Any rumours of a Griffon?

[GP*]

An XIV would be an instant buy from me. I’m also a fan of the clipped wings — would be great as a modification.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Part of the issue was probably the relative unreliability of the Griffons compared to the Merlins and the demand of Bomber Command for vast numbers of engines for the heavy bombers.

 

 

Bombers made virtually no claim on Griffons, as their use of the engine was a low priority (only the post-war Lincoln-developed Shackleton used them) while production of Merlins for other aircraft did not really reduce Griffon output, especially with the Packard sourcing. Indeed, RR managed to develop reliable very-high end Merlins (130 series) for use in the Hornet while continuing earlier (60 and 70 series) Merlin version production and developing Griffon and other engines.The Griffon was also not particularly unreliable - not more so than other new piston-engined aircraft (issues with the DB605 in 1942 come to mind). by Autumn '44 Griffons were at a low enough MTBF to be considered suitably reliable even by the relatively conservative RAF

 

Comparing a handful of TA-15s to 7 squadrons of XIVs is totally unrealistic.

Edited January 17, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[Dakpilot]

There were more Spitfire Mk XIV's than all  FW 190 D models by a fair margin

 

If anything the Griffon was more reliable than the merlin, being a slightly more modern design, incorporating better drive system for Cams magneto's and reduction gear and improved crankshaft design, with better and more reliable lubrication for main and big end bearings.

 

By 1944 it was a fairly well sorted engine having been developed for Naval aviation in the Firefly from 1941, there were some issues when testing for running at 25 lbs boost later (45?)  but that is rather irrelevant

 

Or perhaps I am just being naive and believing propaganda, I am no expert on Rolls Royce griffon 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[EAF19_Marsh]

By 1944 it was a fairly well sorted engine having been developed for Naval aviation in the Firefly from 1941, there were some issues when testing for running at 25 lbs boost later (45?)  but that is rather irrelevant

 

Or perhaps I am just being naive and believing propaganda, I am no expert on Rolls Royce griffon

 

 

In summary it was not particularly unreliable (similar enough to Merlin, better than Napier-Sabre). If we have the Merlin 66 / 266 and the Griffon, there should be little to choose between them in terms of reliability.

[Kurfurst]

What do bomber engines have to do with whether Griffon engined Spitfires flew over Germany? The British bigh three (Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling) all didn't use Griffons, and at that point in the war resources weren't really a bottleneck for the British anymore.

 

On the contrary, there were entire squadrons worth of Griffon Spitfires out and about, and they were even being uprated to +21 lb/in². Do you really think an engine design suffering from teething issues with its reliability would be uprated when your squadrons are already winning? Nope. They did that because by late '44 and into '45, all these initial issues had been either fixed or mitigated to such a degree that they weren't causing problems anymore.

 

As for bomber engines, see below. RR factories produced both Griffons and Merlins, they were competing each other for factory floor space and Merlins were in absolutely high demand by Bomber Command.

 

I would like to see evidence that the issues were 'fixed', if ever, I would like to see the evidence. What was, in your sources for example, the average time between overhaul for the Griffon 65 in service?

 

You can hardly make that claim, certainly not as a comparison between the in-service numbers of the Griffon Spitfire (introduced 1943) and the Ta 152 (introduced 1945).

The Spitfire mk XIV is basically the one everyone thinks about when they hear 'Griffon Spitfire', and it was the most numerous with about 970 produced, making up the mainstay of the 2nd Tactical Air Force's fighter strength. The mk XII was a transitional variant with around 100 examples and there was a Griffon-powered photorecon version, the PR mk XIX of which there were 225. I'd be keen to see a PR XIX in the sim as well.

In addition to all this, there was the Seafire XV (390) and XVII (200 or so) which both saw service during the war and I would like to see these included in BoX as well someday.

 

I can't find a figure for the total production of all Ta 152 variants, but as Dakpilot points out in his post above there were never more than 15 in service at any point.

 

Not that I wouldn't enjoy getting to see the Ta 152, but the Griffon-engined Spitfire was hardly rare or introduced slowly.

 

Further, the Griffon engine wasn't known for being particularly unreliable. It was known for producing most power below 20,000ft, but ''tis is because it was designed to a Royal Navy specification for a low-altitude high-power engine, as FAA fighters had no need to operate above that height.

Interestingly part of the requirement was for something reliable and easy to maintain.

 

The majority of Bomber Command's force including Lancasters, Halifaxes and Mosquitoes used Merlins, so it's not like there was a shortage of Griffons that were earmarked for the bomber campaign either, unless I misunderstood your last comment.

 

Spitfire XIVs were not introduced in 1943. The first squadron received but a handful in first days of 1944, and deliveries were so slow they were not declared fully equipped and operational until about March 1944. 

