Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Crumpp]

There is abundant evidence for 100 octane use, and that its' use was critical to victory.

I hardly think 100 Octane was critical to victory.

The RAF won because they fought every day and they had a logistical system they allowed them to replace their losses.

That same logistical system, the Civilian Repair Organization combined with some very good pre-war planning in manufacture, allowed them to increase their numerical superiority during the battle.

So while the RAF took heavier losses in air to air combat compared to the Luftwaffe, they replaced those losses at a faster rate and were able to move from numerical parity in Single Engine fighters to numerical superiority during the battle.

[macro]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I hardly think 100 Octane was critical to victory.

The RAF won because they fought every day and they had a logistical system they allowed them to replace their losses.

That same logistical system, the Civilian Repair Organization combined with some very good pre-war planning in manufacture, allowed them to increase their numerical superiority during the battle.

So while the RAF took heavier losses in air to air combat compared to the Luftwaffe, they replaced those losses at a faster rate and were able to move from numerical parity in Single Engine fighters to numerical superiority during the battle.

The raf took heavier losses? Didnt know that. I thought they had to shoot them down at a better rate than 2-1 to win

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by macro

The raf took heavier losses? Didnt know that. I thought they had to shoot them down at a better rate than 2-1 to win

Don't think so
After a quick search I found this. I'm sure there are other sources. From my understanding Britain had more of a problem replacing pilots than planes. Still they did have the home ground advantage.

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain


Month----------------RAF------Luftwaffe
July (from10th)------90--------165
August--------------399-------612
September-----------416------ 554
October-------------182------- 321
Total----------------1087----- 1652

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

[fruitbat]

I think what Crumpp is getting at is purely fighter vs fighter, in which he is correct.

Of course this is ridiculous as the only opposition for the Luftwaffe was RAF fighters, but the RAF had bombers to shoot down as well.

Air superiority is only important so your airforce can inflict damage on the ground after all, and was the German goal for an invasion....

But he has to show that the Luftwaffe were superior somehow.

[Al Schlageter]

Numerical parity?

Aug 13 1940
Jafu 2 and 3 had 891 Bf109s while 11 Group had maybe 440 (22 sqd x 20 a/c) Spitfires/Hurricanes.

[bongodriver]

440 spits and hurris against 891 whine 'o' 9's.....i call that a parity

[Glider]

On the 13th August 1940 at 09.00 hrs Fighter Command had the following servicable fighters in the UK

■Blenheim - 71
■Spitfire - 226
■Hurricane - 353
■Defiant - 26
■Gladiator - 2

People get hung up about numbers of aircraft but as has been stated pilots are much more important. It takes a lot longer to train a pilot than build an aircraft and you cannot just up the production.

For the Luftwaffe Pilots were if anything a bigger problem than for the RAF.

On the 29th June the Luftwaffe had 856 servicable single engine fighters and 906 pilots ready for duty
On the 29th September the Luftwaffe had 712 servicable single engined fighters and 676 pilots ready for duty

On the 29th September the RAF had the following servicable fighters:-

■Blenheim - 59
■Spitfire - 227
■Hurricane - 387
■Defiant - 16
■Gladiator - 8

The earliest numbers I have for the ARF servicability are for the 17th July

■Blenheim - 67
■Spitfire - 237
■Hurricane - 331
■Defiant - 20


So if your comparing 109's against Spits and Hurricanes the RAF broadly speaking retained their strength whereas the 109's were reduced significantly and without the 109 the air war couldn't be won