Restored WWII Spitfire to Fly Again

didge wrote:Without a shadow of a doubt. The best pistol engine fighter of WW2.  The Spitfire.

Some quotes: 

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire." 

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death." 

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers." 

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice." 

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..." 

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." 

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..." 

The two models that it is most fair to compare would be the Spitfire XIV and P-51D, which were the primary models in service with their respective services in mid-1944. The Spitfire XIV actually entered service in January 1944, five months before the P-51D. 

The Spitfire XIV was faster than the Mustang, more maneuverable, had a higher service ceiling, could climb better, and even had a better rate of roll, which was formerly the Mustang's only performance advantage over the Spitfire. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except initial dive speed and range, and the only way range came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel! 

The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy. 

But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100...

nicko wrote:Come on Didge, you know the yanks were better than every one else,

better planes, better tanks,[[the Sherman known as the[ Tommy Cooker] Better soldiers, [more bullshit]  Better paid, true !better food, true.  Over here, over paid, over sexed, true !

Fred M. wrote:@Quill: You and I have discussed this before, and I guess we're not going to agree about the Spit v the Mustang. Both were superb aircraft but they did far different jobs. The Spit, which was, of course, a much older design (mid-30s) was specifically used as a short-medium range fighter, initially almost exclusively for home defence against bombers. The Mustang was introduced specifically for long (very long with drop tanks) range bomber escort duties.

Fred M. wrote:The Spit's worst feature was not in the wing design, which changed many times during its long service, but its undercarriage. This was very narrow making the plane an absolute bugger to land, particularly for new pilots operating from fairly rough grass temporary airfields.

Original Quill wrote:

The war was won by bombing the crap out of German manufacturing in the Ruhr Valley to Berlin.  Bombers need protection, or they go down.  The P-51, with the parabolic wing, gave escort to the Allied bombers all the way to Berlin and back.  

"

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The war was won by bombing the crap out of German manufacturing in the Ruhr Valley to Berlin.  Bombers need protection, or they go down.  The P-51, with the parabolic wing, gave escort to the Allied bombers all the way to Berlin and back.  

"

The war was not won by bombing the crap out of Germany and in fact production increased during the last years of the war. The only tactical advantage the bombings had, was drawing German fighters from the fronts to defend the cities and industrial areas. It lost them any chance of superiority in the air over battlefields

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The war was not won by bombing the crap out of Germany and in fact production increased during the last years of the war. The only tactical advantage the bombings had, was drawing German fighters from the fronts to defend the cities and industrial areas. It lost them any chance of superiority in the air over battlefields

Something drew the fighters away from the fronts.  Obviously, the targets were more important...ergo, the bombing was having its intended effect.  Or was the Luftwaffe just bad at strategic planning and deployment of aircraft?

In point of fact, one of the hardest hit by bombing of German manufacturing, was German aircraft production.  Whether the Luftwaffe was drawn off, or starved for lack of new, replacement aircraft, the bombers were effective.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Something drew the fighters away from the fronts.  Obviously, the targets were more important...ergo, the bombing was having its intended effect.  Or was the Luftwaffe just bad at strategic planning and deployment of aircraft?

In point of fact, one of the hardest hit by bombing of German manufacturing, was German aircraft production.  Whether the Luftwaffe was drawn off, or starved for lack of new, replacement aircraft, the bombers were effective.

Of course the targets were important, but again the reality is it failed to stem German Production until the very last months of the war. It also was because of defending citizens in cities. So again the actual bombing caused little of the desired effect. That of swaying Germans against the war, when in fact it hardened many against the allies. Some downed Bomber pilots were even lynched.

Total war is the practice of war where nearly all the resources of a society are employed to defeat an opponent. This also means that any resources used by the enemy are also legitimate targets of war. As a result, factories, pipelines, railroads, bridges, etc. become legitimate targets in war.