 

The claim is that Ta 152s were rare indeed, but that does not make the Griffon Spits particularly common either, since they were produced and deployed very slowly.

 

Neither XIVs made up the bulk of the 2nd TAF's strenght - there were about 35 Spitfire squadrons in there, 5 being XIV fighters, the rest being Merlin-engined IX/XVIs. 

 

When you check the actual numbers, the XIV was far from being the most numerous, at least during the war and certainly not up to Bodenplatte, by which time a mere 341 were produced and about a third of that made it into actual Squadron service. Now Ta 152 production was even less (the plane was still in development), but cc 300 aircraft in one year is a very tiny number when you look at the production rate of other late war aircraft. Monthly production did not reach even a hundred per month by February 1945, by which time the war was largely over.

 

Mark XIVs Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month

 

1943 : 18 18

01-44 : 30 12

02-44 : 45 15

03-44 : 50 05

04-44 : 56 06

05-44 : 68 12

06-44 : 101 33

07-44 : 129 28

08-44 : 151 22

09-44 : 185 34

10-44 : 245 60

11-44 : 300 55

12-44 : 341 41

01-45 : 399 58

02-45 : 511 112

03-45 : 648 137

04-45 : 743 95

05-45 : 815 72

06-45 : 844 29

07-45 : 873 29

08-45 : 891 18

09-45 : 898 7

10-45 : 904 6

11-45 : 911 7 

 

As for how rare the

 

As far as XIVs go, and how slowly they were deployed..As of 18th May 1944, Spitfires with Sqn's:

 

MkV 531

MKVII 62

MK VIII 209

MK IX 996

Mk XII 22

MK XIV 61.

 

Now as of the XIVs in total as of 14 December 1944, there were 120 in operationally fit Sqns. This also include Squadron reserves as the RAF practice was to have 20-22 aircraft per Squadron, but only 12 flying at the time, the rest were spares. That basically gives you about 6 Squadrons with 20 planes present in each, but only about 72 actually flying of these in the best case.

 

There were 5 fighter squadrons and a further 2 recce squadrons flying Spitfire XIVs on 1 January 1945 in the battle area covered by Operation Bodenplatte. Hardly an insignificant number.

 

I would say that that 5 fighter squadrons (essentially a single Wing, or a single Gruppe in German terms) plus a handful is not very significant at all in the bigger picture.

 

Bombers made virtually no claim on Griffons, as their use of the engine was a low priority (only the post-war Lincoln-developed Shackleton used them) while production of Merlins for other aircraft did not really reduce Griffon output, especially with the Packard sourcing. Indeed, RR managed to develop reliable very-high end Merlins (130 series) for use in the Hornet while continuing earlier (60 and 70 series) Merlin version production and developing Griffon and other engines.The Griffon was also not particularly unreliable - not more so than other new piston-engined aircraft (issues with the DB605 in 1942 come to mind). by Autumn '44 Griffons were at a low enough MTBF to be considered suitably reliable even by the relatively conservative RAF

 

Comparing a handful of TA-15s to 7 squadrons of XIVs is totally unrealistic.

 

Yes I know Griffons were not used in bombers at the time, but Merlins were, and both engines were made by RR which either produced Merlins, which were in high demand, or set up new assemblies for Griffons, which were far less of a priority for the RAF. Bombers however made serious claim on RR engines, and RR could choose to manufacture Merlins for the bombers (4 for each of them, plus the spares for no less than about 1500 heavies BC had by this time, plus light bombers). Production of Merlins got priority.

 

And as for the Griffons reliability, it certainly wasn't very reliable, especially compared to the Merlins, but if you have actual figures I'd love to see them. From what I gather, even in post war trials in 1947 by which time even additional improvements could be made to the design the Griffon wasn't getting past much than 40-60 hours before failure. FYI that is about 1/3 to 1/2 the USAAF recorded during the war for their Packard Merlins.

 

 

There were more Spitfire Mk XIV's than all  FW 190 D models by a fair margin

 

If anything the Griffon was more reliable than the merlin, being a slightly more modern design, incorporating better drive system for Cams magneto's and reduction gear and improved crankshaft design, with better and more reliable lubrication for main and big end bearings.

 

By 1944 it was a fairly well sorted engine having been developed for Naval aviation in the Firefly from 1941, there were some issues when testing for running at 25 lbs boost later (45?)  but that is rather irrelevant

 

Or perhaps I am just being naive and believing propaganda, I am no expert on Rolls Royce griffon 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

And as for the claims about the Griffons supposed reliability, its all well and nice but nothing backs that up. Quite the contrary. Post war trials in 1947 in Canada showed the Griffon 65 engines were failing after 61 and 40 hours of operation, and its always the bearings to be blamed. The same problem with bearings are reported in WW2 as well. Thats not particularly bad though, about avarage of what the late war high-powered engines were capable of.

