Spit v 109

[NPL]

Nobody seems to care about the engine, and the advantage of direct fuel injection in the Daimler-Benz engines. A grave disadvantage to early Spitfires. But the two concepts were vastly different in the way the constructor handled the issue, with the Bf 109 being more a hit and run plane, and the Spitfire being a dogfighter machine.

As it turned out, the potential of the Spitfire was vastly superior to the Bf 109. The Mk.V matching the Bf 109F, but overmatched against the FW 190, which was for its part countered by the Spitfie Mk.IX. There the Spitfire left the Bf 109 behind for good. And then we are not at all speaking of the Mk.XIV, which was only matched by the Me 262.

But of course in the BoB, the Hurricanes got more enemy kills than the Spitfire, but the Spitfire was by far the most sexy!

[Truro Model Builder]

The biggest variable is the skill and expertise of the pilot and the tactics employed by them. Remember that the RAF used the Area Fighting Tactics in France for use against bombers, which were unwieldy and no match for the Luftwaffe's rotte formations. By the time of the Battle of Britain Fighter RAF squadrons had by and large ditched the official Fighter Command tactics and were flying variations on the rotte themselves, i.e. loose vics or the finger four, with the result that the huge losses that the RAF fighter force suffered in France were a thing of the past.

And with regard to the pilots, not Spit v. 109 but examples of where it counted:

1. During the invasion of Poland Luftwaffe fighter squadrons were surprised at how well the Poles fought in the PZL P.11, which enjoyed a better kill ratio than might otherwise have been expected. Of course, many of those Poles eventually got to play with Hurricanes, and then see how well they did.

2. Who could have guessed that A-1 Skyraiders would have knocked down a couple of MiG-17s in Vietnam? It just shows what US fighter pilots could have done if more of them had been flying aircraft with guns fitted.

3. The Mirage III had many advantages over the Sea Harrier in the Falklands, including speed, inflight refuelling and longer range missiles. How many SHARs did they knock down?

The bottom line is that good fighter pilots will use what they can to negate the advantages of their opponent, and Paul Day -he of the clips in my previous post- once manoeuvred a BBMF Spitfire into a gun kill position on a 74 Sqdn Phantom by using his knowledge of the Spitfire and the Phantom to achieve the result. The Phantom crew took a lot of ribbing for that, but I'll bet they learned something from it as well.

Edited February 15, 2016 by T7 Models

[Giorgio N]

Since many mention how the best pilot with the best tactics wins the day, let me say that the Battle of Britain is an example of how the best pilot with the best tactics can lose a battle !

The average German pilot in 1940 was much better trained than the average British pilot and Fighter Command sent into battle pilots that were not particularly trained at all

At the same time when the Battle started not all groups in Fighter Command had implemented the more advanced tactics that the Luftwaffe had used for some time. Had the "best pilot wins" thing been always real, Britain would have marched to the Horst Wessel Lied in late 1940... but things went differently.

Regarding the two aircrafts both had strengths and weaknesses, personally I'd rate the advantage in the engine of the Bf.109 as more important than the advantage in manouverability of the Spitfire but with the right manouvers both types could be used to their best. The 109E was maybe a better sorted aircraft compared to the Spitfire Mk.I but at the same time the Spitfire design proved to have a much better potential for growth, as witnessed by the development of this type, development that never required big structural changes. The Bf.109 on the other hand went through a serious redesign abd at some point reached the top of its potential development well before the Spitfire. This is not surprising as the Spitfire was for certain aspects a more modern design compared to the Messerschmit.

Back to the Battle in general, had Britain had the 109 and Germany the Spitfire, nothing really would have changed. Or better, the RAF would have had a better aircraft to shoot down bombers thanks to the cannons of the 109. The real difference was made not by the type of aircraft and not even by the training and tactics. The things that mattered include:

- The Lufwaffe was not capable of carrying a long range strategic offensive at the heart of an enemy, they bombers were not the best for the job (to be honest probably no bomber in 1940 was the best anyway) and they did not have proper escort fighters.