Thorin wrote:So the main purpose of the bombings was a failure in its intended goal of both stemming German production and beating the civilians into submission. As seen it had an inadvertent and more powerful and unintended effect. That it drove more and more German fighters from the battle front. Costing German air superiority over the battlefields.

Wiki wrote:Nevertheless, the sheer tonnage of explosive delivered by day and by night was eventually sufficient to cause widespread damage, and, more importantly from a military point of view, forced Germany to divert resources to counter it. This was to be the real significance of the Allied strategic bombing campaign—resource allocation.

nicko wrote:Adolf Galland, top German fighter ace, when asked by Goring, "what do you need to win the war"  answered "a squadron of Spitfires".

He knew what fighter was the best !

Brown University wrote:Strategic Bombing in World War II
On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany began a war of conquest and expansion when it invaded Poland. Three days later Great Britain and France responded by declaring war on Germany. World War II was under way and air power was a new and integral element of military strategy. The Nazi's air bombing raids early in the war shocked U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. As the death tolls rose, President Roosevelt strongly condemned Germany's deliberate bombing attacks on civilians.

FDR wrote:"The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population...has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.... I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

-Franklin D. Roosevelt

Hitler paid no heed to Roosevelt's condemnation, however, and by the time the United States entered the war in December 1941 the Allies had rejected Roosevelt's plea as well. Hitler's barbarity terrified Allied citizens and leaders alike. Worried that the Axis powers might prevail, American and British military strategists developed more accurate and more deadly bombing tactics, seeking to cripple both war industries and urban centers, forcing the Nazis to concentrate on defending their homeland.

In February 1942, the British Bomber Command gained approval from Churchill to target Germany's industrial cities and their civilian populations. The policy of dropping bombs on large, typically heavily populated areas rather than narrowly defined targets became known as "strategic bombing." The practice expanded and was utilized by both sides as the war years went on.

While Churchill publicly referred to the policy of "de-housing" German workers, neither he nor Roosevelt told their peoples about the extent or the intent of the Allied bombing of German population centers. The war objective remained, as President Roosevelt stated, "a policy of fighting hard on all fronts and ending the war as quickly as we can on the uncompromising terms of unconditional surrender."

By early 1945, Adolf Hitler's ambitions had been smashed. Allied forces were marching into Germany from the west while the Soviet army was pushing back the Nazis in the east. Nonetheless, to ensure Germany's unconditional surrender and to assist the Soviet advance in the east, the Allies staged one of the largest raids of the war against the German city of Dresden, involving nearly 2,800 aircraft. The firestorm that resulted was visible for two hundred miles. Approximately one hundred thousand Germans, mostly civilians, were killed-the largest loss of life in a single day up to that point of the 20th century. Three months later, on May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally after U.S. and Soviet forces met in central Germany.

https://choices.edu/resources/supplemental_fogofwar_ww2.php

Original Quill wrote:

Brown University wrote:Strategic Bombing in World War II
On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany began a war of conquest and expansion when it invaded Poland. Three days later Great Britain and France responded by declaring war on Germany. World War II was under way and air power was a new and integral element of military strategy. The Nazi's air bombing raids early in the war shocked U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. As the death tolls rose, President Roosevelt strongly condemned Germany's deliberate bombing attacks on civilians.



Hitler paid no heed to Roosevelt's condemnation, however, and by the time the United States entered the war in December 1941 the Allies had rejected Roosevelt's plea as well. Hitler's barbarity terrified Allied citizens and leaders alike. Worried that the Axis powers might prevail, American and British military strategists developed more accurate and more deadly bombing tactics, seeking to cripple both war industries and urban centers, forcing the Nazis to concentrate on defending their homeland.

In February 1942, the British Bomber Command gained approval from Churchill to target Germany's industrial cities and their civilian populations. The policy of dropping bombs on large, typically heavily populated areas rather than narrowly defined targets became known as "strategic bombing." The practice expanded and was utilized by both sides as the war years went on.