 

 

As for the numbers of XIVs. In fact there were far less Spitfire XIVs than Fw 190D (or K-4s or G-10s for that matter) models by fair margin, either in production or either in operation and that is not up to debate. Its a historical fact.

 

The number of XIVs in operational RAF Squadrons was 120 (12 aircraft + reserves for 20-22 aircraft in total per Squadron) as of 14 December 1944.

 

To give some comparison about the relative 'rarity' of the aircraft, LW fighter strenght with 1st line day fighter units, on 1st December 1944 was, per model:

 

109G-6 101 pcs     

109G-6/U2 2 pcs

109G-6/U4 43 pcs

109G-14 649 pcs

109G-14/AS 249 pcs

109G-14/U2 15 pcs

109G-14/U4 66 pcs.

109G-10 124

109G-10/U4 none

109K-4 198 pcs

190 A-2 through A-7 36 pcs

190 A-8 585 pcs

190 A-8/R2 75 pcs

190 A-8/R6 74 pcs

190 A-9 73 pcs

190 A-9/R6 2 pcs

190 A-9/R11 15 pcs

190 D-9 124 pcs

 

As of LW fighter strenght with 1st line day fighter units, on 31 December 1944, little have changed - older models were phased out (-), newer models were getting more numerous (+), particularly the D-9:

 

109G-6 91 pcs     -

109G-6/U2 1 pcs -

109G-6/U4 13 pcs - 

109G-14 298 pcs - -

109G-14/AS 184 pcs -

109G-14/U2 10 pcs -

109G-14/U4 101 pcs. +

109G-10 121 pcs

109G-10/U4 4 pcs +

109K-4 159 pcs - 

190 A-2 through A-7 23 pcs -

190 A-8 461 pcs - 

190 A-8/R2 28 pcs - 

190 A-8/R6 16 pcs -

190 A-8/R11 0 pcs - 

190 A-9 35 pcs -

190 A-9/R6 none - 

190 A-9/R11 28 pcs +

190 D-9 238 pcs ++

 

Now, as for the supposedly "ultra rare" Me 262. The number reported on strenght in day fighter and KG units (did not check the rest), as of 1st December 1944 (all Me 262 versions)

 

23 Me 262s reported on strenght by III / EJG 2.

14 Me 262s reported on strenght by III / JG 7.

 

1 Me 262 reported on strenght by Stab / KG 51.

47 Me 262s reported on strenght by I / KG 51.

36 Me 262s reported on strenght by II / KG 51.

16 Me 262s reported on strenght by IV / KG 51.

 

2 Me 262s reported on strenght by Stab / KG 54.

16 Me 262s reported on strenght by I / KG 54.

3 Me 262s reported on strenght by III / KG 54.

 

Grand total of 158 Me 262s on strenght on 1st December 1944... i.e. there were more 262s around than Griffon Spitfires.

Edited January 17, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Panthera]

Perhaps there were more of said German aircraft around, but the main difference was that ALL the serviceable Spitfires available could be flown at any time the weather permitted, where'as the German aircraft were severely restricted due to fuel shortages. Thus it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 120 or so Spitfire XIV around by Dec 1944 actually flew more than the 158 Me262's available at that time. 

 

As such I see aboslutely no reason not to include the Spitfire XIV, infact I think it a necessity that it is included at least on a few maps.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

*snip* 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the numbers of XIVs. In fact there were far less Spitfire XIVs than Fw 190D  models by fair margin, either in production or either in operation and that is not up to debate. 

 

 

 

Your own figures do not even back up that statement.

 

This rambling mostly irrelevant wall of opinion/info does not change the fact that there were more Spitfire Mk XIV produced than FW-190 D at any time

 

I don't consider the Dora as a rare aircraft and neither is the Spitfire Mk XlV

 

The 'supposed' reliability of Griffon was proved by it's Naval use on Seafire, Firefly and Barracuda, let alone it's continued production until '55 and further as a maritime engine

 

Although you may feel you have not seen enough evidence to back this up... anyone would think you are a Lawyer trying to win points over an ignorant and uninformed jury

 

Next you will be telling us that the P-51 with Packard Merlin was unreliable because of lack of evidence to the contrary

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Kurfurst]

Your own figures do not even back up that statement.

 

This rambling mostly irrelevant wall of opinion/info does not change the fact that there were more Spitfire Mk XIV produced than FW-190 D at any time

 

I don't consider the Dora as a rare aircraft and neither is the Spitfire Mk XlV

 

The 'supposed' reliability of Griffon was proved by it's Naval use on Seafire, Firefly and Barracuda, let alone it's continued production until '55 and further as a maritime engine

 

Although you may feel you have not seen enough evidence to back this up... anyone would think you are a Lawyer trying to win points over an ignorant and uninformed jury

 

Next you will be telling us that the P-51 with Packard Merlin was unreliable because of lack of evidence to the contrary

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Pathetic.