- The defender is always at a distinc advantage when the enemy has to come from far away... fighters at the edge of their range can't do all they want, sortie rates at 100 km from one's own airport are one thing, at 4 times the distance are another story. Shot down crew can rejoin the battle immediately for the home team, not so for the invader

- The availability of an early warning system greatly impacted the battle

Without these advantages, the RAF was not superior to the Luftwaffe and this became clear when the RAF started venturing into France with the result that a handful of German fighters scored many kills with very little losses. At that point it was the Germans who had the advantage of fighting over their ground and having early warning.

[gingerbob]

2. Who could have guessed that A-1 Skyraiders would have knocked down a couple of MiG-17s in Vietnam? It just shows what US fighter pilots could have done if more of them had been flying aircraft with guns fitted.

Or flying Skyraiders!

[Stonar]

Nobody seems to care about the engine, and the advantage of direct fuel injection in the Daimler-Benz engines. A grave disadvantage to early Spitfires.

It didn't have to be a grave disadvantage. Was the Bf 109's much higher wing loading a grave disadvantage? In fact such differences illustrate how each air force has to develop tactics to fight to the advantages and strengths of its aircraft whilst exploiting the disadvantages or weaknesses of the enemy's.

Bader* and Johnson did a very entertaining piece (they were always a good double act) with two 1:24 Airfix models for an ancient documentary I saw years ago. In it they demonstrated the tactic developed by Spitfire pilots to overcome the effect of negative g on their Merlin's fuel supply when attempting to follow a DB powered aircraft which had 'bunted' away.

It is why trying in simplistic terms to say that type A is inherently superior to type B, when they are as similar in overall performance as the two types which are the subject of this thread, is guaranteed to generate more heat than light

Cheers

Steve

*For some reason I've always remembered Bader saying that the 'Emil', Johnson was holding the model, had a cannon firing through the spinner, which it didn't.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Stonar

[Procopius]

Find an American that does not have the P-51 on a pedestal.

I have a letter to me from Edwin Dalrymple, who shot down two 109s while flying Spitfires with the 52nd FG, and he rates the Spitfire VIII as superior as a combat plane to the P-51, which he also flew. One of my most treasured possesions.

[Truro Model Builder]

- The availability of an early warning system greatly impacted the battle

Without these advantages, the RAF was not superior to the Luftwaffe and this became clear when the RAF started venturing into France with the result that a handful of German fighters scored many kills with very little losses. At that point it was the Germans who had the advantage of fighting over their ground and having early warning.

The RAF air defence network, with its various co-ordinated layers, was the first system of its kind to be used by any country. It was severely underestimated by the Germans, and even today is grossly misunderstood by many ("it's all about radar, innit?"). As you say, it had a huge impact on the battle. The Germans at least gave up in 1940; unfortunately the RAF frittered away too many good aircraft and experienced pilots for the next four years with not a lot to show for it because of the offensive operations so beloved by Leigh Mallory.

[Giorgio N]

2. Who could have guessed that A-1 Skyraiders would have knocked down a couple of MiG-17s in Vietnam? It just shows what US fighter pilots could have done if more of them had been flying aircraft with guns fitted.

The presence or not of guns on aircrafts had a relative impact on the air war over Vietnam. The Crusader is hailed as the last of the Gunfighters but only a small percentage of the type successes were due to the use of its 4 20mm guns while the Sidewinder accounted for the large majority. Had the ROE been different, there would have been more long range kills

3. The Mirage III had many advantages over the Sea Harrier in the Falklands, including speed, inflight refuelling and longer range missiles. How many SHARs did they knock down?