While Churchill publicly referred to the policy of "de-housing" German workers, neither he nor Roosevelt told their peoples about the extent or the intent of the Allied bombing of German population centers. The war objective remained, as President Roosevelt stated, "a policy of fighting hard on all fronts and ending the war as quickly as we can on the uncompromising terms of unconditional surrender."

By early 1945, Adolf Hitler's ambitions had been smashed. Allied forces were marching into Germany from the west while the Soviet army was pushing back the Nazis in the east. Nonetheless, to ensure Germany's unconditional surrender and to assist the Soviet advance in the east, the Allies staged one of the largest raids of the war against the German city of Dresden, involving nearly 2,800 aircraft. The firestorm that resulted was visible for two hundred miles. Approximately one hundred thousand Germans, mostly civilians, were killed-the largest loss of life in a single day up to that point of the 20th century. Three months later, on May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally after U.S. and Soviet forces met in central Germany.

https://choices.edu/resources/supplemental_fogofwar_ww2.php

Two bombings ended WWII in the Pacific, but the bombings of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 were really the decisive ones.

Despite this experience, Britain’s Bomber Command under the brutally single- minded Arthur Harris, never doubted that “area bombing”, a euphemism for attacking cities indiscriminately. And he never lost his belief that if you killed enough German workers you would win the war. Yet even when the RAF in 1942, closely followed by the US Army Air Force, began to put together the famous “thousand bomber” raids that were supposed to “knock Germany out of the war”, German war production continued to ramp up and the Nazi regime never came remotely close to losing political control.

Unlike the British, the Americans held on to the figleaf that there was a military logic to their bombing beyond killing Germans and destroying their cities. But even when the advent of long-range fighter escorts made it possible to resume daylight bombing over Germany, their targets were not all that different from Harris’s RAF and were not much more useful in defeating the enemy. Only in 1944, when the American emphasis turned to establishing air superiority, did it become possible to do real damage to Germany’s ability to wage war by hitting oil facilities and rail hubs. However, many of the most effective strikes were carried out by low-flying fighter bombers rather than the high-flying Lancasters and B-17s.

What is still surprising, in retrospect, is how successful combatant air forces were in commanding valuable resources while their achievements were so hard to quantify. It was understandable that the British, with no other means of striking back at Germany in the early stages of the war, were prepared to devote such a huge effort to making bombing a success. However, the 40% of the armed forces’ direct military budget that was consumed by the proponents of air power during the war, together with the diversion of skilled technical and scientific manpower that went with it, looks like poor value for money now. Harris’s boss, Charles Portal, was thrilled to learn in 1944 that a single Lancaster bomber had eliminated more German man- hours on its first sortie than the number of British man-hours required to build it, suggesting that all subsequent sorties would be “clear profit”.

Mr Overy’s final verdict, however, is damning. He argues that “strategic bombing proved in the end to be inadequate in its own terms for carrying out its principle assignments and was morally compromised by deliberate escalation against civilian populations.” Nor has it left any real legacy. It was rapidly rendered redundant by the overwhelming but (since 1945 at least) unusable destructive power of nuclear weapons. More recently, bombing has come full circle. Precision-guided munitions now allow Western air forces to hit military targets while leaving even nearby civilians often largely unscathed—the precise opposite of what prevailed during the second world war.

Thorin wrote:Boots on the ground did and more so in the pacific, it was the navy.

Thorin wrote:At least you have opted out of the incorrect claim on the German theatre of war, as we both know you were in error there.

Original Quill wrote:Frankly, I think you are wrong.  Aerial bombing was the bulk of WWII from the west, and boots-on-the-ground came only lately in 1944.

I think history speaks for itself.  We won!  The Battle of Britain was lost to Germany more from a change in strategy, and the emphasis on the east, rather than from a failure of strategic bombing.  But the Battle over Germany was a huge success.  We destroyed their capacity to make war, and then came in with a right hook at Normandy.

Strategic bombing was the winner!

