The Air Battle over Normandy

[MiloMorai]

You mean like the Fw190A-8, Fw190D-9 and Bf109G-14 which comprised ~80% of the Luftwaffe fighters on the Western Front.

[Kurfürst]

A-8, well yes, lets see.

 

Number of Fw 190 A-8s / unit with day on 1st June 1944.

 

2 Stab/JG1

40 I./JG1

40 II./JG1

3 Stab/JG2

2 I./JG2

45 IV./JG3

3 Stab/JG11

19 I./JG11

26 III./JG11

1 Stab/JG26

21 I./JG26

24 II./JG26

19 III./JG54

9 II./JG300

 

Total: 254 A-8s.

 

0 D-9s, 0 G-14s of course.

 

Now the amazing part is of course, that the existence of 254 A-8s in June 1944 in Luftwaffe service resulted in countless exhaltations for it to be modelled as the 'proper', mainstay fighter, while apparently the 200-odd K-4s in service in Q4 1944 shows how much a grave error it was to model that plane amongst the other Q4 1944 Allied planes, i.e. Spit IX, P-51D, P-47D. ;)

Edited July 31, 2016 by Kurfürst

[BIGNEWY]

Thread re-opened

 

Please review the rules and the warning system before posting again.

 

In particular

 

1.2 Forum members must treat others with respect and tolerance.

 

Forum rules http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

Warning system FAQ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144189

Warning guide http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144679

Edited July 31, 2016 by BIGNEWY

[Krupi]

I wonder what % of these (XVI) were in Normandy!

 

1108:G-OXVI / TD248 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

1110:G-OXVI / TD248 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

1111:G-OXVI / TD248 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

1112:G-OXVI / TD248 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

1107:G-OXVI / TD248 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

I know we are getting the Spitfire Mk IX and I know what I am about to say is sacrilegious to some but... ain't she pretty :wub:, sometimes I think she looks prettier than the IX!

 

0857:G-ASJV / MH434 by David Whitworth, on Flickr

 

P.S. Not my photos, stolen from here... :D

 

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137479-Duxford-Diary-(2016)/page35

Edited July 31, 2016 by Krupi

[Talisman_VR]

It would be lovely if someone could just list Spitfire XIV air to air victories against Luftwaffe manned planes between January -september instead of dubious alternate history snippets from long discredited revisonist sites.

 

Firstly, surely operational significance is about more than just air kills. To narrow a combat sim down to just air kills as being worthy above all else is surely not taking into account the wider picture and would not widely represent the use of airpower during WWII. I have given just one example of the many other uses of airpower in my post above regarding the fighter and fighter bomber attacks on railway infrastructure just prior to D-Day. Also included anti-diver missions.

Surely operational significance is wider than just air kills on manned aircraft.

 

Secondly, I do not understand the reference to dubious alternate history sites, nor the long discredited comment. I am not sure if we are to understand whether you consider the combat reports I posted above regarding Spitfire XIV sorties in 1944 to be falsified. If you do think they are falsified I would be very interested to know on what grounds you think it is so. These documents include pilots names and squadron number and all sorts of details. Perhaps you have cross referenced with other source information and found a discrepancy. If so, it would be nice if you could share the information so others can see why you have reached such a conclusion.

 

 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[NeilWillis]

I think what was being suggested by referring to the air kills was the impact the XIV had on the campaign, and not their presence or absence.

 

I think we can all agree, that XIVs did appear over Normandy, but they undoubtedly appeared in far smaller numbers than the IX.

 

And to deny that there are dubious histories out there really is a little strange.

 

There are very clearly accounts throughout history, that are both misleading, inaccurate, or simply down right lies. I am not for a moment suggesting that is or isn't the case with examples produced here. There is also an element of chaos involved in any account - by that I mean simple errors in type setting or transcription - or there is the possibility that accounts - even made by people involved at the time - can be inaccurate simply because we are humans and not machines. Dates get confused, and recall can be very unreliable. All reports should be presumed to contain inaccuracies, and should always be compared with other accounts.

 

I'm not suggesting your examples are flawed Talisman, but to disregard any possibility of error is always an error in itself.

[NeilWillis]

I have very much enjoyed the discussion with you Neil, but I afraid there will be no longer an opportunity for us having a reasonable, civilized one.

 

Likewise Kurfurst, I enjoy civilised, reasoned discussions. It is always so much more informative that way.

[MiloMorai]

A-8, well yes, lets see.

 

Number of Fw 190 A-8s / unit with day on 1st June 1944.

