Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Good Book:"The Decisive Duel: Spitfire vs. 109"

Sounds like a book I'd like to read!

adding to my to read list

Ya, the book details the adoption of 100 octane by the RAF too. Parallel trials on the German side did not work out well at first, (on the Bf109E IIRC) however the book details the Nazi's adoption of nitrous oxide injection for high altitude combat boost. So much detail in this book I gotta take notes.

Birdwatcher

Indeed, I've just gotten to the part where the Spitfire V encounters the FW 190 for the first time.

Reviewing the scorecard, throughout the war so far the Luftwaffe knocked down many more RAF fighters than did the RAF score against theirs. British fighter production actually outpaced that of Germany however, and in the Battle of Britain at least, surviving British pilots generally bailed out onto their own turf.

For the better part of a year though after the arrival of the FW 190, the Brits had nothing to match it. Fighting for the most part had shifted to over the Continent with a concomitant greater loss of RAF pilots. One doesn't get to read much about this period of the air war, I'm looking forward to this next section.

Birdwatcher

The adoption of the heavier, faster Bf109F in 1941.

The Bf109 undercarriage, always marginal... more than 600 landing gear failures/landing accidents in 1941 alone (more IIRC than wre lost to the RAF).

Armamament, a 20mm cannon, two machine guns in the nose (earlier vibration problems with nose-mounted cannon having been worked out. Only problem is the new, slender wings had a distressing tendency to fail under the stresses of the typical dive-and-zoom attack mode of the Bf109 pilots. Including in this total the death of a 50+ kill Luftwaffe ace, plummeting morale among those pilots assigned to fly this aircraft.

Galland, with typical aplomb, had 20mm cannon also installed in the wings of his own F model (in addition to his usual cockpit cigar lighter and ashtray.

The book goes into detail about his being shot down three times on three successive over two days flying missions against RAF intrusions over France, but not before scoring one or two victories on each mission.

Two of these shoot-downs resulted from Galland himself failing to check his six, in one of them he barely escaped from his burning plane, trapped by a jammed hood, in the third incident his life was saved by an extra armor plate behind his head that his crew chief had installed immediately before the mission.

Getting in, Galland had painfully banged his head on this new piece and royally cursed out said crew chief, after bellying in his shot up fighter onto the airfield in a dead-stick landing, this same armor having saved his head, Galland gave the guy the finest champagne from his own stock and 100 Reichmarks in cash as "the price of his head".

Even so, these episodes illustrate that even the best pilots could catch it eventually, Galland's life was likely saved when he was withdrawn from combat and posted to a command position. Not being officially assigned to fly again until the chaos following the Hitler assassination attempt, Galland himself having fallen under suspicion.

Birdwatcher

This thread struck a spark in the back of my brain, and I went digging for my old copy of Len Deighton's Fighter. Couldn't find it, it's probably in one of the boxes I still haven't unpacked in the garage.

So I downloaded a Kindle copy on my iPad and have been enjoying it. One passage I came across this morning struck me as extremely interesting:



I've been aware of the contention that the experienced pilot will almost always outfight the rookie, no matter who has the better aircraft. Chuck Yeager proved this time and again, he wrote in his memoir.

But one has to wonder if some of the rookies in the Battle of Britain (on both sides) were not only less experienced, but hampered by grossly inferior aircraft. Food for thought.

In reading Hub Zemke's book he had to fight with his commanders to achieve the same thing.


"The forte of the Bf109 in the Battle of Britain era of course was the high speed firing pass from above, and it is common knowledge that the idiot Herman Goring wanted to shackle the fighters to the bombers as opposed to Adolph Galland's correct assertion that the Bf109's were far more effective when allowed to aggressively free-range in advance of the bomber formations".

The greatest "problem" both Britain and Germany had with the Spitfire and the Bf 109 during the Battle of Britain was the relatively short range of BOTH fighter aircraft.

During the Battle of Britain, the German Bf 109s had only about 12 to 15 minutes of "loiter time" over the target area... hardly enough time to do a lot of damage or get involved in "dog-fights" with the "home-boys" (English pilots) in Spitfires and Hurricanes.

And we (the USA) had the same trouble during our long-range bomber raids with the B-17s and B-24s flying from England to targets all over Germany until the P-51 was brought into the fray.

