheims and Defiants represent 4 squadrons or about 1/10 the Hurricane force and even the the Defiants were withdrawn before the end of the Battle of Britain and time was required before the crews were operational as nightfighters.

So were some Bf 109 and Bf 110 Wings. They are included in the German losses just the same, and Aaron is not complaining.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So your Blenheim and Defiant figures include losses outside the Battle of Britain and from non-operational squadrons, much like your Beaufighter figure.

As do the Germans figures. So are you accusing me of not using double standards?


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If non-combat losses from non-operational sqadrons not in contact with the enemy from squadrons converting to night fighters are to be included then why not include accidents from 109s and 110s in Germany's nascent night fighter home defence forces in the Battle of Britain loss figures?

You see the problem is that those figures are included in the German losses.

luftluuver
09-12-2008, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fighter Command itself saw over 100% casulty rate did it not..?

Indeed it did, but combat causes were more important here than training accidents.


In Wood and Dempster`s listings of Cat 3 losses (missing or total write-off) between 4th July and 2nd November (they only give weekly listings) Blenheims go as 112, and 23 Defiants

112 plus 23 is 135, which is well short of you initial suggestions of 150 to 200.

It includes dates well after the Battle of Britain.

A large number of the losses represent night flying accidents.

The figures include quite a number lost to bombing.

In terms of dayfighter used Blenheims and Defiants represent 4 squadrons or about 1/10 the Hurricane force and even the the Defiants were withdrawn before the end of the Battle of Britain and time was required before the crews were operational as nightfighters.

So your Blenheim and Defiant figures include losses outside the Battle of Britain and from non-operational squadrons, much like your Beaufighter figure.

If non-combat losses from non-operational sqadrons not in contact with the enemy from squadrons converting to night fighters are to be included then why not include accidents from 109s and 110s in Germany's nascent night fighter home defence forces in the Battle of Britain loss figures? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh dear, Kurfurst is exaggerating, again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Fighter Command Order of Battle
August 8th 1940

11 Group

SECTOR - SQN - AIRCRAFT - BASED - AT COMMANDER

Biggin Hill 32 Hurricane Biggin Hill S/L J. Worrall
. 501 Hurricane Gravesend S/L H.A.V Hogan
. 610 Spitfire Biggin Hill S/L J Ellis
. 600 Blenheim Manston S/L D.De B Clarke

North Weald 56 Hurricane North Weald S/L G.A.L Manton
. 151 Hurricane North Weald S/L E.M Donaldson
One Flight 85 Hurricane Martlesham S/L P.W Townsend
. 25 Blenheim Martlesham S/L K.A.McEwan

Kenley 64 Spitfire Kenley S/L A.R.D MacDonell
. 615 Hurricane Kenley S/L J.R Kayll
. 111 Hurricane Croydon S/L J.M Thompson
Operational 17 Aug 1 Canada Hurricane Croydon S/L E.A.McNab

Hornchurch 65 Spitfire Hornchurch S/L A.L.Holland
. 74 Spitfire Hornchurch S/L F.L White
. 54 Spitfire Hornchurch S/L J.L Leathart
Until 9th Aug 41 Spitfire Hornchurch S/L H.West

Tangmere 43 Hurricane Tangmere S/L J.V.C Badger
. 145 Hurricane Westhampnet S/L J.R.A Peel
. 601 Hurricane Tangmere S/L E.F Ward

Debden 17 Hurricane Debden S/L R.I.G.McDougal
One Flight 85 Hurricane Debden S/L P.W Townsend

Northolt 1 Hurricane Northolt S/L D.A Pemberton
.. 257 Hurricane Northolt S/L H.Harkness
. 303 Hurricane Northolt S/L R.G Kellett

10 Group

SECTOR - SQN - AIRCRAFT- BASED- AT COMMANDER

Filton . 87 Hurricane Exeter S/L T.G Lovell-Gregg
. 213 Hurricane Exeter S/L H.D.McGregor

Pembrey 92 Spitfire Pembury S/L P.J.Sanders

Middle Wallop 609 Spitfire Middle Wallop S/L H.S Darley
. 238 Hurricane Middle Wallop S/L H.A Fenton
. 604 Blenheim Middle Wallop S/L M.F Anderson
. 152 Spitfire Warmwell S/L P.K Devitt
St Eval 234 Spitfire St Eval S/L J.S O'Brien
... 247 Gladiator Roborough F/L H.A Chater
Coastal Command 236 Blenheim Thorney Island S/L P.E.Drew

12 Group

SECTOR - SQN - AIRCRAFT - BASED AT - COMMANDER

Duxford 19 Spitfire Fowlmere S/L P.C Pinkham
. 310 Hurricane Duxford S/L D.G.M Blackwood
P/O A.Hess

Coltishall 66 Spitfire Coltishall S/L R.H.A Leigh
. 242 Hurricane Coltishall S/L D.R.S Bader