Thorin wrote:

[size=18]Jimmy Jeffrey crashed his Spitfire in Normandy during World War II. A group of villagers risked their Jimmy Jeffrey crashed his Spitfire in Normandy during World War II. A group of villagers risked their lives to save him from the Nazis that occupied France at the time.

That plane will fly over Orbec and dip its wings over the site where he crashed in July 1944. It will pay tribute to the pilots who defended Britain in the skies and on the ground.

The flight is the outcome of a £3 million project to restore Spitfire NH341.

To prepare for the commemoration the plane, which was involved in 27 combat missions in WWII, was displayed for the first time at the Imperial War Museum’s Duxford Aerodrome – one of the most important of the RAF’s wartime bases.

Veterans and aircraft connoisseurs audibly gasped when the was brought out of the hangar and onto the runway.

Gerry Abrahams, 94, is a former Lancaster pilot. He served in the 75 Squadron from 1944 to 1945. He said that hearing the engine starting up was emotional for him. He’s glad they brought back something from the war to remind current generations of all those who sacrificed their lives in the war.

Ron Dearman, 93, flew a DC3 Dakota in the 267 Pegasus Squadron. He feels that everyone should know about the Spitfire and how it helped the Allies win the war.

Spitfire NH341 had been flown by nine pilots of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 411 Grizzly Bear Squadron, including Warrant Office Jeffrey. He was shot down in the plane while in a dogfight with a Focke-Wulf 109 near Caen.


His squadron was part of 126 Wing which was the highest scoring air force wing of the Allies in WWII. It is credited with 336 enemy aircraft destroyed. NH341 is credited with shooting down a pair of Messerschmitt 109s.

Jeffrey bailed out after his plane was disabled by enemy fire. He was taken in by the Soetards who farmed in the area.

The French Resistance helped Jeffrey avoid capture by the Nazis. They managed to take him into town for a haircut and to buy cheese, right in front of theGermans. Jeffrey was able to return to his unit at the Beny-sur-Mer airfield which was occupied by the Allies after the D-Day invasions.

Jeffrey survived the war and came home to his wife, Jean, in Canada.

Three years ago, Keith Perkins bought NH341. Perkins is the owner of Aero Legends which allows the public to fly vintage planes like the Tiger Moth, Harvard and Spitfire.

It required dozens of craftsmen to restore the Spitfire to flying condition.

Perkins said that he bought the plane to restore it without knowing the history of the plane. Learning that history has been fascinating for Perkins. “In its short but eventful operating life NH341 it touched many lives.”

Flt Lt H C “Charlie” Trainor (who later became Squadron Leader) and Flt Lt A B “Bruce” Whiteford are two of the other pilots to fly NH341.

Trainor received the Distinguished Service Order (DSC) DFC and Bar. He earned his “Ace” status in NH341 after getting eight victories over German airplanes, including two ME109s.

Whiteford flew NH341 more than any other pilot. The restored plane features “EO” and “Elizabeth” markings on it in honor of his wife.

Only one Canadian who flew NH341 in battle is still alive, Flg Off T R “Tommy” Wheler.

Wheler is 96. He was honored with a flypast by the RAF Red Arrows when he visited Britain in 2015.

On June 24, 1944, Wheler destroyed several German mechanized transports. He was eventually shot down. He returned to his unit, escaping capture three times in what has become known as “Wheler’s Walk.”

Flt Lt Antony “Parky” Parker MBE will captain the maiden flight of the restored NH341. He called the Spitfire the most impressive airplane to have flown and that it symbolizes a lot about the war years, The Telegraph reported.

He said that pilots that had been shot down by other planes wished they had been shot down by a Spitfire.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/restored-wwii-spitfire-fly.html


Without a shadow of a doubt. The best pistol engine fighter of WW2.
The Spitfire.