Hmmm... the Mirage did not have inflight refuelling capability, the Skyhawks did. The Mirage used in the Falklands were mostly Daggers, that don't even have a radar, so no long range missiles. The few III-EA had a radar and could use the Matra 530, a 1960's technology missile that was never particularly effective. The III-EA however saw very little combat and were mostly kept to defend the bases on the homeland. The Dagger could only carry the first generation IR guided Matra 550

The Sea Harriers on the other hand were brand new aircrafts with a brand new modern radar and carried the most advanced missile available in those days. So they were in terms of weapon systems the best aircrafts in the area. The Mirages had the advantage of speed but also operated at the extreme of their range. To be honest, I believe that had the roles been inverted with British pilots flying the Mirages, the Sea Harriers would have still won, although maybe with higher losses

[Giorgio N]

The RAF air defence network, with its various co-ordinated layers, was the first system of its kind to be used by any country. It was severely underestimated by the Germans, and even today is grossly misunderstood by many ("it's all about radar, innit?"). As you say, it had a huge impact on the battle. The Germans at least gave up in 1940; unfortunately the RAF frittered away too many good aircraft and experienced pilots for the next four years with not a lot to show for it because of the offensive operations so beloved by Leigh Mallory.

Totally agree, it was underestimated and is misunderstood. It was a true "force multiplier". a term that today is used so often but back then would have probably sounded obscure...

I see what you mean about the RAF over France, personally I have mixed feelings on this: it sure was a huge waste of resources, many aircrafts were lost with very little damage done to the enemy. Some of these missions were real disasters ! At the same time I can understand how in those days the idea of trying to bring the war to the enemy could have been appealing. Britain had just emerged from a very dangerous situation, the Army could not do much and the RAF was the only force capable of showing the enemy that Britain was ready and willing to fight. The same could be said of the early Bomber Command operations, they achieved next to nothing and led to large losses but were seen as a way to keep hitting at Germany.

[Adam Maas]

Regarding the two aircrafts both had strengths and weaknesses, personally I'd rate the advantage in the engine of the Bf.109 as more important than the advantage in manouverability of the Spitfire but with the right manouvers both types could be used to their best. The 109E was maybe a better sorted aircraft compared to the Spitfire Mk.I but at the same time the Spitfire design proved to have a much better potential for growth, as witnessed by the development of this type, development that never required big structural changes. The Bf.109 on the other hand went through a serious redesign abd at some point reached the top of its potential development well before the Spitfire. This is not surprising as the Spitfire was for certain aspects a more modern design compared to the Messerschmit.

​The Spitfire certainly did get some notable structural changes. The change from the Emil to the Freidrich is quite similar in scope to the change from the XIV to the 21. In both cases there was a new wing and tail fitted (speaking of the in-service 21, not original production), and some evolution in the front end (although that was more of a progression in the Spitfire than it was in the case of the 109).

[Cookenbacher]

From reading this discussion, it seems that the winner is whoever had Keith Park and his Command and Control apparatus in charge.

My amateur take on it is that the Spitfire is the more balanced performer on the energy vs angles spectrum. The 109 was primarily and energy fighter, the Hurricane was primarily an angles fighter, and the Spitfire could do both. It's my personal theory that the reason for the P-47's great success in the ETO is that the Luftwaffe had an ingrained energy fighting 'doctrine' and along came the ultimate piston engined energy fighter. Many many 109's and 190's were shot down using the previously tried and true dive away tactic. Had the P-47 been going up against Spitfires, especially the XIV, things would not have turned out the same. The XIV could out climb, out dive and out turn any piston fighter it came across.

[Eric Mc]

I recall seeing Paul Day do a comparison and among other factors he thought the view out the 109 cockpit was "oh dear" as he put it

I have that on video somewhere. It was an ITV (yes - ITV - when they made sensible programmes) and shown on the 50th Anniversary of the BoB in 1990.

Day was not impressed with the tightness of the 109 cockpit and was SERIOUSLY unimpressed once the canopy was closed.

Tony Bianchi looked at the way the two aircraft were built and concluded that the 109E was technically more advanced.