 

2 Stab/JG1

40 I./JG1

40 II./JG1

3 Stab/JG2

2 I./JG2

45 IV./JG3

3 Stab/JG11

19 I./JG11

26 III./JG11

1 Stab/JG26

21 I./JG26

24 II./JG26

19 III./JG54

9 II./JG300

 

Total: 254 A-8s.

 

0 D-9s, 0 G-14s of course.

 

Now the amazing part is of course, that the existence of 254 A-8s in June 1944 in Luftwaffe service resulted in countless exhaltations for it to be modelled as the 'proper', mainstay fighter, while apparently the 200-odd K-4s in service in Q4 1944 shows how much a grave error it was to model that plane amongst the other Q4 1944 Allied planes, i.e. Spit IX, P-51D, P-47D. ;)

 

What percentage of the Luftwaffe fighter force were those A-8s?

 

Even if there was 200 odd K-4s, which there was not, it still was only ~10% of s/e fighters the Luftwaffe had and ~20% of all K-4s produced til end of Dec '44.

 

A/c production numbers and onhand numbers look impressive til one looks at the serviceable a/c numbers which tell the real story. The JGs equipped with K-4s couldn't even maintain their establishment numbers at year end 1944, that is, they were under strength.

[msalama]

sometimes I think she looks prettier than the IX!

 

She's an absolute beauty. Purists will always say she's not a Spitfire anymore, but so what?

 

BTW, Wikipedia says both Griffon and Merlin engined Spits were used in Normandy (as they obviously would be of course), but no mention of percentages.

[Krupi]

She's an absolute beauty. Purists will always say she's not a Spitfire anymore, but so what?

 

BTW, Wikipedia says both Griffon and Merlin engined Spits were used in Normandy (as they obviously would be of course), but no mention of percentages.

 

Exactly, the main feature that made the Spitfire stand out from the crowd is the elliptical wings. Just look at that abhorrent aircraft called Spiteful! :wacko:

[Friedrich-4B]

call the subject closed and move on to every other aspect of the Normandy campaign, like what airframes besides the Tempest, XIV, K4 and Dora were or weren't there?

 

RAF: (from strength returns evening June 5; Shores and Thomas Vol 1)

*Allison engined Mustangs, mainly Mk Is & 1As (ie P-51) as of June 6; later Mk IIs (P-51A) : one of these days, it may be possible to design tactical recce missions?

*Mustang IIIs (P-51B/C) also used as F/B

*Mosquito VI

*Mosquito XIII (Nightfighter)

*Typhoon IB (bombs = 250, 500 or 1,000 lb, 3 in RP A/P or HE)

*Boston IIIA

*Mitchell II (B-25C or D)

ADGB:

Spitfire VII - used operationally over Normandy by 131, 616 sqns

Spitfire XII - ditto 41 sqn

Outsiders: Spitfire P.R XI, Wellington XIII, Auster IV

 

Oh, but that's such a primitive lie. Anyone can see they are entirely different reports done on to entirely different aircraft. :D

Wow! Big deal, I was mistaken. There's absolutely no need to accuse people of lying. :thumbdown:

Edited August 1, 2016 by Friedrich-4/B

[Talisman_VR]

I think what was being suggested by referring to the air kills was the impact the XIV had on the campaign, and not their presence or absence.

 

I think we can all agree, that XIVs did appear over Normandy, but they undoubtedly appeared in far smaller numbers than the IX.

 

And to deny that there are dubious histories out there really is a little strange.

 

There are very clearly accounts throughout history, that are both misleading, inaccurate, or simply down right lies. I am not for a moment suggesting that is or isn't the case with examples produced here. There is also an element of chaos involved in any account - by that I mean simple errors in type setting or transcription - or there is the possibility that accounts - even made by people involved at the time - can be inaccurate simply because we are humans and not machines. Dates get confused, and recall can be very unreliable. All reports should be presumed to contain inaccuracies, and should always be compared with other accounts.

 

I'm not suggesting your examples are flawed Talisman, but to disregard any possibility of error is always an error in itself.

 

 

Please re read what I wrote and I think you will see that I have not denied anything, nor have I disregarded any possibility of error. I would be grateful if you would not give the impression to the casual reader that I have.

 

I have merely suggested exploration of why someone might dismiss certain documents as falsified in some way or wrong. Some sort of evidence based consideration as to why someone has drawn a certain conclusion would be helpful in this case. I agree with what you say regarding the possibility of errors in documents generally and am grateful to those who genuinely are searching for a reasonable and as near as accurate picture of history as is possible. High handed dismissal of documents without explaining the rationale behind such a dismissal does not help us move forward. It can also cause friction and set up red herrings and distractions, whether intended or not.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited August 1, 2016 by 56RAF_Talisman

[Friedrich-4B]

Please re read what I wrote and I think you will see that I have not denied anything, nor have I disregarded any possibility of error. I would be grateful if you would not give the impression to the casual reader that I have.