Night everyone.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:

[size=18]Jimmy Jeffrey crashed his Spitfire in Normandy during World War II. A group of villagers risked their Jimmy Jeffrey crashed his Spitfire in Normandy during World War II. A group of villagers risked their lives to save him from the Nazis that occupied France at the time.

That plane will fly over Orbec and dip its wings over the site where he crashed in July 1944. It will pay tribute to the pilots who defended Britain in the skies and on the ground.

The flight is the outcome of a £3 million project to restore Spitfire NH341.

To prepare for the commemoration the plane, which was involved in 27 combat missions in WWII, was displayed for the first time at the Imperial War Museum’s Duxford Aerodrome – one of the most important of the RAF’s wartime bases.

Veterans and aircraft connoisseurs audibly gasped when the was brought out of the hangar and onto the runway.

Gerry Abrahams, 94, is a former Lancaster pilot. He served in the 75 Squadron from 1944 to 1945. He said that hearing the engine starting up was emotional for him. He’s glad they brought back something from the war to remind current generations of all those who sacrificed their lives in the war.

Ron Dearman, 93, flew a DC3 Dakota in the 267 Pegasus Squadron. He feels that everyone should know about the Spitfire and how it helped the Allies win the war.

Spitfire NH341 had been flown by nine pilots of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 411 Grizzly Bear Squadron, including Warrant Office Jeffrey. He was shot down in the plane while in a dogfight with a Focke-Wulf 109 near Caen.


His squadron was part of 126 Wing which was the highest scoring air force wing of the Allies in WWII. It is credited with 336 enemy aircraft destroyed. NH341 is credited with shooting down a pair of Messerschmitt 109s.

Jeffrey bailed out after his plane was disabled by enemy fire. He was taken in by the Soetards who farmed in the area.

The French Resistance helped Jeffrey avoid capture by the Nazis. They managed to take him into town for a haircut and to buy cheese, right in front of theGermans. Jeffrey was able to return to his unit at the Beny-sur-Mer airfield which was occupied by the Allies after the D-Day invasions.

Jeffrey survived the war and came home to his wife, Jean, in Canada.

Three years ago, Keith Perkins bought NH341. Perkins is the owner of Aero Legends which allows the public to fly vintage planes like the Tiger Moth, Harvard and Spitfire.

It required dozens of craftsmen to restore the Spitfire to flying condition.

Perkins said that he bought the plane to restore it without knowing the history of the plane. Learning that history has been fascinating for Perkins. “In its short but eventful operating life NH341 it touched many lives.”

Flt Lt H C “Charlie” Trainor (who later became Squadron Leader) and Flt Lt A B “Bruce” Whiteford are two of the other pilots to fly NH341.

Trainor received the Distinguished Service Order (DSC) DFC and Bar. He earned his “Ace” status in NH341 after getting eight victories over German airplanes, including two ME109s.

Whiteford flew NH341 more than any other pilot. The restored plane features “EO” and “Elizabeth” markings on it in honor of his wife.

Only one Canadian who flew NH341 in battle is still alive, Flg Off T R “Tommy” Wheler.

Wheler is 96. He was honored with a flypast by the RAF Red Arrows when he visited Britain in 2015.

On June 24, 1944, Wheler destroyed several German mechanized transports. He was eventually shot down. He returned to his unit, escaping capture three times in what has become known as “Wheler’s Walk.”

Flt Lt Antony “Parky” Parker MBE will captain the maiden flight of the restored NH341. He called the Spitfire the most impressive airplane to have flown and that it symbolizes a lot about the war years, The Telegraph reported.

He said that pilots that had been shot down by other planes wished they had been shot down by a Spitfire.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/restored-wwii-spitfire-fly.html


Without a shadow of a doubt. The best pistol engine fighter of WW2.
The Spitfire.

Night everyone.

Now I know my hubby would agree with you on that didge he loves them magnificent .
The only draw back was that it was difficult to produce at a time when we needed as many aircraft as possible , but undoubtedly a fantastic plane .