[Kurfurst]

Perhaps there were more of said German aircraft around, but the main difference was that ALL the serviceable Spitfires available could be flown at any time the weather permitted, where'as the German aircraft were severely restricted due to fuel shortages. Thus it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 120 or so Spitfire XIV around by Dec 1944 actually flew more than the 158 Me262's available at that time. 

 

As such I see aboslutely no reason not to include the Spitfire XIV, infact I think it a necessity that it is included at least on a few maps.

 

262s were not particulalry restricted, as J2 jet fuel was quite available compared to normal avgas, hence why most units were to switch to jet units in April 1945. But I get your point, there is probably not very significant difference in employement, and I certainly cannot be bothered with researching daily sortie rates. At any rate, I think the strenght numbers solidly put the rest those arguements we hear quite often from Allied playerbase 'why there is 262/190, it was so rare'. The short answer is that it wasn't.

 

Now as for the XIV, I do hope to see it one day as a collective (along with the Typhoon, because its really iconic for the 2nd TAF), but I do get the Dev's choice to model the IXs intstead - not only it was far more common in the 2nd TAF, its also much easier to model it (since it was more or less a re-engined Mark V that we already have) and research info for it. There is probably less info on the XIV. Research costs can be quite staggering, so Devs often chose this path.

[Dakpilot]

Pathetic.

 

Your own figures you post put 400 produced MkXIV at time of Bodenplatte this is more than FW 190 D

 

neither are 'rare' aircraft which ever way you want to spin it

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

Kurfurst/Issigrim has been a historical revisionist since the early days of the original IL2.

 

Trusting his charts and figures is walking on thin ice, at best.  

[Royal_Flight]

As for bomber engines, see below. RR factories produced both Griffons and Merlins, they were competing each other for factory floor space and Merlins were in absolutely high demand by Bomber Command.

 

This is a bit of a red herring. Rolls-Royce produced engines at a number of 'shadow factories' around the UK so by the time the Griffon was being produced in numbers the Merlin was already being produced in volume anyway. The two engines never 'competed' or got in the way of each other, the only time that they came close was during the development of the Griffon in 1940 when it was deemed more important to concentrate on producing an existing design than trial a new one, but by 1944 this had long since ceased to be an issue.

One could also argue that putting Griffons in Seafires and Spitfires, and with the Griffon-powered Firefly replacing the Merlin-powered Fulmar on deck then those Merlins were freed up for use of bombers anyway (the Lancaster being the biggest user of Merlins in the war).

 

 

Spitfire XIVs were not introduced in 1943. The first squadron received but a handful in first days of 1944, and deliveries were so slow they were not declared fully equipped and operational until about March 1944. 

 

 

Spitfire my XIVs were indeed introduced in 1943. First production version finished by October and first examples were delivered and entered squadron service in December.

We can talk about when the squadron declared itself operational if you want to move the goalposts (it would rather set the scene for your other arguments where the goalposts start flying in all directions) but even still, March 1944 still occurs earlier on the calendar than January 1945.

 

The claim is that Ta 152s were rare indeed, but that does not make the Griffon Spits particularly common either, since they were produced and deployed very slowly.

 

This can't be your intended point, right? If it is, it's weak as piss.

The extreme rarity of the Ta 152 doesn't relate to how common or otherwise the Griffon Spitfires are, because these two things are unrelated. The only way the Ta 152 numbers have any impact on numbers of the Griffon Spit is by way of comparison to show how much more common the latter is by any conceivable metric than the former.

 

Neither XIVs made up the bulk of the 2nd TAF's strenght - there were about 35 Spitfire squadrons in there, 5 being XIV fighters, the rest being Merlin-engined IX/XVIs. 

 

When you check the actual numbers, the XIV was far from being the most numerous, at least during the war and certainly not up to Bodenplatte, by which time a mere 341 were produced and about a third of that made it into actual Squadron service. Now Ta 152 production was even less (the plane was still in development), but cc 300 aircraft in one year is a very tiny number when you look at the production rate of other late war aircraft. Monthly production did not reach even a hundred per month by February 1945, by which time the war was largely over.

 

 

Sorry, I should have clarified - I was referring to the number of Griffon Spitfires. Of the Griffon-powered variants, the mk XIV was the most common variant. All the Seafire/Spitfire models I mentioned were all th Griffon examples produced during the war, so I'll accept I should have been mor clear on that.

However, as you point out yourself, the war was basically over by Feb 1945, by which point the air superiority gained by 1944 had given way to full-blown air supremacy. Most Allied pilots never saw the Luftwaffe and Allied losses were dwindling. Airframes in service thus did not need replacing and there was little obvious point in continuing to churn out fighters at a high rate when it was likely they wouldn't be needed.