[Truro Model Builder]

Hmmm... the Mirage did not have inflight refuelling capability, the Skyhawks did. The Mirage used in the Falklands were mostly Daggers, that don't even have a radar, so no long range missiles. The few III-EA had a radar and could use the Matra 530, a 1960's technology missile that was never particularly effective. The III-EA however saw very little combat and were mostly kept to defend the bases on the homeland. The Dagger could only carry the first generation IR guided Matra 550

The Sea Harriers on the other hand were brand new aircrafts with a brand new modern radar and carried the most advanced missile available in those days. So they were in terms of weapon systems the best aircrafts in the area. The Mirages had the advantage of speed but also operated at the extreme of their range. To be honest, I believe that had the roles been inverted with British pilots flying the Mirages, the Sea Harriers would have still won, although maybe with higher losses

Yes, you are right, I had forgotten that the Mirages did not have IFR capability, and I also agree that the R530 was never particularly effective. The Israelis only scored one kill with it against many more gun kills by their Mirages. The Argentine Mirage IIIs were kept back for home defence following the first Vulcan raid, but one was lost to a SHAR of 801 NAS on that day, with a second being damaged and then shot down by gunners at Stanley airfield. Daggers were used primarily in the attack role.

But the justified perception prior to the war was that the SHAR, as a subsonic aircraft with short range AAMs only would be second best against the supersonic Mirage. SHARs had the AIM-9L, which was far superior to the Mirage armament, and the British pilots had a lot more training in air combat than their adversaries. With regard to your comment on the roles being reversed, the general point of view of many analysts -judging by what I have read- is that British pilots in Mirages would still have triumphed over Argentine pilots in SHARs, with the training and quality of the respective pilots being the key.

Totally agree, it was underestimated and is misunderstood. It was a true "force multiplier". a term that today is used so often but back then would have probably sounded obscure...

I see what you mean about the RAF over France, personally I have mixed feelings on this: it sure was a huge waste of resources, many aircrafts were lost with very little damage done to the enemy. Some of these missions were real disasters ! At the same time I can understand how in those days the idea of trying to bring the war to the enemy could have been appealing. Britain had just emerged from a very dangerous situation, the Army could not do much and the RAF was the only force capable of showing the enemy that Britain was ready and willing to fight. The same could be said of the early Bomber Command operations, they achieved next to nothing and led to large losses but were seen as a way to keep hitting at Germany.

Yes, it was important that the RAF were seen to be striking back, but bearing in mind the knowledge of the German experience in the Battle of Britain it is incredible that Leigh Mallory was determined to make the same mistakes, and to keep doing so for the next four years. This was at a time when Tomahawks, Kittyhawks, Buffaloes and Hurricanes were facing far superior aircraft in North Africa, Malta and the Far East, where a lot of these aircraft that were lost over France could have made a real difference.

[FalkeEins]

it sure was a huge waste of resources, many aircrafts were lost with very little damage done to the enemy. Some of these missions were real disasters ! At the same time I can understand how in those days the idea of trying to bring the war to the enemy could have been appealing.

...the RAF's 'lean into Europe' kept the two best Jagdgeschwader in the West - and wrote them right down - while the rest of the Jagdwaffe went to the East. A number of German battle cruisers were kept trapped in French Atlantic ports. Luftwaffe over-claiming was enormous through 1941 over France - eg on 20 September 1941 4./ JFS 5 claimed 25 Spitfires (actual losses were 7) - see a small article I compiled here

[Honeybee]

Hi asll

wow, still going. I'm impressed with myself. Now then, a lot of backwards and forwards arguments and all well put but what I want to know is was the 109E the fifth production version of that aircraft and what was the fifth production version of the Spit and was that better than to 109E. Given that the MkI Spit was the first production version and the 109A was it's equivelent I'd say whatever the fifth production Spit must have been better than the E given the gulf between a Spit I and a 109A. Or would I be wrong? Given the development of the Spit, going from strength to strength I'd say the later Spits were up there with the P51 or anything equivelent anywhere.