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Frankly, I think you are wrong.  Aerial bombing was the bulk of WWII from the west, and boots-on-the-ground came only lately in 1944.

I think history speaks for itself.  We won!  The Battle of Britain was lost to Germany more from a change in strategy, and the emphasis on the east, rather than from a failure of strategic bombing.  But the Battle over Germany was a huge success.  We destroyed their capacity to make war, and then came in with a right hook at Normandy.

Strategic bombing was the winner!

How can I be wrong, when i have just proved how ineffective it was Quill?

The fact that Germany lost the Battle of Britain further backs my argument strategic bombing is ineffective.

Thorin wrote:It was effective when it hit air bases and radar facilities etc. Until Churchill decided to hit Berlin with a raid of Mosquito Fighter Bombers (To me the best Warplane of WW2). That made Hitler and Goring change tactics to hit British cities as well as strategic targets. It cost them the battle, of which up to that point. They had been winning.
Germany was able to continue the war, even though Germany was over run.
So how is that a success for strategic Bombing?
If it was a success, then Germany, would need not have been invaded, it would have capitulated.

Original Quill wrote:

To the contrary, Germany gave up on the Battle of Britain.  Brits woke up one dawn and the enemy was gone.  Germany had bigger fish to fry elsewhere, notably the east.  Sad to say, but that was the end of the Battle of Britain.

If bombing by Mosquitos was effective, why are you arguing that bombing was not effective?  The Mosquito was a warplane; bombing was a strategy.  The fact of the matter is we had to destroy the German war machine, and then go in and mop-up.  That's what the bombing was all about.

Anyway, Russia was much better at it than the Anglo-Americans.  They defeated the Germans.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To the contrary, Germany gave up on the Battle of Britain.  Brits woke up one dawn and the enemy was gone.  Germany had bigger fish to fry elsewhere, notably the east.  Sad to say, but that was the end of the Battle of Britain.

If bombing by Mosquitos was effective, why are you arguing that bombing was not effective?  The Mosquito was a warplane; bombing was a strategy.  The fact of the matter is we had to destroy the German war machine, and then go in and mop-up.  That's what the bombing was all about.

Anyway, Russia was much better at it than the Anglo-Americans.  They defeated the Germans.

Er because the Mosquito was a fighter bomber and not a strategic bomber.
You do understand the difference and that the raid only achieved Hitler being more stupid over its worth.
The matter of fact is her, you simply are again talking nonsense and making up history

Thorin wrote:Second, Germany never gave up the battle of Britain, as it continued to attack the nation with strategic bombing, proving again how ineffective such a tactic was

Wiki wrote:Due to the failure of the Luftwaffe to establish air supremacy, a conference assembled on 14 September at Hitler's headquarters. Hitler concluded that air superiority had not yet been established and "promised to review the situation on 17 September for possible landings on 27 September or 8 October. Three days later, when the evidence was clear that the German Air Force had greatly exaggerated the extent of their successes against the RAF, Hitler postponed Sea Lion indefinitely."

Thorin wrote:Third again as proven to you, strategic bombing failed to stop the German war machine. In fact production went up when the number of strategic bombing attacks occurred

Thorin wrote:Fourth, so it failed to achieve its aim of destroying the German war industry

Fighter Planes Produced by Germany:
1941  - 3,373
1942 -  5,515
1943 -  10,898
1944 -  25,285

https://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/

Anything else?

German Arms Production wrote:Several factors had an important influence on the ability of Germany to produce armaments, munitions and military equipment during World War 2.

This includes the dependence on raw materials from the occupied and conquered territories or it’s import from neutral countries. Similarly, the Allied bombing offensive resulted in significant losses and forced a costly relocation of production facilities.

Hush-Kit wrote:Dismantling the Spitfire myth
DECEMBER 4, 2015

There are too many myths about the Supermarine Spitfire to list, but uppermost is the notion that it was in any way a war-winning weapon. In fact, it might have been a war-losing one had circumstances been different. Britain certainly didn’t need it, and in some respects would have done better without it. It was not a bad aircraft so much as the wrong aircraft at the wrong time.

