Walter Wever doesn't die

[ljadw]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

[stg 44]

No. The issue wasn't drop tanks, it was the lack of Bf109s available in 1940. Richard Overy demonstrated the RAF outnumbered in the LW in numbers of fighters (especially once the BF110 was recognized as unable to escort) and pilots. In fact there were more operational fighter aircraft than pilots to fly them, especially as the campaign dragged on and combat stress reduced readiness rates. The Fw187 really helps in that it adds more operational fighters to the mix. They could also, assuming the calculated range of 1000 miles or so that I've seen, have tremendous linger capacity to do what the P-51 did over Germany in 1944: post up over RAF air fields and pounce on taking off or landing fighters. Easy meat.
Ultimately it was the losses of the French campaign and low German output of replacement fighters and pilots that was the real issue, especially when the number of escorts limited the number of bombers that could be used at any one time.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Britai ... 0393322971

The germans had 950 Bf 109 and 200 Bf 110 available.
The FC nearly lost over 900 fighters, the LW lost only 600 fighters (with Bf 110), the problem were not aircrafts for the germans, it was their lost pilots.
The kill rate for the LW would be clearly expand with a Fw 187 and a drop tank for the Bf 109, so the supply of pilots and aircrafts would be much less stressfull, because they would shoot down much more aircrafts and would lost less pilots and aircrafts. That's a simple calculation.
Also if you look at at the loss rates of the Bf 109 and it's connection to it's flight time over enemy territory.

From the above quoted book:
RAF FC August 17th Pilot Operational Strength: 1379
German August 1st Pilot Operational Strength: 869

http://members.tripod.com/Rush_9/OoBob1.htm

Number of immediately available fighters, according to "The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley (Ian Allan Ltd., 1990)

Hurricanes Spitfires

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

21 August 615 326

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... ports.html

By 7 September the LW fighter strength is 1,037 (S.E.-831, T.E.-206) [Source: Sturmvogel} versus 1,102 for the RAF .Game over!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ite_note-9

The number of serviceable aircraft amounted to 805 single-seat fighters, 224 two-seat fighters

The twin seat fighters were not that useful during the Battle.

German Losses:

873 fighters and 1,014 bombers destroyed.[6]

[stg 44]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

The results of the Battle of France for one. The Hurricane was slower and had a worse lose ratio against the Bf109 in the BoB.
http://members.tripod.com/Rush_9/OoBob1.htm

From "Spitfire Special" by Ted Hooton:

Spitfire Hurricane Time

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

Average Strength 295 461

11th Group 137 243

Average Strength 38% 62% July 1 -- September 30

German shot down 43% 57% July 1 -- September 30

Bf 109 shot down 49% (of all lost) July -- August

Bf 109 shot down 54% (of all lost) September

Combat losses 39% 61%

Accident rate 7% 7%

Spitfire vs. Bf 109 : 219 to 180 lost.

Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

[ljadw]

Other point : the situation did not change for the better for the LW when the drop tanks were introduced in october 1940 (some sources are talking about august) :the attack on Coventry occurred in the evening,not during the day,although some people still are claiming that the drop tank made it possible for the fighters to escort the bombers more to the north during the day .

The drop tank came with the Bf 109 E7, which was not introduced before october 1940 in very smal numbers! Read sources.

And it did not make the situation for the Germans better .

[Don71]

Other point : the situation did not change for the better for the LW when the drop tanks were introduced in october 1940 (some sources are talking about august) :the attack on Coventry occurred in the evening,not during the day,although some people still are claiming that the drop tank made it possible for the fighters to escort the bombers more to the north during the day .

The drop tank came with the Bf 109 E7, which was not introduced before october 1940 in very smal numbers! Read sources.

And it did not make the situation for the Germans better .

Rofl!

The BoB ended when? Around 25 of september!

Please read more books!