Regards

Paul

[markjames68]

i think the OP was asking for a direct comparison of airframe and engine rather than the historical context and pilot training etc. if I was looking at the two side by side I would say that the 109e was a more mature product than the Spitfire 1. This is largely because it has benefitted from feedback from combat etc.

I always felt the 109 was half a mark ahead of the Spitfire in development up to the F. After that the Spitfire equalled and surpassed the 109. It's as if the two were in paralell but the 109 just started that little bit earlier

I recall seeing Paul Day do a comparison and among other factors he thought the view out the 109 cockpit was "oh dear" as he put it

Well remembered

A couple of hundred pounds of 'Krupps of Essen' infront of him and a canopy he would not want to have to deal with in a bail out situation, is what paul Day said

Loved that programme, he was very fair and accurate with his criticism of both airframes, other than poor ancilliary instrumentation and the hand swap on takeoff, he did favour the Spit from an'impartial' point of view..

[Fernando]

Hi, everyone.,

Just one thing. Mirages (and Daggers) had no advantage against SHARs, exception made of plain speed. They had no IFR capability (contrary to what has been said above). As fighters, they were less maneuvrable at low speed, had a primitive radar (and a terrible ground radar support) and a very unreliable missile armament (R.530s are probably the missiles with a lower impact ratio in the West; R.550s and Shafrirs are rear hemisphere aimed). They could break combat if they consumed fuel in reheat for a few seconds; but that ability is of little use if you need to keep defending fighters clear of your bombers. As bombers (as Daggers were commonly used) they could only use their superior speed if jettisoning fuel tanks and bombs, but that meant aborting the mission. Respectfully, I see no advantage.

Fernando

PD: no intention to hijack the thread.

[gingerbob]

"...and what was the fifth production version of the Spit and was that better than to 109E."

Even that is hard to answer.

The Spitfire Mk.I was significantly improved in terms of operational suitability, and the Mk.II was enough of an improvement that it went to the front of the class, so between those two you could count it as two stages of production. [Edit: that is, "initial production form" and "developed Mk.I/ Mk.II")

Vb, obviously, was the next production version, and again essentially pushed the others into obsolescence. Unfortunately it remained at that for a bit long- just more than a year. (The Vc was introduced during that time, but primarily went overseas.)

Next was really the Spit F.IX.

In terms of UK service, there were a small number of oddballs- Mk.VI, VII, XII, but...

Next, I guess, was the LF.IX and, eventually, equivalent XVI. An adjustment of engine power curves, but also changes to armament ('e') and ability to carry bombs.

And the really big next leap was the XIV. That's essentially where it ended for operational European war fighter Spitfires.

bob

Edited February 20, 2016 by gingerbob

[Giorgio N]

​The Spitfire certainly did get some notable structural changes. The change from the Emil to the Freidrich is quite similar in scope to the change from the XIV to the 21. In both cases there was a new wing and tail fitted (speaking of the in-service 21, not original production), and some evolution in the front end (although that was more of a progression in the Spitfire than it was in the case of the 109).

The two steps are indeed similar but it should be said that these occurred on the Spitfire at the end of its career. At the same time Supermarine was styudying even more radical changes that led to the Spiteful. Even with the modifications introduced with the Mk.21, a large part of the aircraft structure was the original seen in the Mk.1. I see this as a testimony of how good the original design was.