With drop-tanks, the P-51 could accompany our bombers all the way to Berlin and back... providing much needed "air cover" thus dramatically cutting our bomber losses on those raids deep into Germany.

Fortunately, Hitler refused to allow the use of the Me 262 (world's first jet fighter) as a fighter/interceptor and demanded it be used as a bomber until it was too late and the war was all, but lost for Germany.

Had Hitler allowed the Me 262 to be used as a fighter/interceptor when it was developed in 1942, we would have been in DEEP trouble considering it was 100 mph faster (Me 262's top speed was 541 mph) than the contemporary P-51s (435 mph depending on which model one chose) and was so heavily armed with cannons (4 x 30mm MK 108 Cannons) that it could "take-out" a B-17 on each and every head-on "pass".

Fortunately for the Allies, Hitler "tied" his General's and Field Marshall's (who came to FEAR Hitler) hands by demanding they do as he demanded they do rather than what was, militarily, the BEST action to take which eventually resulted in the Nazis losing World War II... something that may not have happened if Hitler had not considered himself a military expert.

Some of Hitler's "bad" decisions included decisions like NOT "pushing" the production of "heavy water" (used to make atomic weapons) in his secret, hidden Heavy Water Production Facililties built into the mountains in Norway... or Hitler's decision to attack the USSR when the Germans and Russians had a non-aggression treaty.

Hitler's numerous errors and his frantic, but flawed "demands" helped to allow the Allies to win the war. Of that, there can be NO DOUBT.

I just ordered a copy via Amazon for like $5.00

and shipping for $3.99

should have it in a few weeks...

No way a P-51 could turn inside a spit. No way.

Maybe. You know those charts as well as I do and altitude and airspeed and weight all play a significant factor in turn rate. I think you're safe saying in most cases. But I'll bet a light loaded Mustang might do quite well against a heavy Spit in certain envelopes.

Ron, I had the good fortune to actually know Adolf Galland in his latter years, and was received and spent time with him and his wife Heidi at his home in Overwinter, just about Remagen.

Asking him questions about the various aspects of the airway over Europe was an incredible experience.

I asked him what difference having the Me 262 would have had if operational in 1942, he leaned back and told me "I would have needed 400 to keep 200 operational at any moment given the life of the jet engine was less than 20 hours before overhaul. We could have stopped the daylight bombing but not the night bombing. In the end, all it would have done is prolonged the war and allow the Russians to take over more of Europe, which would have been a bigger disaster".

So there you go, the answer from the man that was in charge. Amazing guy, and I liked him a lot.

or a different, and earlier variants as well. The P-51, arguably the best fighter of the war, had some significant control issues at high speeds, it was basically a TRUCK and almost impossible to turn. Anyway the different variants had an effect on performance. For example the Spitfire V was the cat's meow until the FW-190 came out and had it for lunch. The most heavily produced Spitfire, the IX was a darned good airplane but outclassed by the much latter Griffon engine variants that also had shorter "clipped" wings for higher altitude work. Another issue earlier spits had and it was mentioned here by RonT, was their LOUSY armament with the 303s. I mean seriously, nothing more that a 30/40 Krag. It wasn't until they put some 20mm cannons they became even remotely comparable to German or even Jap airplanes. On has to wonder, how many MORE victories would the spits (and hurricanes) scored during the early days had they had even 50 cal Browning instead of those POS 303s.

The .303 cal machineguns on the Spits and Hurricanes were a big problem! They were ok against fighters, but hopelessly inadequate against bombers. When you consider that the RAF was using a heavily modified Browning machinegun, you'd think they could have upped it to .50 caliber at least... Some sources imply this was a result of the desperate shortage of resources in the UK in 1938-39, when he Brits were so far behind in war preparedness... They had lots of .303 ammo on hand, as it was their infantry rifle and machinegun round, but .50 caliber ammo would have required an entirely new manufacturing process/ line. Things got even wors, resource & manufacturing-wise in 1940 and 1941. Not until the Battle of the Atlantic turned in the Allies' favor in 1942-43 could Britain start to manufacture weapons and ordinance as they would like.

When you consider how well the Spitfire did against German aviation despite the puniness of its armament, you have to wonder what might have happened if they'd had a pair of 20mm's instead.

Also, when you look at the success of the P-38 in Europe prior to the P-51's arrival, you have to wonder if the P-51 was ever really necessary. Heresy, I know, but after reading books such as Robin Olds' memoir, it bears discussing.

