Luftwaffe vs RAF

[Imad]

Thanks for those figures Sunbury. Very enlightening. I should get a hold of Franks' book.

[phylo_roadking]

Post BoB circa 1941 should be examined more, it seems its always glossed over as it was a major defeat for RAF Fighter Command.

Over 600 Spitfires were shot down over Northern France in 1941, the Luftwaffe lost approximately 120 fighters, meaning a 5 to 1 exchange rate. 5 Spitfires lost for every Me 109/FW 190. Leigh-Mallory and his aggressive missions cost the RAF and the British war effort dearly.

I've never been a fan of Trafford Leigh-Mallory; I've always thought he regarded his coming-out on top of the political arguments within the Air Staff as simply too much of a vindication of his tactical ideas - which he carried on into 1941 in an offensive capacity. For decades he was painted as the victor in the Dowding infighting...but really, he was only a foil in Sholto Douglas' hand in all that.

If a few hundred of those Spitfires lost in 1941 had instead been sent to the Middle East and the Far East, perhaps those War theatres may had different outcomes.

That's an old saw, it's been discussed many times here on AHF. The Spitfire wasn't suitable for tropical environments until the Vc arrived, tho' a few Vbs were retrofitted with the new filters etc. in the Delta.

Over 600 Spitfires were shot down over Northern France in 1941, the Luftwaffe lost approximately 120 fighters, meaning a 5 to 1 exchange rate.

Does Franks happen to give an addtional total for the Hurricanes/Tomahawks in these operations? Often the Spifires were flying escort for the ground attack aircraft...

[Urmel]

While the issue of tropicalisation is clear, what isn't clear to me is whether this could not have been speeded up? 1.5 years seems a very long time to figure out that maybe your best fighter is what you want in the main theatre of war?

Or were Tomahawks and Hurricane IIs seen as sufficient to deal with the Me 109E (the F only being introduced in North Africa from September 41) (let's ignore the Italian fighters, which until the arrival of the Mc.202 were not good for anything but close escort)?

[phylo_roadking]

A good part of the answer must be simply the time it took to get to the MkV. It involved many changes and much effort from the first time a Merlin 45 was installed in MkIA K9788 in late 1940; it in turn didn't fly until December 190...then suffered a "mishap" (have to check up on that!) THEN the initial development contract was issued for 46 MkI airframes to be converted to MkV standard. After this there was more testing - until the decision was made to scrap the work done on the MkIII and progress straight to the MkV because of the performance advantage over the III.

So production was halted on the MkIII and 1,500 that had been ordered were re-spec'd as MkVs...meanwhile 100 MkIas were converted into VAs, and IBs were converted into VBs. Now, bear in mind that these were still "stopgap" variants, with the minimum amount of change needed to accomodate the Merlin 45....and the extra weight of the new engine installation and additional equipment reduced the aircraft's strength factors...so THEN the MkV airframe had to be redesigned in several places to strengthen the whole airframe...and it was ALSO fitted with the "Universal wing" that could carry EITHER 8x.303 MGs, OR 2x20mm cannon AND 4/.303 MGs....OR 4/20mm cannon with minimal work. It was THIS eventual version that received the tropicalistation conversion and was sent abroad after the air war in the desert intensified.

So as you can see, it took quite a time to get from "here" to "there"! It should be noted that "tropicalisation" involved on its own a LOT more than just adding the Vokes air filter; it ALSO involved redesigning the tankage and fuel system to incorporate the ability to pressurize fuel tanks to stop fuel boiling at high altitude in hot climates, and to stop vapor forming in the fuel circuit. The filter itself had to be provided with a cut-out that would temporarily allow warm air from the engine bay into the filter to unclog it. Extra equipment had to be fitted into the aircraft somehow...
flying and emergency rations;
drinking water tank and water bottle;
a minimal toolkit, comprising a screwdriver, adjustable spanner and a pair of pliers (!);
signalling strips and a miror;
a Very pistol and a box of half a dozen cartridges...

...and a second cockpit ventilator had to be added on the port coaming above the instrument panel.

[Urmel]

Thanks, that does make a lot of sense.