So those numbers alone do not paint the full picture.

 

 

Now as of the XIVs in total as of 14 December 1944, there were 120 in operationally fit Sqns. This also include Squadron reserves as the RAF practice was to have 20-22 aircraft per Squadron, but only 12 flying at the time, the rest were spares. That basically gives you about 6 Squadrons with 20 planes present in each, but only about 72 actually flying of these in the best case.

 

 

 

I would say that that 5 fighter squadrons (essentially a single Wing, or a single Gruppe in German terms) plus a handful is not very significant at all in the bigger picture.

 

 

That is still 72 flying out of 120 flyable examples. Whether they were being used on ops or sitting around waiting to be used on ops is irrelevant, and regardless both are still higher numbers than fifteen.

 

And five fighter squadrons (I've found sources saying six) is insignificant compared to the bigger picture of the whole ETO, but when those squadrons are active with the 2nd Tactical Air Force in the area of operations we are discussing then the fact that there are five of them there becomes more relevant.

 

 

Yes I know Griffons were not used in bombers at the time, but Merlins were, and both engines were made by RR which either produced Merlins, which were in high demand, or set up new assemblies for Griffons, which were far less of a priority for the RAF. Bombers however made serious claim on RR engines, and RR could choose to manufacture Merlins for the bombers (4 for each of them, plus the spares for no less than about 1500 heavies BC had by this time, plus light bombers). Production of Merlins got priority.

 

And as for the Griffons reliability, it certainly wasn't very reliable, especially compared to the Merlins, but if you have actual figures I'd love to see them. From what I gather, even in post war trials in 1947 by which time even additional improvements could be made to the design the Griffon wasn't getting past much than 40-60 hours before failure. FYI that is about 1/3 to 1/2 the USAAF recorded during the war for their Packard Merlins.

 

 

As mentioned above, the two engines were produced separately and not in competition for resources, space or time. Merlins were a priority to the overall war effort, but this did not come at the expense of Griffons, or vice versa.

The manufacturing and economic conditions were very different in the U.K. to Germany in 1944.

 

In addition, you're citing post-war test flights using high-octane fuel at high levels of boost and claiming this is representative, while comparing this unfavourably to average use of other piston engines in use at the time.

This is disingenuous.

 

 

 

And as for the claims about the Griffons supposed reliability, its all well and nice but nothing backs that up. Quite the contrary. Post war trials in 1947 in Canada showed the Griffon 65 engines were failing after 61 and 40 hours of operation, and its always the bearings to be blamed. The same problem with bearings are reported in WW2 as well. Thats not particularly bad though, about avarage of what the late war high-powered engines were capable of.

 

 

So by your own admission it's not particularly bad, and no worse than other engines of similar performance and timeframe.

It seemed like it was a problem a while ago.

 

Grand total of 158 Me 262s on strenght on 1st December 1944... i.e. there were more 262s around than Griffon Spitfires.

Well we are getting a 262 in BoBo.

So maybe if plane choices are made on the basis of numbers in service, we're still closer to a mk XIV than a Ta 152 to begin with.

 

Pathetic.

  

 

This isn't an argument.

 

262s were not particulalry restricted, as J2 jet fuel was quite available compared to normal avgas, hence why most units were to switch to jet units in April 1945. But I get your point, there is probably not very significant difference in employement, and I certainly cannot be bothered with researching daily sortie rates. At any rate, I think the strenght numbers solidly put the rest those arguements we hear quite often from Allied playerbase 'why there is 262/190, it was so rare'. The short answer is that it wasn't.

 

Now as for the XIV, I do hope to see it one day as a collective (along with the Typhoon, because its really iconic for the 2nd TAF), but I do get the Dev's choice to model the IXs intstead - not only it was far more common in the 2nd TAF, its also much easier to model it (since it was more or less a re-engined Mark V that we already have) and research info for it. There is probably less info on the XIV. Research costs can be quite staggering, so Devs often chose this path.

The only comments I've heard from the 'Allied' playerbase regarding the Me 262 is how jet combat will work and arguments that it shouldn't be included because of fears it will dominate.

Which may or may not be the case but I haven't come across people arguing against it because it was too rare for inclusion.

Certainly never the Fw 190, two examples of which are already in the game anyway with another two on the way.

 

I agree that I would like to see the XIV, of course. And I do understand why we're getting the mk IX first. But I disagree with some of your other peripheral points and inferences.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Arguing over justifying the Mk XIV on production numbers alone is silly. Had the Western Allies still been struggling for air supremacy from a resurgent Luftwaffe by late 44 different choices and different priorities would have been considered. No doubt one of those considerations would have been larger numbers of superior cutting edge aircraft. That wasn't however, the case. The Luftwaffe was a spent force both in numerical terms but also qualitively when it came to pilot training and experience, Allied aircraft didn't spend their time hunting down the Luftwaffe, they prioritized interdiction and beating up targets of opportunity, not something that requires bleeding edge fighter technology. The Luftwaffe wasn't taken on Mano a Mano, pitting the best against the best, it was swamped, overpowered and surprised when most vulnerable.

