Spitfire vs Messerschmitt

How many of the 300+ kills were made on the Eastern front against crappy planes and/or pilots of the SU? Let's not rush to the conclusions

This post has been edited by MMM on March 20, 2009 08:16 pm

Exactly!

I would not be that quick to dismiss the Russians.

Not all Russian aircraft were "crappy" and not all Russian pilots were useless.

Russians flew a variety of indigenous aircraft as well as a wide range of lend-lease aircraft such as Spitfires, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, Warhawks, Thunderbolts, Airacobras, Bostons, Mitchells, etc. The Russians' "own brand" aircraft were quite good, such as the Yak and the Lavochkin families that could hold their own against the Germans.

Furthermore, what is good for the goose is good for the gander: Many Romanian pilots scored impressive tallies against the Russians and I hope you do not wish to imply that these Romanian pilots did not have to fight hard.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 19, 2009 06:11 pm

During the Battle of Britian, the Spitfire and Bf-109 where equal; pilot skill usaully determined the winner, along with other factors such as, altitude, tactics and sometimes luck.

Well, I definitely did NOT dismiss the SU: after all, they won!
I just said that - as I'm sure you know - in th first months of war, there was a big difference between Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force, resulting in a "sitting ducks" hunting. The same happened with the tanks as well in the first weeks of the conflict!
Get it?

By "the first months of the war" I imagine you mean the first days of Barbarossa. By that stage of the war, many of the German pilots who survived the Battle of Poland, the Battle of France, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, Mediterranean, Africa, were already aces with impressive tallies. No matter who they met at the time of Barbarossa, be they American, Russian or the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars, the Germans were more experienced, more skilled and more versed. Even so, Barbarossa was not a "walk in the park".

Let us not go into the usual convoluted analysis of semantics that seems to happen a lot here lately. I just replied to your statement in which you said that the 109 pilots got most of their victories on the Eastern front against "crappy planes and/or pilots of the SU" , which is not entirely true. Not all Russian planes were crappy and not all pilots were rubbish. Furthermore, the 109 was in use from the Spanish Civil war until the end of the war and it fought on every single theatre of operations from the tundras of the arctic circle to the desserts of Africa and all the lands in between. Furthermore, of the top scoring aces of the Luftwaffe, a whole lot of their victories were not achieved on the Eastern Front. To achieve that large "score" a pilot has to actually survive a lot of missions and that takes skill. There were also a lot of 109s that never flew a second combat mission especially on the "Heimatschutz" front.

The very complex "balance of air power" on the Eastern Front is the subject of many books that can fill a few libraries. When I say "complex" I really mean that it goes beyond saying that one side was "crappy".

If you are curious, please have a look at this website and you will soon discover that things were not that "simple":
http://www.acesofww2.com/

Radu

Not only the first days! Stop mismatching my words, as we're not in a trial and I guess none of us gets anything for yelling "Objection!" The Soviet tactics were to attack at all costs, even when outnumbered and outgunned and so on - and that changed only in 1942, after the battle of Moscow! And, if you check out more carefully your data, you will see that in 1941 the pilots involved in the BoB were NOT on the Eastern front. Only later in the war things changed! I never said Barbarossa was a walk in the park, neither that all SU planes/pilots were crappy; what of acesofww2.com? It's just a site with many things not-so-easy to verify on it... Let's get back to the topic, as it is clear that NOT the pilot skills determin the best plane right?

What shall I understand here?

On 19 March you said: "crappy planes and/or pilots of the SU"
On 20 march you said: "I definitely did NOT dismiss the SU"

Today, 20 March, at 08.49 you said: "in th first months of war, there was a big difference between Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force"
Today, 20 march, at 10:48 you said: "Not only the first days!"

YES, get back to the topic!
The topic is "Spitfire vs Messerschmitt". If you really want to discuss the VVS competency or lack of it in this context, may I suggest that you research the effectiveness of the Russian Spitifires against the Messerschmitt?

I feel that this is heading in the usual "whose is bigger" direction. I know that you like to have "the final word" in every "discussion". That is why, after you reply to this, I will allow you to have the "final word" in this "discussion", no matter how inflammatory or incorrect that may be.

Radu

Talking about the Me-109 and Spitfires from Battle of Britain, I think it is hard to find more balanced oposing fighters in any war.

So which one's better? Both? Isn't there possible a comparison between - say - the most advanced models of each?

This excercise is pointless (and the debate endless). My opinion.

Gen. Dénes

Some quotes from "Forgotten voices of the Blitz and the Battle of Britain" by Joshua Levine:

Me-109 was easier to be manufactured. Producing Spitfire was quite a challenge for the British industry, especially in 1939...1940. We should not forget that Me-109 already passed the contest with He-112 because it was cheaper and more technological, and also faster, the latter being the most important factor. You can see that He-112 looked closer to Spitfire, up to a point.
No surprise that Me-109 was the most produced airplane of the war (from all sides).

Also, while a lot was written about the technological "present" of 4 Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines helping the Nazi Germany to develop its engines, it is less known that in exchange Germany gave to Great Britain a He-70 "Blitz", which could be a very good inspirational start to design the Spitfire. (In engineering, you don't need to copy something. A smart guy is "inspired" by an existing product, then he makes something better.)

Mitchell, the creator of Spitfire, previously designed many prototypes for air races, and he missed somehow the importance of technologies suitable for mass production.
Unfortunately for Great Britain, Mitchell died of cancer in June 1938, at age 42, and at that time no country developed yet technologies for mass production.

On the other side, to the merit of Mitchell, the Spitfire was able to develop about 355 miles per hour with an engine of 1030 HP, while the Me-109 had about 340 mph with an engine of 1050 HP. (I am comparing the versions available in the summer of 1940.) So we can see that while Messerchmidt created a cheaper, easier to make product, Mitchell obtained a finer, smoother aerodynamic shape.

Also, tons of ink were used to mention how much bigger was the Luftwaffe fleet in 1940. Well, if you consider only the fighters, there were about 700 British versus 900 German, at the beginning of the Battle of Britain. Quite equal, I dare to say. But we should not forget that two thirds of the British planes were not Spitfires, thus inferior to Me-109. Well, you know that Germans also had some Me-110, but soon the workhorse was only the Me-109.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 14, 2009 09:42 pm

700 british against 900 german, indeed. But the 109 was at the limit of his combat radius, he could stay for example only 10 min. over London. And a pilot who bailed out ended as prisoneer by the end of the day, with all his combat experience, while a british pilot will end in another new Spitfire, perhaps by the end of the day. This situation at least counterbalances the slight superiority of the germans.

It was more like 200 Spitfires, 400 Hurricanes and 100 other obsolete types such as Defiants and Gladiators etc... Against 900+ Me-109's and 450+ Me0110's. The Luftwaffe also had more experienced pilots and better tactics. So the RAF's finest hour! was a most unlikey victory!

Thank you