Luftwaffe vs RAF

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
ivanlazic
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Aug 2015 10:06
Location: London

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby ivanlazic » 07 Aug 2015 09:46

Thank you for your responses, all - they've been very helpful. I'll pass the information onto my producers for consideration - we have indeed been looking at Bomber Command as another story so hopefully we can do something on that.

I take your other comments on board. At this stage the films and specific topics haven't been finalised, but we are also thinking of looking at other planes too. Just to be clear, our programme isn't *just* about the Spitfire! That would be really one-sided. But I'll be honest, there is a section which will focus on it.

sitalkes (and anyone else for that matter) - I don't suppose you have John Vasco's contact details? It would be great to speak to him further.

Thanks again - this is all much appreciated.

Rescue193
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Dec 2016 12:31
Location: GB

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby Rescue193 » 06 Dec 2016 18:02

The point about the loss ratios between RAF vs Luftwaffe and fighter vs fighter in the BoB is interesting.

Obviously the RAF's primary goal was to prevent the bombers from reaching their targets (and the best way to do that was to shoot them down) and/or break-up their formations to disrupt and reduce the effectiveness of any particular raid. The Hurricanes (which formed the bulk of RAF Fighter Command and 11 Group assets anyway) tended to be tasked with intercepting the bombers. The effort devoted to counter the fighters covering the bombers was of secondary importance and tended, certainly in the later stages of the battle, to be handed to Spitfires which could meet the BF109s on more-or-less equal terms, although the Bf109s were generally able to engage with tactical advantage of height and speed.

At the risk of making a few sweeping generalisations German fighter pilots tended to have more hours on type, more combat experience, were better shots and German tactics were, until later on in the battle and the RAF began to catch-up, far superior. The relative merits of the Spit and the 109 have been much discussed and my gut feeling about it is that, probably, it was the relative skills, abilities and experience of the pilots in the cockpits that was more likely to decide the outcome of an engagement rather than performance the aeroplanes they were flying.

I remember, from many years ago, hearing an RAeS Historical Branch lecture where the speaker analysed, compared and contrasted, the 'weight of broadside' - i.e. the amount of lead it could throw at a target - of a Mk1A Spit vs the Bf109E. Surprisingly (at least to me) they were virtually the same but the telling point was that the 'broadside' of the 109 was much more concentrated. In other words, a Spitfire might hit a Messerschmitt but escape but if the Messerschmitt hit a Spitfire the latter was more likely to be shot down. I throw that in to the pot just to let it simmer and see what thoughts and reactions it might provoke.

The other point in the debate that I think might be relevant is that, whereas the RAF had both bombers and fighters to shoot at, apart from the odd Defiant or Blenheim unlucky enough to wander into an engagement, the Luftwaffe (bombers and fighters) were only shooting at fighters and that must have some bearing on the numbers shot down.

(Oh! Are Me110 losses counted as downed fighters?)

Dupplin Muir
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 18 Jun 2010 13:13

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby Dupplin Muir » 28 Dec 2016 16:48

One problem with comparing losses between different air-forces is that they used different conventions. In the Luftwaffe (and the USAAF and USN) the attitude was 'We will assume all missing aircraft were lost to flak or non-combat causes, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise'. In the RAF, by contrast, the approach was 'We will assume all missing aircraft were lost in air combat unless we have good reason to believe otherwise'. This naturally led to the Germans seriously understating losses to enemy fighters, and the British seriously overestimating such losses. As a rule-of-thumb I usually increase German air-combat losses by 50% and reduce British losses by 25% before making such comparisons.

Secondly, research into Ultra intercepts (notably by the excellent Nick Beale) is demonstrating that the official German loss-lists are far from complete. On one occasion during the Battle of Britain, 54 Squadron clashed with JG26, claiming six 109's. The official records only include two losses, but intercepts show that the Germans lost at least four fighters, and possibly the whole six. Similarly, on Adlertag, the official records claim that I/KG54 lost two Ju88's and II/KG54 another two - but Ultra shows that actually I/KG54 lost four aircraft and II/KG54 lost three. Some people set up a strawman by claiming that the Germans could not under-report losses because they wouldn't get replacements, but this is assuming that the Luftwaffe used the same system as the RAF. In reality, the system for reporting losses in the Luftwaffe, and the system for obtaining replacements had become 'decoupled' and units could obtain new aircraft without having to detail losses. Indeed, in another Ultra intercept, JG2 were rebuked for doing precisely this.