 

None of these conditions will apply to Bobp with regard to Allied air supremacy, numbers and experience will be far more evenly matched. The IX is an awesome machine but by 45 it isn't the fighter champion it was a year previously, to have a pretty girl in a fancy frock is a bit pointless if all she has to do is clump around in wellies squelching through the mud.

[Panthera]

I just want this please:

 

[Herne]

^ gorgeous ! would love to take it for a spin

[EAF19_Marsh]

I would say that that 5 fighter squadrons (essentially a single Wing, or a single Gruppe in German terms) plus a handful is not very significant at all in the bigger picture.

 

 

An RAF squadron in 1944-45 was not 12 aircraft, it was 18-24. So you would have 100- 120 examples (plus another 30 - 40 in the Tac/R units), which is closer to an average Geschwader equivalent, not a Gruppe (even taking into account JG 3 being 4 x staffeln, 4 x Gruppen). If a Geschwader of -152s were available, then there would be strong evidence to include the aircraft. But there were less than 20 under the most optimistic assessment.

 

Also, since RR factories were not being bombed around the clock, working with a collapsing supply chain and manned by slaves, their ability to turn out both Merlins and Griffens was relatively unimpaired, especially given Packard's assistance.

 

Your 262 unit claims for 1/12/44 look pretty high, much more so than the JG7 / Price books I have on the subject. I notice you subtract 'spares' [sic] for the RAF but not the Luftwaffe, so RAF squadrons (offering nominally 16 a/c for operations on a given day) are downgraded even though that is technically incorrect, but Luftwaffe units apparently have all their aircraft in the first line and available? Sounds a bit like biased assessment or frankly untrue. Also, the majority are KG units, so the likelihood of their being at strength and operational in December '44 is a little less than certain given they were reforming from very different aircraft types, not continuing with the same aircraft as had the XIV pilots that they had been using the aircraft for 6 - 9 months.

Edited January 17, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[unreasonable]

83 and 84 Group (less one wing) 31 Dec 1944

 

Spitfire Squadrons excl recce:  

 

Mk IX           17

Mk XIV          6

Mk XVI          4

Mixed IX-XVI 1

 

source Manro-Putz "Bodenplatte"

 

I think Jason's choice is right, irrespective of the data issue. But in the context of RAF tactical air operations the Mk XIV was certainly not rare. Personally, if I had to choose in the game between getting  Typhoon and the Mk XIV I would go for the Typhoon, since a plane set without a proper ground attack option is like a meal without wine.  Having both obviously better.

 

 

^ gorgeous ! would love to take it for a spin

 

So would I: but I always thought that while the Mk I looked like a graceful debutante, the Mk XIV looks like her country cousin who has come to town and works as a hooker.  Both sexy, but in a very different way....

[EAF19_Marsh]

So would I: but I always thought that while the Mk I looked like a graceful debutante, the Mk XIV looks like her country cousin who has come to town and works as a hooker.  Both sexy, but in a very different way....

 

 

How very dare you?

[Tomsk]

So would I: but I always thought that while the Mk I looked like a graceful debutante, the Mk XIV looks like her country cousin who has come to town and works as a hooker.

I know which of those two would be more fun ...

[=X51=VC_]

I can agree with that, the Mk.I is pretty in an almost "cute" way. The Mk.XIV is possibly less "pretty" but more whiplash-wow! *wolf-whistle*

 

Anyway, if I must be really fussy on looks I would say full wings suit the high-back version better. I'm not sure of the timing of bubble-top introduction but I'm thinking if we do get one of these a high-back is more likely.

[unreasonable]

Bubble top version entered service Feb 1945, according to  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

So standard version much more representative and the only type around during the actual BoBd.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Arguing over justifying the Mk XIV on production numbers alone is silly. Had the Western Allies still been struggling for air supremacy from a resurgent Luftwaffe by late 44 different choices and different priorities would have been considered. No doubt one of those considerations would have been larger numbers of superior cutting edge aircraft. That wasn't however, the case. The Luftwaffe was a spent force both in numerical terms but also qualitively when it came to pilot training and experience, Allied aircraft didn't spend their time hunting down the Luftwaffe, they prioritized interdiction and beating up targets of opportunity, not something that requires bleeding edge fighter technology. The Luftwaffe wasn't taken on Mano a Mano, pitting the best against the best, it was swamped, overpowered and surprised when most vulnerable.