Doc, your comment on the 20MM is what I was driving at exactly. Hell, even the jap zero had a cannon. Still, there was just no excuse for that 303 mess. The Mosquitoes had 20mm guns since the beginning. The 50 M2 had been around for years. As to the P-38, cool looking to be sure, but not very agile compared to the more traditional fighters,,, I think. Splendid armament though!

It couldn't outclimb it either, until maybe the P-51H, which was post-war anyway.

I still contend that the 109 and the Spit were the two best fighters of the war. They were around for the start and the finish, while the Mustangs were Johnny-come-latelys, as were the Corsairs.

Other aircraft might have exceeded their capabilities, but they simply were not there when it mattered.

Later Spitfire Marks had the options of having either the .303s, M2 Brownings, and the 20mms. The various wings were labeled A, B, and C wings, and you could even have mixed armament, two .50s and 4 .303s, or two 20mms and 4 .303s.

Nothing like the Typhoon, who's early Marks had 12 (TWELVE!!) .303s, but production models had four 20mms, the thin wings of the Spitfires couldn't handle 20mms until the later Marks.

The Spitfires, Hurricanes, and early BF-109s all had small caliber armament. You have to remember, they were the first generation monoplane fighters. They took over from fabric covered biplanes. The Hurricane was still largely fabric constructed. Against fabric covered biplanes, the small calibers were plenty adequate. Further, fifty calibers and larger meant a significant increase in weight and a subsequent decrease in performance. Those early war engines were pretty anemic, around a 1000 hp, compared to the monsters they were using later in the war.

It is a testament to both the Spitfire and the ME 109 that they could be continuously upgraded throughout the war to remain competitive with all the new designs that benefited from the hard lessons learned during the war.

Oh, and the thinking on both sides before and in the early stages of the war was that twin engine "destroyer" type heavy fighters would take down the bombers. Hence the heavy armament on the ME 110 and Beaufighter. Of course, those types were for the most easy meat for the single engine fighters and could not stay in the sky in a really heavily combatted area.

The Mosquito didn't enter production until 1941, well after the Battle of Britain and it benefitted from the lessons learned there.

Hatari,

As a teen (sadly, decades ago now!), I read a lot about Adolf Galland, Douglas Bader, and Sir Winston Churchill -- all of which I came to greatly admire.

I'd like to shake your hand someday, so I could say I've shaken a hand that shook the hand of Adolf Galland. A personal link to history, as it were. I have hunted ducks with a good friend of Winston Churchill, and he had lots of great stories...

You don't happen to have ever shaken Douglas Bader's hand too, did you? That would make you one helluva two-fer for me!

John

This is a half bubble off the OP but interesting info...

The Spit IMO mirrored our Corsair in that it received most of the
glory but the Hurricane was the Brit Hellcat and ultimately their workhorse.The original Hurricane armament consisted of two .303-caliber Vickers Mark V machine guns mounted in the fuselage, and two .303-caliber Browning machine guns in the wings, later it was decided that eight guns would be needed to destroy an enemy bomber, so the design was changed to mirror the Spitfire and incorporated eight Browning machine guns four in each wing.The original config spaced the guns across the wing's leading edge but later four guns were grouped together on each wing for a tighter and more destructive concentration of fire.Even with the 303 Hurricane variants no doubt 50's would have ruled supreme.

Some interesting facts...Spit vs Hurricane.

Contrary to popular belief, it was the Hurricane, not the Spitfire that saved Britain during the dark days of 1940. The turn-around time (re-arm, refuel etc.) for the Spitfire was 26 minutes. That of the Hurricane, only 9 minutes from down to up again. During the Battle of Britain the time spent on the ground was crucial and as one fitter/mechanic of No. 145 Squadron quipped: “If we had nothing but Spits we would have lost the fight in 1940.” The Spitfire was an all metal fighter, slightly faster, had a faster rate of climb and had a higher ceiling, while the Hurricane had a fabric covered fuselage, was quicker to repair and withstood more punishment. With the for and against of both fighters they came out about even.

The majority of German planes shot down during the four month period were destroyed by Hurricanes. For much of the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires went after the German BF 109s at the higher altitudes, while the Hurricanes attacked the bomber formations flying at lower altitudes.