Let’s be clear. The Spitfire is a very pretty aeroplane and a very charismatic one, which is great to see at airshows. It’s also said to be lovely to fly. The first three of these points mattered little in 1939-45, and the third was not as important as other factors. It’s pretty well accepted these days that the Battle of Britain was won by the Hurricane, and there’s no reason to suspect that more Hurricanes wouldn’t have defeated Goering’s armada just as soundly, if not more so.

What were the best fighters at the outbreak of the war? The surprising answer is here.

The Spitfire had a number of shortcomings – its range in fighter variants was always poor, its narrow-track undercarriage invited accidents and its roll rate wasn’t competitive, a dangerous shortcoming for a fighter. Its main Achilles heel though was the sheer difficulty of manufacturing a Spitfire. It took 13,000 man hours to build the airframe – for that amount of effort you could have two-and-a-half Hurricanes or three-and-a-bit Messerschmitt Bf 109s.



In other words, British industry, under a barrage of bombs and in wartime conditions, was building one Spitfire when it could have built three fighters of a simpler design. That’s crazy. Moreover, it could have been dangerous. When the Battle of Britain was raging, operational Hurricane squadrons increased from 25 to 34. Spitfire Squadrons increased from 19 to… 20. And that additional squadron came only at the very end of the Battle. Spitfire production lagged behind Hurricane production for the whole Battle as well, and twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires were built in that period. When it came to serviceability, the Hurricane was better too, with more damaged aircraft returned to squadrons more quickly.

Matters were little better in the air – Richard Overy points out that at the end of the Battle, Spitfires were being shot down at a faster rate than Hurricanes. Had the Battle gone on much longer, the Spitfire could have become a millstone around Fighter Command’s neck. The point that is often made that the Spitfire could better deal with the Bf 109 is irrelevant, as Fighter Command needed to knock down bombers and actively avoided engagements with fighters (and in any case, exactly as many Spitfires were shot down by Bf109s as Hurricanes).

Moreover, the priority that was placed on Spitfire production in 1940 (as well as Hurricanes, to be fair) pulled effort from other services, effectively hamstringing the Fleet Air Arm for years and preventing the development of newer designs. And not content with wasting industrial effort at the beginning of the war, the Spitfire remained in production for the length of hostilities. Who knows what might have been achieved with three aircraft produced for every Spitfire?

Alternatively, for the same number of fighters, a greater number of bombers could have been produced. Or for the same number of aircraft, more factory workers could have been released for active service.

A high maintenance beauty

Many fans maintain that the Spitfire was a work of aerodynamic perfection and stayed competitive for so long as a result. By 1936 standards, it certainly did have a good performance, but it did so at the unforgivable expense of ease of manufacture. Contemporary designs such as the Bf 109 and Heinkel He 100 show that it was not necessary to make this compromise even in the late 1930s, let alone later when types such as the Mustang arrived. Indeed, the Spitfire could take more powerful engines than it had been designed for, but its wing was too flexible in torsion to do this forever, and by the time the Mk.21 appeared, its once-fine handling had degenerated to barely-acceptable levels. This left it as a fighter with an inferior performance, armament and range.

The default fighter

The main reason the Spitfire kept on weighing down British industry after it should have been retired was not its inherent brilliance but seemingly the lack of an alternative. The Hawker Typhoon, which was meant to replace it, wasn’t up to the job and the Air Ministry failed to change tack early enough. It’s not that there weren’t possibilities – in 1939, Martin-Baker was commissioned to develop a design to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire and came up with the brilliant MB.3, which outperformed most contemporary designs and was very simple to build and maintain. Unfortunately, Martin-Baker was a cottage industry, and James Martin was chronically incapable of finishing anything on time, being continually sidetracked by different jobs (the company had also been commissioned to develop gun installations and cockpit canopies) and striving for tiny gains at the expense of delay after delay. Had the design been given the support of a major manufacturer, or even handed over in its entirety to, say, Hawker or Bristol, a viable Spitfire replacement that did not hoover up man-hours in the same way could have been in service by 1943.