 

None of these conditions will apply to Bobp with regard to Allied air supremacy, numbers and experience will be far more evenly matched. The IX is an awesome machine but by 45 it isn't the fighter champion it was a year previously, to have a pretty girl in a fancy frock is a bit pointless if all she has to do is clump around in wellies squelching through the mud.

 

The above makes very good points, and ones that are often missed in these discussions.

 

The fact is that the very nature of a late war flight sim theatre creates an historically inaccurate situation, as the sim must naturally ignore all the historical factors which underpinned almost everything about the air war at that time in order to ensure a fun experience for everyone involved. After all, it wouldn't be much fun if a 10 to 1 numerical superiority for the allies was enforced, or LW fuel restrictions enforced, or allies were allowed to air spawn in the air near LW airfields to simulate the complete air dominance they enjoyed.

 

Given this, to rely heavily on real aircraft production and deployment data in order to back up your "should X be available in BoBp" arguments is very tenuous indeed... since this data is completely dependent on historical factors that will never exist in the sim.

 

For example, as stated above, if the LW posed an actual serious threat to the allies by 1945, you can be absolutely certain that we'd have seen more griffon spits in the theatre at the time, and the fact that they were relatively rare is because the allies did not need it urgently anymore. The Spit IX was more than sufficient to maintain complete air superiority, and sheer numbers and logistics alone made the superior capabilities of the Dora and Kurfurst mostly meaningless... but neither of those factors will be included in the simulation.

[CUJO_1970]

The fact is that the very nature of a late war flight sim theatre creates an historically inaccurate situation, as the sim must naturally ignore all the historical factors which underpinned almost everything about the air war at that time in order to ensure a fun experience for everyone involved.

 

This is exactly what is already going on in the sim.

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree, but it is not limited to late-war scenarios.

I think the sim will be successful enough that eventually an XIV will be added.

 

More importantly though, a Mosquito!

[Royal_Flight]

More importantly though, a Mosquito!

More importantly, yes.

[CIA_Yankee_]

This is exactly what is already going on in the sim.

 

True enough. Hence why I won't winge too much when I see La-5s or Macchi in a date range or theatre that doesn't make great sense.

 

Heck, if we were trying to simulate actual theatre conditions, only newbies would be allowed to fly for the VVS, and all 90% of skilled pilots would be required to fly LW. Not to mention suicidal untrained Shturmovik attacks would be the norm.

[unreasonable]

True enough. Hence why I won't winge too much when I see La-5s or Macchi in a date range or theatre that doesn't make great sense.

 

Heck, if we were trying to simulate actual theatre conditions, only newbies would be allowed to fly for the VVS, and all 90% of skilled pilots would be required to fly LW. Not to mention suicidal untrained Shturmovik attacks would be the norm.

 

Indeed - and in the BoBd maps, 90% of skilled pilots would be required to play allied.

 

On the realism point, I tend to use the criterion not whether something did happen, but whether it could have happened. So Fw190s over Stalingrad would not fit in a campaign following the historical course of the battle, but are fine in an alternative history scenario, since the GAF could have deployed Fw190s there at the time instead of further north. Clearly some flexibility is required - we a simulating the possible experience of possible pilots, not replicating the actual experience of actual pilots.

[NZTyphoon]

Part of the issue was probably the relative unreliability of the Griffons compared to the Merlins and the demand of Bomber Command for vast numbers of engines for the heavy bombers. 

 I have collected many of the ORBs of the Spitfire XIV squadrons, and there are few instances where the Griffon 60s were cited as being a problem, even under the harsh conditions experienced by 2 TAF squadrons during the winter of 1944-45; eg:

 

402 Sqn ORB Feb 45.pdf

 

402 Sqn ORB Apr 45.pdf

 

In April's ORB, there are exactly 3 separate engine or engine related problems cited as a reason for an early return to base. Was the average DB 605D or Jumo 213A showing similar figures in the average 109G-10/K-4 or 190D-9 staffel?

 

What is also noticeable was the lack of opportunity to engage in combat with Luftwaffe fighters, partly because of the poor conditions, and partly because most Jagdwaffe units were on the Eastern front, fighting the Soviets. "Armed Reconnaissance" sorties, btw, were operations where the units concerned actively sought out enemy targets, mainly aircraft, well behind enemy lines, while "patrols" were mounted closer to base and along the front lines.

 

The main reason the Spitfire XIV wasn't introduced into service in larger numbers was simply because, by early 1944, Castle Bromwich was concentrating on building the Spitfire L.F Mk. IX for 2 TAF, while Supermarine's other, smaller factories were concentrating on building the Spitfire VIII for overseas service - including the RAAF - along with P.R XIs, H.F IXs etc. While the XIV was desirable for the European theatre, the priority was to supply 2 TAF with fighter - bombers suited to lower-level operations, for which purpose the Spitfire L.F Mk IX and Typhoons were available. For the ADGB, the Mustang III was already being used for bomber escort and medium to high level fighter ops, while the Tempest V became the low-medium altitude fighter.