 

I have merely suggested exploration of why someone might dismiss certain documents as falsified in some way or wrong. Some sort of evidence based consideration as to why someone has drawn a certain conclusion would be helpful in this case.

Talisman

 

There is no evidence of 'falsification' - all that's happened is that, for years, a certain forum member has been carrying out a vindictive little campaign against the owners of WW2 Aircraft performance and their website, both here and on many other forums. As such, any opinion on the site and its documents by that member can be safely disregarded.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Friedrich-4/B
punctuation.

[Krupi]

This is a fantastic piece of data!

 

RAF aircraft in numbers from November 44 to May 45, if only we could see the previous page as well :D

 

 

~100 Tempest in 2TAF and ~20 in fighter command

 

If only the Spitfire column was listed in variants!

 

Lets tally the No. in November

 

Fighter Command (AKA ADGB I presume)

 

477 made of Mk V/IX/XVI/XIV(?)

 

2TAF

 

526 made of Mk IX/XVI/XIV

 

Photo Recce

 

56 made of Mk XI(?)

Edited August 1, 2016 by Krupi

[DD_Fenrir]

I'll just put this here:

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/griffon-spitfire-aces

 

I have it. Interesting reading.

[otto]

There is no evidence of 'falsification' - all that's happened is that, for years, a certain forum member has been carrying out a vindictive little campaign against the owners of WW2 Aircraft performance and their website, both here and on many other forums. As such, any opinion on the site and its documents by that member can be safely disregarded.

 

Some go to far in speaking against that site.

But Spit IX vs just 109 G6. Where is the g14,g6as.Every single comparison is made so that the spitfire is better .

And than posting 200 accounts of spitfire pilots shooting down german planes .And no german account or far too few of germans doing the same to the british planes.

[MiloMorai]

Well, the Spitfire was better.

 

otto, what was the performance differences between the G-6 and G-14?

 

Wasn't the /AS a high altitude a/c and more likely run into American P-38s, P-47s and P-51s escorting bombers?

[Solty]

Some go to far in speaking against that site.

But Spit IX vs just 109 G6. Where is the g14,g6as.Every single comparison is made so that the spitfire is better .

And than posting 200 accounts of spitfire pilots shooting down german planes .And no german account or far too few of germans doing the same to the british planes.

Well... G6 was a standard (most produced around 9000 of them in all configurations) 1943-44 airplane before introduction of the G14 and Spit IX was present since 1942 with Merlin 61 and then Merlin 63 and then with Merlin 66 engine. I would say it is a fair comparisson.

[Talisman_VR]

This is a fantastic piece of data!

 

RAF aircraft in numbers from November 44 to May 45, if only we could see the previous page as well :D

 

 

~100 Tempest in 2TAF and ~20 in fighter command

 

If only the Spitfire column was listed in variants!

 

Lets tally the No. in November

 

Fighter Command (AKA ADGB I presume)

 

477 made of Mk V/IX/XVI/XIV(?)

 

2TAF

 

526 made of Mk IX/XVI/XIV

 

Photo Recce

 

56 made of Mk XIV(?)

 

Re 56. Looks like Tempest V from June 44 to the end. Short spell on Mk IX Spit prior to that and Typhoon before that.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/56squadron.cfm

 

Although used for anti-diver duties flying the Tempest V as part of ADGB, they also took part in OPERATION OVERLORD ops on the continent. For example, here are some combat reports from Jun 8th 1944

 

 

Pilot Accounts

 

W/Cdr. R. P. Beamont, D.S.O., D.F.C. leading 150 (Newchurch) Wing recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944:

 

I was leading the Newchurch Tempest wing on a Fighter sweep to the Caen area of the beachhead via Rouen, Bernay and Argentan. We took off from Newchurch at 12.25 hours, and crossed the French coast at Pte d’Ailly at 10,000 ft. When we were a few miles to the West of Rouen at 12.50 hours over scattered cloud, I saw five aircraft in line astern at about 5,000 ft, turning from East to North. Leaving 486 (N.Z.) Squadron up above as top cover, I took No. 3 Squadron down to investigate. I closed in behind the aircraft at 370 I.A.S., and recognized them as ME.109G’s. They were traveling at approximately 300 m.p.h. and did not realize they were being bounced until just before I opened fire, when the e/a broke to port and dived for cloud with violent evasive action. I selected the fourth or last e/a, I am not sure which, and opened fire with a 2/3 second burst, starting with 30° deflection, and changing according to the e/a’s evasive action.