[stg 44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
10 July – 31 October 1940[nb 1]
(3 months and 3 weeks)

[ljadw]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

The results of the Battle of France for one. The Hurricane was slower and had a worse lose ratio against the Bf109 in the BoB.
http://members.tripod.com/Rush_9/OoBob1.htm

From "Spitfire Special" by Ted Hooton:

Spitfire Hurricane Time

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

Average Strength 295 461

11th Group 137 243

Average Strength 38% 62% July 1 -- September 30

German shot down 43% 57% July 1 -- September 30

Bf 109 shot down 49% (of all lost) July -- August

Bf 109 shot down 54% (of all lost) September

Combat losses 39% 61%

Accident rate 7% 7%

Spitfire vs. Bf 109 : 219 to 180 lost.

Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

This does not prove that the Bf was "better" ,it is proving only that more Hurricanes were lost than Bf :it does not indicate that the reason was the quality of the aircraft .

The same for the figures about Spitfire/Be (219/180) :Price (in Spitfire story) is saying :the differences between the Spitfire and Me 109 in performance and handling were only marginal .

[Don71]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

Have you ever read a book with the loss rates at the Battle of France, the channel battle and BoB?
Look at the loss rates of the Bf 109 E2-4 and the Hurrricane and come back and claim again!
The Bf 109 had a kill ratio of 4:1 against the Hurricane at France, 3:1 at the Battle over the Channel and slightly above 2:1 at BoB

Your brain and your personality are so much biased, that original loss lists of both sides are no facts for you?

This does not prove that the Bf was "better" ,it is proving only that more Hurricanes were lost than Bf :it does not indicate that the reason was the quality of the aircraft .

Are you serious? But stay to your opinion, it shows the other members from what bias you come!

[Don71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
10 July – 31 October 1940[nb 1]
(3 months and 3 weeks)

Please show me one single raid of the LW after the 25. of september, where the LW did daylight raids with fighter cover?!
Please show me.

[Don71]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

The results of the Battle of France for one. The Hurricane was slower and had a worse lose ratio against the Bf109 in the BoB.
http://members.tripod.com/Rush_9/OoBob1.htm

From "Spitfire Special" by Ted Hooton:

Spitfire Hurricane Time

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

Average Strength 295 461

11th Group 137 243

Average Strength 38% 62% July 1 -- September 30

German shot down 43% 57% July 1 -- September 30

Bf 109 shot down 49% (of all lost) July -- August

Bf 109 shot down 54% (of all lost) September

Combat losses 39% 61%

Accident rate 7% 7%

Spitfire vs. Bf 109 : 219 to 180 lost.

Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

Christer Bergstrom had other numbers, he has especially reviewed the fighter to fighter action on a daily basis with loss lists from both sides. With the Battle over the channel and the Battle over Britain.

[stg 44]

Going by Most Dangerous Enemy it seems there were Jabo raids from October on with the Bf110s of various groups, not just Erp.G 210, that were escorted by fighters.

[ljadw]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

Have you ever read a book with the loss rates at the Battle of France, the channel battle and BoB?
Look at the loss rates of the Bf 109 E2-4 and the Hurrricane and come back and claim again!
The Bf 109 had a kill ratio of 4:1 against the Hurricane at France, 3:1 at the Battle over the Channel and slightly above 2:1 at BoB

Your brain and your personality are so much biased, that original loss lists of both sides are no facts for you?

This does not prove that the Bf was "better" ,it is proving only that more Hurricanes were lost than Bf :it does not indicate that the reason was the quality of the aircraft .

Are you serious? But stay to your opinion, it shows the other members from what bias you come!

Look who is talking of bias

From worldwartwozone.com php?/topic/12300-bf-109e-vs hurricane -spitfire.

Generally the Me 109 was inferior to the two British fighter.

Kill ratios do not prove anything.They only indicate losses,not the reasons,they indicate the what,not the why, not the how,and the danger is that they are giving biased persons the opportunity to delight in the usual What If scenarios as :give the Me 109 a drop tank and he would win the Battle of Britain,give the Panther an other barrel and he would win the Battle of Kursk ,etc,etc.