Kirton-in-Lindsay 222 Spitfire Kirton-in-Lindsay S/L J.H Hill
. 264 Defiant Kirton-in-Lindsay S/L P.A Hunter


Digby 46 Hurricane Digby F/L J.R McLachlan
. 611 Spitfire Digby S/L J McComb
. 29 Blenheim Digby S/L S.C Widdows

Wittering 229 Hurricane Wittering S/L H. J Maguire
. 266 Spitfire Wittering S/L R.L.Wilkinson
. 23 Blenheim Collyweston S/L G.F.W Heycock

Church Fenton 73 Hurricane Church Fenton S/L J.W.C.More
. 616 Spitfire Leconfield S/L M.Robinson
. 249 Hurricane Church Fenton S/L J Grandy

13 Group

SECTOR - SQN - AIRCRAFT - BASED AT - COMMANDER

Catterick . 219 Blenheim Catterick S/L J.H.Little
From 9th Aug 41 Spitfire Catterick S/L H.R.L Hood

Usworth 607 Hurricane Usworth S/L J.Vick
. 72 Spitfire Acklington S/L A.R Collins
. 79 Hurricane Acklington S/L J.H Heyworth

Turnhouse 141 Defiant Prestwick S/L W.A.Richardson
. 253 Hurricane Turnhouse S/L T.P Gleave
. 602 Spitfire Drem S/L A.V.R Johnstone
605 Hurricane Drem S/L W.Churchill

Dyce 263 Hurricane Grangemouth S/L H.Eeles
"A" Flight 603 Spitfire Montrose S/L G.Denholm
"B" Flight 603 Spitfire Dyce ?

Wick 3 Hurricane Wick S/L S.F.Godden
. 504 Hurricane Castletown S/L J Sample
one flight only 232 Hurricane Sumburgh F/L M.M.Stephens

Aldergrove 245 Hurricane Aldergrove S/L E.W.Whitley

John_Wayne_
09-12-2008, 04:42 AM
http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_beer.gif

Kurfurst__
09-12-2008, 04:54 AM
I wonder if the two posts above share the same IP address by some fatal accident. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
09-12-2008, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I wonder if the two posts above share the same IP address by some fatal accident. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Your paranoia is back Barbi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The last time your paranoia surfaced, the Mods checked the IPs.

DuckyFluff
09-12-2008, 05:25 AM
Here we go with Kurfy and Lufty AssClown show yet again... don't you girls ever get tired of the biatch slapping??
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Aaron_GT
09-12-2008, 05:26 AM
If the figures are ones that are relevant and on an equal footing then I am happy. That's all I am concerned about.


'Large number'? You made me curious!

Given that the day fighter Blenheims and Defiants were barely used and the nightfghters barely made contact then it stands to reason that the number lost in combat is a small proportion of the total. Early on in the battle the Defiants and Blenheims suffered high losses -for the number committed- in combat, hence they weren't used much in daylight after this point. In any case over 50% of the total Blenheim and Defiant force (5 of 9 squadrons) was being used as nightfighters and intercepts were rare, let alone significant defensive fire from the lightly armed German bombers. Where do you think the combat losses would be coming from?

In any case all (both) Defiant squadrons were removed from operational status by the end of August and for the next nearly two months were transitioning to night fighter status.

Combat losses for the period: 30 Defiants and Blenheims. You are saying 135 lost in a 4 month period, or roughly 100 in the main 3 months. Thus 70 were from non combat causes, which is the majority of the 100.

ElAurens
09-12-2008, 05:46 AM
You know, the BF109 vs. Spitfire debates (or pick any other matchup you care to in WW2) have been raging since the end of the war.

The simple fact is that the front line combat single seaters were more closely matched than they were different. It's been said before, and I'll say it again, it's the pilot, and who sees who first that usually predicted the outcome of an engagement in the war.

It's easy for us in the comfort of our chairs to debate the tiny details of one type over another, but I assure you that in the real world noe one cared about tiny differences in performance. It's so easy for us. We are not stressed, either by g load or fear of death, our heads are not being pummeled by decibel levels in the cockpit that in short order will cause measurable hearing loss. We sleep in our own beds every night and are well fed. It's not too hot or too cold for us, and because we never die in our virtual world, we "log" far more hours than any WW2 pilot ever did.

For us to argue which plane is better is lunacy.

Enjoy the popcorn.

Germany lost.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-12-2008, 12:19 PM
I have not been around in over a year, is Kurfurst__
Isegrim and Babarossa? His syntax and Me-109 worship is a dead match.

Vinnie

Aaron_GT
09-12-2008, 01:08 PM
For us to argue which plane is better is lunacy.

In the context of BoB the task and tactics were the deciding factors. FC had good command and control, and the LW, with short legs on the 109 had a tough task hampered by some poor close escort decisions at times, which hampered the 110 even more. Neither nation had bombers that could fight in daylight unescorted with large enough bombloads.