Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I thought Kurfurst had "only a passing interest" in the RAF?
He does until the mediocre aircraft of the RAF put the boot to his uber Luftwaffe. I don't understand his objection to 100 octane fueled Spitfires and Hurricanes during the BoB as this give him a good excuse for the failure/defeat of the Luftwaffe in achieving air superiority over southern England. As it now stands, it was inferior fighters which did the job.
  #2  
Old 03-14-2012, 08:34 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter View Post
He does until the mediocre aircraft of the RAF put the boot to his uber Luftwaffe. I don't understand his objection to 100 octane fueled Spitfires and Hurricanes during the BoB as this give him a good excuse for the failure/defeat of the Luftwaffe in achieving air superiority over southern England. As it now stands, it was inferior fighters which did the job.
However its an error admit that the Luftwaffe failure was due to the superiority of the Spitifire. I already commented but i ll do it again. How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?

I am most sure than this number is far from insignificant. I ll be not surprise if a large number of German fighter simply did not come home because fuel and not because they were shot down.

The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.
  #3  
Old 03-14-2012, 09:07 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.
Eugene will argue til the cows come home and the moon turns blue that the Luftwaffe was not outnumbered.


Quote:
How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?
Luftwaffe Losses in the Battle of Britain
(July-October 1940)

Data from “The Narrow Margin”, cleaned up by Robert Herrick
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/See..._LW_Losses.htm
  #4  
Old 03-14-2012, 10:14 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

What is considered inside "operational" and "non-operational" loses?
  #5  
Old 03-14-2012, 10:22 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
What is considered inside "operational" and "non-operational" loses?
Non-operational would be a test flight, a training flight or a transfer flight.
  #6  
Old 03-15-2012, 05:00 PM
Glider Glider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
However its an error admit that the Luftwaffe failure was due to the superiority of the Spitifire. I already commented but i ll do it again. How many 109s in percentage of the ones lost were lost simply by lack of fuel instead being shot down?
A fair point I admit. However when discussing the losses the RAF had in 1941 its an equal point how many were lost due to running out of fuel? I do know that a whole squadron of the early Mk IX's were lost due to lack of fuel , no doubt others were as well.
There is a difference here. I am not trying to put the blame on the lack of fuel.


Quote:
The spitfire were not so succesfull against the 109s in other theaters. At mediterranean and Afrika the allied resources are bigger. And the RAF suffered heavy loses in Afrika and Malta. The failure of the Luftwaffe in this scenarios was mainly because they were outnumbered and low of fuel. And they performed very well. And the spitfire was there.
There is no doubt that the 109 performed well over Africa but, when the Spits arrived even in small numbers the change in the air war was palbable. To pretend that the 109 was outnumbered by Spitfires over Malta is pushing it more than a little.

Taking todays date in 1942.
Combat 1 3 x Ju88 approached with fighter escort, 4 x Spits and 7 x Hurricane intercepted. No details of the numbers in the escort but 12 x Me109 mentioned in one combat report
Combat 2 3 x Ju88 and 7 x Me109 intercepted by 4 Spits
Combat 3 3 x Ju88 with 6 x Me109 and a cover of 19 x Me109, 6 x Spit and 8 x Hurricane intercepted

Last edited by Glider; 03-15-2012 at 09:41 PM. Reason: adding details of todays fighting in 1942
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.