Lastly, Polish pilots tended to overclaim more than their RAF colleagues. One Polish historian showed that the Polish squadron which was allegedly the top-scoring unit during the BoB would drop to eighth place, even if you assumed that they had shot down every aircraft they might have shot down. The problem is that people get fixated on one thing and don't want to share credit - Don Caldwell did much the same with JG26: assuming all claims by 'his' unit were accurate and all the over-claiming was being done by other units.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017 16:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby wbell » 29 Nov 2017 18:08

Rescue193 wrote: ... The relative merits of the Spit and the 109 have been much discussed and my gut feeling about it is that, probably, it was the relative skills, abilities and experience of the pilots in the cockpits that was more likely to decide the outcome of an engagement rather than performance the aeroplanes they were flying.

...In other words, a Spitfire might hit a Messerschmitt but escape but if the Messerschmitt hit a Spitfire the latter was more likely to be shot down. I throw that in to the pot just to let it simmer and see what thoughts and reactions it might provoke.


Not to get off topic, but I did want to touch on your statement. I agree with your assessment, however it would largely depend on the combat experience of the Pilot in single combat. Other major factors would include:

1. Initial position of each aircraft at the time of engagement;
2. Fuel and ammunition available at the time of engagement; and
3. Altitude at time of engagement.

The ME109E was an excellent aircraft. If I recall correctly (I can dig-up the references if you'd like them), the ME109E had a faster roll & dive rate than the Spitfire. On the otherhand, the Spitfire Mk1 had the edge on turn radius, climb rate and service ceiling. The Spitfire also was a bit faster. The ME109E was fuel injected, so its performance under a negative G load would be better, as the Mk1 was carburated. Generally speaking, The aerobatics of the Spitfire are superior to the ME109, but again it comes down to the factors already mentioned.

Armament on the Mk1 was 8 browning 7.72mm/0.308 that fired at 350 rpm. The ME109E had 2 7.62's at 1200 rpm and 2 20mm at 540 rpm. Clearly there was an anvantage for the ME109E. Later model Spitfires incorporated the 20 mm, but if the comparison is the Mk1, clearly the ME109E would have an advantage (although 8 7.62mm machine guns could get the job done fairly efficiently). :)

I've had an opportunity to fly a Mk9 Spitfire (viewtopic.php?f=22&t=231538 ), but haven't done so with a 109 so I can't compare through personal experience. The Spitfire was however impressive. Although I was very inexperienced with this aircraft, it was quick to respond and easy to control at altitude.

I'm aware that pinion has not much of a place on this site. However after consideration and given the choice, I'd be flying the Spitfire...

paulrward
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby paulrward » 29 Nov 2017 20:15

Hello All ;

To Mr. W Bell :

The rate of fire of the Browning Mk !! .303 was on the order of 1000 - 1150 rpm cyclic -
about three to four times your quoted rate of 300 rpm. Now, each Spitfire carried 300 rounds
per gun, which was 2400 rounds, which could be spat out in about 17 seconds.

Not so much of an advantage for the Me 109, is there ?

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

PS- the quoted figure of 300 rpm for a .303 Browning is for a gun synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Like in The Great War......

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017 16:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby wbell » 29 Nov 2017 21:36

paulrward wrote: The rate of fire of the Browning Mk !! .303 was on the order of 1000 - 1150 rpm cyclic -
about three to four times your quoted rate of 300 rpm. Now, each Spitfire carried 300 rounds
per gun, which was 2400 rounds, which could be spat out in about 17 seconds. ... Not so much of an advantage for the Me 109, is there ?


Thanks Paul, your correct. The A Wing Spitfire (designated in 1940) carried 300 rounds of ammunition per gun. I was going by recollection and confused the ammunition capacity for the rate of fire.

I believe that the 109 had 1000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition per gun (?). The 109s advantage was the 20mm gun. I understand that it only held 60 rounds, but it was devastating. That was the advantage I was referring to.

The B Wing (1941) designation came out with two 20mm cannons and four 7.62mm machine guns. It was felt that as armor was being added for pilot protection, that more firepower was required. Further improvements were made in the C, D, E and Mk21 wing configurations.

Sorry for the confusion, my mistake. [Reference: "http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_wings.html]

eric_tull
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 29 Dec 2017 10:51
Location: Sherwood Forest

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Postby eric_tull » 29 Dec 2017 12:11

phylo_roadking wrote:Imad - pick up a copy of Patrick Bishop's Battle of Britain:Day-By-Day Chronology. There you can trace the evolution of the 1940 air battle...

And you'll see some stange things; specifically, that the RAF didn't actually do so well for a number of reasons in the first part of the battle. A combination of outmoded tactics, fighters based too close to the coast (no time to gain an altitude advantage), being jumped by free-hunting LW fighters, and sheer mistakes - such as intruding (fatally) into the box formation of Dorniers on two occasions when they'd been ordered not to...meant that in the early weeks of the air battle - July and the first part of August - the LW comes out ahead of the RAF!


This is an excellent book. No flag waving just the facts as they happened. And yes in July and early august the Luftwaffe came out on top.


Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]