[RichTO90]

Christer Bergstrom had other numbers, he has especially reviewed the fighter to fighter action on a daily basis with loss lists from both sides. With the Battle over the channel and the Battle over Britain.

Then what are his figures and his sources? I have also "especially reviewed the fighter to fighter action on a daily basis with loss lists from both sides" using the original British AIR and HW records as well as the extant German records for the Battle of Britain Database we completed for OSD PA&E.

Why do you insist on an artificial separation between the combat over the Channel, over Britain, over France, and over London? That simply confuses things unnecessarily. They are all aspects/phases of the same air campaign.

[Don71]

there are no proofs that the Bf 109 was superior to the Hurricane in combat.

Have you ever read a book with the loss rates at the Battle of France, the channel battle and BoB?
Look at the loss rates of the Bf 109 E2-4 and the Hurrricane and come back and claim again!
The Bf 109 had a kill ratio of 4:1 against the Hurricane at France, 3:1 at the Battle over the Channel and slightly above 2:1 at BoB

Your brain and your personality are so much biased, that original loss lists of both sides are no facts for you?

This does not prove that the Bf was "better" ,it is proving only that more Hurricanes were lost than Bf :it does not indicate that the reason was the quality of the aircraft .

Are you serious? But stay to your opinion, it shows the other members from what bias you come!

Look who is talking of bias

From worldwartwozone.com php?/topic/12300-bf-109e-vs hurricane -spitfire.

Generally the Me 109 was inferior to the two British fighter.

Kill ratios do not prove anything.They only indicate losses,not the reasons,they indicate the what,not the why, not the how,and the danger is that they are giving biased persons the opportunity to delight in the usual What If scenarios as :give the Me 109 a drop tank and he would win the Battle of Britain,give the Panther an other barrel and he would win the Battle of Kursk ,etc,etc.

Ok if hard facts of loss rates and kill rates of two fighters to each other at the same campaigns, indicate nothing to you, believe this I'm sick to your kindergarden argumentation! Also the LW had comparison flights of catched Hurricanes and Spitfires from the France campaign at Rechlin from June 1940. The results of this LW reports are explicit!

Then what are his figures and his sources? I have also "especially reviewed the fighter to fighter action on a daily basis with loss lists from both sides" using the original British AIR and HW records as well as the extant German records for the Battle of Britain Database we completed for OSD PA&E.

Why do you insist on an artificial separation between the combat over the Channel, over Britain, over France, and over London? That simply confuses things unnecessarily. They are all aspects/phases of the same air campaign.

After Christar Bergström: Analysis of all loss lists

8. Aug. till end of Oct. 1940.

Bf-109 units achieve 815 shot downs to ~534 losses= kil ratio 1,52 zu 1.
Bf-110 units achieve 407 shot downs to ~196 losses= kil ratio 2,07 zu 1.

After Christa Bergström confirmed losses to both loss lists on a daily basis

Spitfire: 550 confirmed shot downs to 329 losses - kil ratio 1,7 zu 1
Hurricane: 750 confirmed shot downs to 603 losses - kil ratio 1,2 zu 1
Bf 109 780 confirmed shot downs to 534 losses – kil ratio 1,5 zu 1
Bf 110 340 bestätigte Luftsiege zu 196 Verlusten – kil ratio 1,7 zu 1

Note: After german sources 45 Bf 109 and 11 Bf 110 were lost to AA fire not fighters.
Almost all shot downs through LW fighters were british fighters, in contrast that the british fighters shot down more german bombers then fighters.

[ljadw]

Bored,bored

This proves nothing,unless that you are grasping desperatedly for a straw to prove your what if :the air war was not a duel between Schmidt and Jones,and if Schmidt won,this does not prove that his aircraft was better than that of Jones (and the opposite).Galland had 54 victories in the West,this does not mean that he was better than his 54 opponents,neither that his aircraft was better than those of his opponents;it only proves that he was a good pilot.Philipp had 206 victories,finally he was shot down:that does not mean that the man who shot him was better .

There was the factor luck,there was numerical superiority,there was surprise,the weather,the tactick,etc,etc .