[sunbury2]

Hi Phylo, I agree on the tropical filters, yet if they were given a priority then things would have been different, Miss Shilling's "Orifice" springs to mind as what could be achieved quickly when a need was identified. To me, Fighter Command was obsessive about hanging onto it's Spitfires in 1941. Even when the Luftwaffe had packed up it's bats and balls and the vast majority of it's aircraft headed East in May 1941, Fighter Command refused to release any Spitfires. To many Squadrons sat idle, being frittered away for no reason over France in 1941-42.

I agree on Leigh Mallory, the BoB war-game held in 1941 using his Big Wing Theory resulted in the RAF losing the BoB. That didn't affect his career, he just kept moving up the ladder.

Norman Frank's book has detailed appendices but doesn't give details on how each aircraft was lost or were it happened.

Dieppe was the largest one day air battle since the BoB.

70 RAF aircraft were lost in air combat (4 to Do 217 gunners). That makes 66 lost in air combat with Luftwaffe fighters. The 2 Typhoons were lost in air to air combat, not ground attack as I wrote above , sorry i misread a column.

30 RAF were lost to flak, 27 to German Flak and 3 (Spitfires) to the Royal Navy. Of the 20 Hurricanes and 10 Mustangs 1a, it is fair to say at least 21 were shot down by flak. The other 6 aircraft, the 4 Bostons and 2 Blenheims seem also to be lost to flak, some were engaged in laying low level tactical smoke screens over the battlefield, making them easy targets for flak.

Of the 66 aircraft shot down by Luftwaffe fighters, 56 Spitfires, 2 Typhoons and 8 other aircraft were lost. The Luftwaffe lost 23 fighters in return, but also 25 bombers. The total becomes 70 RAF (66 + 4) - 48 losses in air combat.

The Luftwaffe did not make any impact on the ground battle. They had no need to, the Canadian raiders were already slaughtered on the beaches in their thousands, WW1 style.

The Luftwaffe sank HMS Berekely, the largest ship lost on the raid. It did not hinder the naval evacuation to any great extent. The fact so few soldiers survived to get off the beaches and return to the ships meant the evacuation was tragically a simple affair.

So who won the air battle? The British were able to land troops in occupied France on a large scale, they were able to maintain a substantial flotilla off the coast and carry out an evacuation and return to Britian. This was only achieved by the RAF fighter umbrella over the fleet.

The Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered the entire time, their fighters performed better than the RAF fighters in shooting down fighters. 66 to 23. Luftwaffe bombers shot down 4 RAF fighters also. The Luftwaffe pilots were far more experienced than their RAF counterparts, being the 120 fighters left in France in May 1941 to oppose the RAF.

Against this the RAF did destroy 48 Luftwaffe aircraft and did provide a shield over the flotilla the Luftwaffe found hard to penetrate. It was held at a heavy coast and very large number of RAF fighters flew relay missions to maintain that shield.

For losses the Luftwaffe wins, for tactical success Fighter Command wins.

[phylo_roadking]

Hi Phylo, I agree on the tropical filters, yet if they were given a priority then things would have been different, Miss Shilling's "Orifice" springs to mind as what could be achieved quickly when a need was identified.

This would need some detailed digging into, Kew kind probably - but one thing that would have to be determined first is simply could the Vokes air filter be fitted to anything earlier than the Merlin 45...and not cause an unacceptable power loss? Aero engines, especially inline ones - ARE just gurt big internal combustion engines, they're as sensitive to every tuning...or DE-tuning...modification or tampering with the induction/exhaust system that a car or motorcycle is Look what happened to the top speed of a Bf110C nightfighter variant when it had flame baffles put over the exhausts, for instance, ruining their tuned length.

Also...let's face it, the Spitfire was prone to groundlooping, probably as bad as the Bf109...and maybe more so - google on groundlooping and you'll find a lot more Spitfire references than Messerschmitt ones! Again we'd need to dig into the Air Staff papers...but the Hurricane was far more suited to "colonial" airfields from the get-go; it's one of the reasons only Hurricanes were sent to France originally as part of the BEF Air Element/AASF.

