Tactics for Cliffs of Dover.

[lane]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Steinhilper agrees with Wellum. The SpitfireII was to worry because the higher ceiling, not the SpitfireI.

Actually Steinhilper wrote (page 330 of my copy of his book): “The Me 109 E 4 was capable of reaching 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) with the Mk I Spitfire at a comparable 10,3363 (typo) metres(34,000 ft), but the new Mk IIs soared up to 11,340 metres (37,200 ft.) This gave a tactical advantage of 1,340 metres or 4,300 ft to the Spitfires.”

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

but it has not much BoB action in the book, he was shot down very early in the campaign.

My copy of Steinhilper’s book describes action during the Battle of Britain, especially concerning I/JG 52, in a loose diary form up to the date Steinhilper was shot down - 27 October 1940.

[Ernst]

By the way reds speak here BoB was a Turkey Shot where RAF massacrated the Luftwaffe. Poor ones the main reason RAF was not ripped from the sky was because a change in Strategy, withdrawing the pressure over the RAF, pilots and airfields to the useless bombings of London. BoB had no winners, luftwaffe just withdraw because the Operation Barbarossa was to begin. Luftwaffe crushed the RAF at Malta for two times and then withdraw because the fighters was needed in some other place. The things only changed when americans came with massive long range fighters.

[Ernst]

The USAAF with their massive fighters and heavy bombers crushed the luftwaffe in the West.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sven

You don't get the bigger picture, we plan our attack set up attack routes, we don't inform the enemy where we will be, and we don't know where they will be, the only thing the Allies get is an approximate attack grid which they received from the radar stations

I completely get that, sounds good. However, when doing that, the 109 pilots know that the best way to defend their bombers is to fly above them, not at the same altitude and speed, which is what did happen. And consequently, I imagine you guys will fly as you know you should, rather than as was done in the war. If you deliberately fly poor tactics, and lose, you'll get frustrated with it (poor tactics might be fine for the odd battle creation, but annoying if it's all you did).

Lets keep this civil.

I'm not attacking you at all.

Originally Posted by Ernst

By the way reds speak here BoB was a Turkey Shot where RAF massacrated the Luftwaffe.

Not at all, there are also comments like this that suggest the opposite:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

I expect the RAF to fly hugely outnumbered,in tight VIC formation (known to amused LW pilots as the 'Idioten reihe') and have a 'sitting duck' weaver flying around behind them...

Originally Posted by Ernst

Poor ones the main reason RAF was not ripped from the sky was because a change in Strategy, withdrawing the pressure over the RAF, pilots and airfields to the useless bombings of London.

Actually I think that's missinformation. How many airfields were ever out of action, and of those, how many for more than a day? I think the answer to the second question is none. The Germans under-estimated the RAF's resources, and the RAF were never actually close to losing the battle.

BoB had no winners, luftwaffe just withdraw because the Operation Barbarossa was to begin.

The RAF shot down a lot more planes and lost a lot less pilots, and prevented the Germans from invading. That was what they were supposed to do. The Germans were supposed to clear the way for an invasion, and they failed. Of course there was a winner. Suggesting that the Germans were just a bit too busy is school kid stuff - 'oh, we would win but can't be bothered'. The Germans were busy fighting on other fronts, but that's war.

Luftwaffe crushed the RAF at Malta for two times and then withdraw because the fighters was needed in some other place. The things only changed when americans came with massive long range fighters.

Firstly, what's Malta got to do with the Battle of Britain? Secondly, Malta was a long way from Britain and difficult to defend, and while Germany and Italy planned to take it (land invasion), they failed. How is that crushing the RAF? Again, needing their fighters elsewhere is part of the problem when they keep getting shot down. I assume you mention US fighters regarding the war in general, not in Malta.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by lane

Actually Steinhilper wrote (page 330 of my copy of his book): “The Me 109 E 4 was capable of reaching 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) with the Mk I Spitfire at a comparable 10,3363 (typo) metres(34,000 ft), but the new Mk IIs soared up to 11,340 metres (37,200 ft.) This gave a tactical advantage of 1,340 metres or 4,300 ft to the Spitfires.”

Checked! You're correct!