 

Adding the Griffon and associated 5 bladed propeller to the supply chain, plus incorporating the structural changes needed to what was basically a Spitfire VIII airframe meant that of course the XIV would, initially, be slow entering service. In addition to the XIV, Supermarine was also building the P.R XIX, which entered service in May 1944. Also note that by mid-1944  the Spitfire XIV/ XIX and XVIII was already considered to be an "interim" model, because priority, and production line space was about to be given to the "definitive" Spitfire 20 series, with a new wing. Interestingly, Spitfire XIVs were already being delivered to the SEAC theatre, starting in December '44, January '45; 132 Sqn was the first to become operational in May.

 

The fact is that over 900 Spitfire XIVs, plus some 150 P.R Mk XIXs, were built before the end of the war, in spite of some initial difficulties and the priority given to late Merlin Spitfires, plus the advent of the Spitfire 21. Naturally, with the end of the war in both Europe and the Pacific, production orders were reduced.

 

Kurfurst often cites the post-war 80 series used in Avro Shackletons to show the Griffon was inherently unreliable: however, that unreliability was due to the reduction gearing to the contra-rotating propellers, not the engine itself. (see, for example Shackleton: Guardian of the Sea Lanes ) As for the Canadian data he claims to have, citing the Griffon 65s unreliability? Hopefully he will present such reports in context (ie: were the engines cited brand new, or were they older engines that might have seen a lot of service, including operational war service), just to clear the matter up.

Edited January 19, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[Panthera]

Are you guys still arguing over this? Christ....

[NZTyphoon]

I would say that that 5 fighter squadrons (essentially a single Wing, or a single Gruppe in German terms) plus a handful is not very significant at all in the bigger picture.

Actually, by December 1944, there were also two Tactical Recce units, namely 2 and 430(Canadian) Sqns equipped with F.R Mk. XIVs, as well as 41, 130, 350, 610 and 402(Canadian) sqns. Contrary to some opinions, these Tac R units were just as ready to engage in air-to-air combat as the fighter squadrons: to leave them out of Spitfire XIV strength returns is disingenuous.

[Dakpilot]

Are you guys still arguing over this? Christ....

 

No-one is arguing

 

People are pointing out some inaccuracies posted, and backing them up with correct factual info

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[EAF19_Marsh]

to leave them out of Spitfire XIV strength returns is disingenuous.

 

 

As is diminishing available aircraft by claiming 30% of squadron strength were merely were 'spares', while the Luftwaffe get 'all' of their fighters as operational.

 

If you wait long enough, a comment about Spitfire Mk. Vs will appear...

[Panthera]

No-one is arguing

 

People are pointing out some inaccuracies posted, and backing them up with correct factual info

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

-.-   Yeah, cause we all know the both parties involved are completely unbiased right? Sigh...

[Dakpilot]

-.-   Yeah, cause we all know the both parties involved are completely unbiased right? Sigh...

 

I guess it is not possible for correct information without being biased then ?

 

there do not have to be "two parties" just people who are interested in aviation...sigh

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Panthera]

I guess it is not possible for correct information without being biased then ?

 

there do not have to be "two parties" just people who are interested in aviation...sigh

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

I wish that was always the case...

[ShamrockOneFive]

Are you guys still arguing over this? Christ....

 

Have you ever belonged to a flight sim forum before?

 

This is bread and butter. We're not even at 24 pages of arguments yet.

[Dakpilot]

Have you ever belonged to a flight sim forum before?

 

This is bread and butter. We're not even at 24 pages of arguments yet.

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[MiloMorai]

Up to the end of Dec 1944 some 854 Bf109K-4s had been produced, yet there was only 167 available for Bodenplatte of which 91 were capable of operations. That is 3/4 of the operational Spit XIVs available for operations..

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Are you guys still arguing over this? Christ....

It's a WWII Forum. Fights here are fought until the Final Victory has been won and every Nest of Resistance extinguished. 

 

If you want Discussions that End abruptly when one Side is simlpy exhausted and the Self Declared Winners kick the Declared Looser in the Nuts just enough to humiliate them to the point of Revenge, well, you want a WWI Forum. 

[MiloMorai]

LW fighter strenght with 1st line day fighter units, on 1st December 1944 was, per model: 

109K-4 198 pcs

 

 

LW fighter strenght with 1st line day fighter units, on 31 December 1944, little have changed - older models were phased out (-), newer models were getting more numerous 

109K-4 159 pcs

 

Someone has a math problem.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Someone has a math problem.

 

Nothing new there.