[Hop]

Over 600 Spitfires were shot down over Northern France in 1941, the Luftwaffe lost approximately 120 fighters, meaning a 5 to 1 exchange rate.

The Luftwaffe figures are very understated.

JG 2 and JG 26 alone lost 100 pilots killed, 1 pow, and 48 wounded between 22nd June and 31 December 1941.

I think we can pretty much guarantee a dead or captured pilot meant a lost plane. There should also have been planes lost where the pilot survived (either by landing a badly damaged plane, or by parachuting). In the BoB the RAF lost about 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots killed, about 920 Spitfires and Hurricanes were destroyed.

Sadly the Luftwaffe loss figures are incomplete, but the loss of 100 pilots in the second half of 1941 should mean around 200 fighters lost.

On top of that there were other Luftwaffe fighter units operational on the channel front. JFS5 claimed about 50 kills in the second half of 1941. JG 1, JG 52, JG 53 and ZG 76 all made a handful of claims.

And that's just the second half of 1941.

[Imad]

In the BoB the RAF lost about 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots killed, about 920 Spitfires and Hurricanes were destroyed.

I suppose it's hard to tell how many of these were destroyed on the ground - another factor that should be taken into consideration when assessing combat performance through losses.

[phylo_roadking]

I suppose it's hard to tell how many of these were destroyed on the ground

There's a website that preserves all the British daily war reporting from the Foreign Office to the State Department for the attention of FDR - you might remember me using it in the discussions on the attacks on Illustrious in Malta some years back now? I'll have to look for the url again, but the daily losses - in the air and on the ground - should be listed there, if not available in an academic source.

[Hop]

There weren't very many destroyed on the ground. According to Wood and Dempster, 23 Spitfires and Hurricanes in August and September. Given the nature of the combat, I wouldn't expect any in July and October.

[phylo_roadking]

According to Wood and Dempster, 23 Spitfires and Hurricanes in August and September.

I'll have a trawl through Bishop later, he mentions the episodes if not the numbers; Price notes that several fighters were destroyed in the hangars damaged at Biggin Hill in the lowlevel Dornier raid. Also, there are IIRC mentions of other aircraft destoyed on the ground...Blenheims at Manston for instance.

[bf109 emil]

There weren't very many destroyed on the ground. According to Wood and Dempster, 23 Spitfires and Hurricanes in August and September. Given the nature of the combat, I wouldn't expect any in July and October.

destroyed yes or permanently lost, but IMHO numerous more might have been damaged and thus repaired at a later date and as such where never written off as destroyed, even though they might not have been returned to service until after the peril had passed...

[Tim Smith]

...but the Hurricane was far more suited to "colonial" airfields from the get-go; it's one of the reasons only Hurricanes were sent to France originally as part of the BEF Air Element/AASF.

Off-topic, but I'm curious:

Did the French moan in 1939-40 that the RAF were only sending their 'second-best' fighter, the Hurricane, to France, while keeping all the best fighters (Spitfires) for home defence? If so, did they offer the RAF use of a pre-war French air base with concrete runways for the Spitfire to operate from?

Also I wonder if, had the Munich Crisis led to war in October 1938, whether at that time the RAF would have sent only Gladiators to France, while keeping all their (very new) Hurricanes and Spitfires in Britain.

[phylo_roadking]

Did the French moan in 1939-40 that the RAF were only sending their 'second-best' fighter, the Hurricane, to France, while keeping all the best fighters (Spitfires) for home defence? If so, did they offer the RAF use of a pre-war French air base with concrete runways for the Spitfire to operate from?

I haven't seen anything to confirm that as yet; it's the sort of detail that only a visit to Kew could sort, I think...or another boring trek through the CAB files online to see if anyone passes comment in Cabinet to that effect. Or getting to see the minutes of Dowding's famous visit to France where he inspected the French equivalent to Bentley Prioy's "Hole"...two men, a phone and a blackboard.....at the bottom of a stairwell!

However, later in the campaign, when Spitfires WERE operating over France from Eleven Group...their range was stretched by having them refuel to the south at Rennes, which may have had hardstanding at that point...