...the RAF's 'lean into Europe' kept the two best Jagdgeschwader in the West - and wrote them right down - while the rest of the Jagdwaffe went to the East. A number of German battle cruisers were kept trapped in French Atlantic ports. Luftwaffe over-claiming was enormous through 1941 over France - eg on 20 September 1941 4./ JFS 5 claimed 25 Spitfires (actual losses were 7) - see a small article I compiled here

But what was the effect of a couple of cruisers stuck in France for a year on the war ? Or the effect of tying down 2 JGs ? The cruisers would have probably remained in port somewhere else anyway as the Kriegsmarine surface units didn't really do much for the rest of the war. Of course those same cruisers moved to Germany during Operation Cerberus, during which a number of British aircrafts were lost for no return. Would those 2 Geschwadern have made a difference if moved somewhere else ? Were the losses they suffered so high to causa large damage to the German military machine ? IMHO the results achieved by the RAF over France were minimal, they caused very little damage to targets of military importance and in the process they lost a not so small number of machines and men. The "moral" effect was probably much better as at least these actions showed that Britain was fighting back. But maybe these forces could have been put to better use somewhere else.

Hi asll

wow, still going. I'm impressed with myself. Now then, a lot of backwards and forwards arguments and all well put but what I want to know is was the 109E the fifth production version of that aircraft and what was the fifth production version of the Spit and was that better than to 109E. Given that the MkI Spit was the first production version and the 109A was it's equivelent I'd say whatever the fifth production Spit must have been better than the E given the gulf between a Spit I and a 109A. Or would I be wrong? Given the development of the Spit, going from strength to strength I'd say the later Spits were up there with the P51 or anything equivelent anywhere.

Regards

Paul

It is not really correct to say that the E was the 5th variant of the Bf.109: the A was not an operational variant and really the various A/B/C/D aircrafts are close enough to be considered subvariants in a sense. I would consider the E as the second variant of this design.

In the same way I'd probably consider the Spitfire II as more of a subvariant of the Mk.I, with the Mk.V as the proper second variant of the type and yes, this was superior to the Emil. As I said before, the Spitfire was a slightly more modern design, even if the two types were only divided by one year

[FalkeEins]

But what was the effect of a couple of cruisers stuck in France for a year on the war ? Or the effect of tying down 2 JGs ? The cruisers would have probably remained in port somewhere else anyway as the Kriegsmarine surface units didn't really do much for the rest of the war. Of course those same cruisers moved to Germany during Operation Cerberus, during which a number of British aircrafts were lost for no return.

you've answered your own question!..

and more than a couple; Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, & Gneisenau - given the resources deployed against Bismarck, keeping these vessels holed up was a major - and successfully prosecuted - British war aim..yes, 100s of aircraft were committed - including the first B-17s

see this on 'Operation Sunrise' 24 July 1941

and 'Cerberus' was the succesful outcome !

[Stonar]

Given that the Luftwaffe had an actual strength of just 841 single engine fighters in January 1941 I would suggest keeping nearly one quarter of the Luftwaffe's single engine fighter force in NW Europe was a desirable objective.

Leading up to Barbarossa in June the Germans could have done without having to commit two of its elite fighter units to defending NW Europe, but the RAF gave them no choice. The average monthly strength of single engine fighters on the Eastern Front, following the invasion of Russia, was typically around 650. Another 100-200 would have been very welcome.

How the RAF went about 'leaning forward' and the tactics used are another matter.

Cheers

Steve

[AWFK10]

you've answered your own question!..

and more than a couple; Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, & Gneisenau - given the resources deployed against Bismarck, keeping these vessels holed up was a major - and successfully prosecuted - British war aim..yes, 100s of aircraft were committed - including the first B-17s

see this on 'Operation Sunrise' 24 July 1941

and 'Cerberus' was the succesful outcome !

Alternatively, it could equally well be argued (and has been) that a handful of German warships that seldom left port pinned down a substantial proportion of the RN's heavy units in the Home Fleet, when they were desperately needed elsewhere. And they didn't stay holed up in Germany after 'Cerberus'. Scharnhorst sailed to northern Norway early in 1943, unhindered by the RAF - ultimately to be sunk by HMS Duke of York and other surface ships. Prinz Eugen was deployed to Trondheim. Similarly, in terms of Fighter Command versus the 2 JGs remaining in France, who was pinning down whom? On 1 Sep 41, Fighter Command had 42 operational squadrons of Spitfires and 27 of Hurricanes.As for overclaiming, Dilip Sarkar says in his biography of Bader that, by the end of 1941, "Fighter Command had claimed the destruction of 176 enemy aircraft and 74 probables; in reality the Luftwaffe had lost but 44 machines.".