I opened fire at about 500 yards range closing to pointblank, and saw strikes at the end of the burst on the starboard side of the fuselage. The e/a immediately poured smoke and flames. I had to break to starboard in order to avoid collision and then to port when I saw clearly the e/a enveloped in flames in an inverted dive. I broke to starboard as I finished my attack and heard a loud bang and saw a strike on my starboard wing. My No. 2 who subsequently saw my e/a disintegrate and the starboard wing break off, saw two ME.109’s diving down out of sun at him and myself. My U/C warning lights went on so I handed over to S/Ldr. Dredge, of No. 3 Squadron, and set course for base where I landed at 13.30 hrs. The aircraft I destroyed was camouflaged mottled chocolate and brown and no national markings were visible.

I claim one ME. 109G destroyed. 1

 

F/O G. A. Whitman (U.S.A.) of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944:

 

I was No. 2 to W/Cdr. Beamont as he was attacking one of the Me.109G’s. As they were attacked they split into two sections and I observed strikes on the fuselage and starboard wing of the Wing Commander’s target. Then I saw it burst into flames and the starboard wing came off, the aircraft flicked over and went down in flames.

Before making an attack myself I looked behind and saw two Me.109G’s slightly above on the port quarter diving in to attack out of the sun. I throttled back and the leader over shot. I opened fire at 300 yards with A.S.I. 370 m.p.h. with 15° deflection. The enemy aircraft did a climbing turn to port and I saw two strikes, one in the wing root and one in the cockpit, and then the target blew up. I claim a Me.109G destroyed and confirm W/Cdr. Beamont’s claim of one Me.109G destroyed.

After this engagement I pulled up then heard the Wing Commander call up and say his aircraft was damaged and he was returning to base. I had lost him in cloud so I rejoined the formation which was orbitting up sun. 2

 

F/L A. R. Moore of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944:

 

I was Green 1, flying on the port of the Wing Leader when he sighted suspect aircraft. He turned and dived and went down with him. When at about 600 yards we recognized them as Me.109G’s camouflaged a mottled brown. As we closed to 300 yards the Me’s broke to starboard towards cloud. I saw the Wing Commander go for one of the enemy aircraft and I picked out another which was diving under cloud at about 7,000 feet quite straight. I was then indicating 300 m.p.h. and closed in easily to about 200 yards with I.A.S. 360 and gave it a 1 second burst from dead astern.

Flames immediately appeared from the starboard side of the cockpit followed by almost complete disintegration of the cockpit area. It then turned on its back and went straight down in flames. (Upon landing a piece of this aircraft was found in my radiator which was damaged.) I continued straight ahead and saw another Me.109 at 4-500 yards. I had it dead ahead and gave a 1 second burst before it disappeared into cloud. No strikes or results were seen. 3

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited August 1, 2016 by 56RAF_Talisman

[MiloMorai]

The recon Spits would be XIs.

[Krupi]

The 56 was actually the number of XIV in recce squadrons not 56 squadrons :D :smilewink:

[Talisman_VR]

The 56 was actually the number of XIV in recce squadrons not 56 squadrons :D :smilewink:

 

LOL

[Krupi]

The recon Spits would be XIs.

 

There were two squadrons of armed recce, I think they weren't placed under 2TAF?

 

Please correct if I am in the wrong

 

I think you are correct those PRU are not the ones attached to 2TAF i updated them to Spitfire Mk XI

Edited August 1, 2016 by Krupi

[Friedrich-4B]

There were two squadrons of armed recce, I think they weren't placed under 2TAF?

 

Please correct if I am in the wrong

 

I think you are correct those PRU are not the ones attached to 2TAF i updated them to Spitfire Mk XI

 

For 'armed recce' I presume you mean Tactical Reconnaissance?:

Armed Reconnaissance was undertaken by all 2 TAF fighter squadrons - it essentially meant going out fully armed and shooting at/shooting down/breaking anything German behind the German front lines.

[Krupi]

For 'armed recce' I presume you mean Tactical Reconnaissance?:

Armed Reconnaissance was undertaken by all 2 TAF fighter squadrons - it essentially meant going out fully armed and shooting at/shooting down/breaking anything German behind the German front lines.

 

Yes and the PRU were separate from the 2 TAF flying the dedicated XI as Milo stated :)