The wrong aeroplane

If the Air Ministry had decided not to push the MB.3, there were still possibilities. In 1942, Fairey was pushing to build P-51 Mustangs under licence, and it would have made more sense to switch British production to this type. Not only was the Mustang faster with a less powerful engine, and had the legs to take it to Berlin and still dogfight, it had been designed with simplicity and ease of production in mind. But Spitfire production continued, and the Second Tactical Air Force even ended up with Spitfires it didn’t particularly want to replace worn-out fighter-reconnaissance Mustang Mk. Is that there were no longer replacements for. Bizarrely, the RAF ended up using Spitfire Mk. XVIs as dive bombers when A-36s, Mustang Mk. IIs, Thunderbolts or Tempests would have made a good deal more sense.

As it was, the Allies won the war, so it was a moot point. But for Britain’s industry to have expended so much effort at a crucial time, building 22,000 over-complicated aircraft that were not especially competitive in the second half of the war, deserves much greater examination.

Matthew Willis

Read Jon Lake’s rebuttal of this argument here:

Mr Willis has since made the following corrections: “In the second paragraph: change ‘for that amount of effort you could have two-and-a-half Hurricanes or three-and-a-bit Messerschmitt Bf 109s’ to ‘for that amount of effort you could have one-and-a-half Hurricanes or three-and-a-bit Messerschmitt Bf 109s’ (bold just to emphasise the change, shouldn’t be bold in the published version)

In the fifth paragraph: change ‘Who knows what might have been achieved with three aircraft produced for every Spitfire?’ to ‘Who knows what might have been achieved with two or three aircraft produced for every Spitfire?” (as above re bold).

I’ve developed the arguments a fair bit since the original piece was posted, but it wouldn’t be fair to go chopping and changing it now. I stand by everything I wrote apart from the bits above that need correcting.”

What was the most combat effective piston-engined fighter ever made? An analysis can be found here.

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an alternate history of the TSR.2, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is the The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker.

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Now I know my hubby would agree with you on that didge he loves them magnificent .
The only draw back was that it was difficult to produce at a time when we needed as many aircraft as possible , but undoubtedly a fantastic plane .

This is very true and why we must remember the fact that Squadrons like the 303. Made up of Polish, had the highest ratio of kills in the Battle of Britain. Its very important to have a great fighter, but you need great pilots to fly them. The 303 were instrumental in helping win the Battle of Britain.

I know your hubby was a Para, a regiment, that has a reputation second to none in excellence and bravery. I may despair at your husbands views at times, but would never, at his service to to the Para Dibs.
He deserves due credit for serving with the Para's.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


This is very true and why we must remember the fact that Squadrons like the 303. Made up of Polish, had the highest ratio of kills in the Battle of Britain. Its very important to have a great fighter, but you need great pilots to fly them. The 303 were instrumental in helping win the Battle of Britain.

I know your hubby was a Para, a regiment, that has a reputation second to none in excellence and bravery. I may despair at your husbands views at times, but would never, at his service to to the Para Dibs.
He deserves due credit for serving with the Para's.

Hi didge- Just read that to my hubby and he said thank you very much and it is much appreciated - he said it is true that the Polish along with other foreign fighter pilots were among the most successful during the battle of Britain - but unfortunately didn't always receive the proper accolades for their bravery and determination .

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Hi didge- Just read that to my hubby and he said thank you very much and it is much appreciated - he said it is true that the Polish along with other foreign fighter pilots were among the most successful during the battle of Britain - but unfortunately didn't always receive the proper accolades for their bravery and determination .

Hi Dibs, we owe loads to all those who served to defend Britain at the time.
They certainly were some of the most successful.