[Procopius]

Alternatively, it could equally well be argued (and has been) that a handful of German warships that seldom left port pinned down a substantial proportion of the RN's heavy units in the Home Fleet, when they were desperately needed elsewhere. And they didn't stay holed up in Germany after 'Cerberus'. Scharnhorst sailed to northern Norway early in 1943, unhindered by the RAF - ultimately to be sunk by HMS Duke of York and other surface ships. Prinz Eugen was deployed to Trondheim. Similarly, in terms of Fighter Command versus the 2 JGs remaining in France, who was pinning down whom? On 1 Sep 41, Fighter Command had 42 operational squadrons of Spitfires and 27 of Hurricanes.As for overclaiming, Dilip Sarkar says in his biography of Bader that, by the end of 1941, "Fighter Command had claimed the destruction of 176 enemy aircraft and 74 probables; in reality the Luftwaffe had lost but 44 machines.".

Gneisenau was effectively destroyed in port by RAF heavy bombers, and Scharnhorst was out of action for six months while under repair in Kiel.

And despite being tied down by German heavy units, the Royal Navy in 1942 was able to both reinforce the Eastern Fleet to a strength of five battleships and two, later three fleet carriers, as well as undertake Operation Pedestal in the Mediterranean with four carriers and two battleships, and provide escort for the arctic convoys (even PQ-17 had a British battleship and fleet carrier, plus an American battleship, as distant escort). British resources weren't infinite, but they were generally able to concentrate force wherever they felt it most necessary.

[Cookenbacher]

As far as over claiming, for all fighter pilots, divide by three to begin with, then go from there. Except for James 'Stocky' Edwards, add about ten, then go from there.

[NPL]

I believe this trend lost its focus, Which one was the best, the Bf 109 or the Spitfire? When I a couple of days ago pointed at the motor as an advantage for the Bf 109s in the opening of the conflict (direct fuel injection, while the early Merlin is said to have the nasty tendency to set out in extreme manouvres). When we get to the Mk.II, the problem had been solved. However, the main difference was the kind of fighting: Dog fight versus bouncing, or hit and run. The Spitfire could to the end of the war outturn anything the Germans put up, but when the German tactics relied on hit and run, the 109 (not to say the later FW 190) was better adapted. This difference shows in the beginning of the BoB, but when Göring foolishly demanded close support for the bombers, the German advantage was a thing of the past. They simply now used the wrong fighter for the wrong tactics. (Maybe the greatest advantage of the Spitfire was that the squadrons were not commanded by Göring).

But then: The Mk.I matched by the Bf 109e, the Mk.II by the Bf 109f, the Mk. V left the Bf 109f behind, but got the FW 190, which was again matched by the Mk.IX, and then the Spit left the German piston engined planes behind, when RAF introduced the Mk.XIV and the Tempest.

As to the Mustang, In one of Ventura's American Spitfire books, the authors quotes American pilots forced to change to the Mustang: Maybe the Mustang is the Best American fighter, but the Spitfire is simple the best fighter. The anecdote about the FM 190 instructor's briefing his students is also good: If you look to the side and see that you are flying together with a Mustang, be calm, you are in good company, but if it is a Spitfire, then get the hell away as fast as possible.

Then there are several official comparisons between the diffrent marks and their German opponents. For the early comparisons what is evident is the difference in tactics lying behind, for the Mk.XIV, goodbye to the Bf 109.

There is also a reason behind the Germans providing a Spitfire with a Daimler-Benz motor. They wanted to see what would happen, of the Spitfire had something similar to the German engine. They were soon to find out.