Jump to content

Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied and pasted

Because the Supermarine Spitfire page is getting over long and is missing some more essential information on its history and construction I have copied and pasted the entire section on its operational history to here. If the consensus is that this is a good move that section can then be taken out of the main page, leaving room for more about the aircraft in general.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would take out the speed and altitude records section and leave it in the main article. Doing a grand job with this. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but it is kind of relevant. Maybe get a second opinion? There's plenty of scope for this page which, right now is experimental.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose it could be left in both articles, not sure if that is accepted practise though. Plenty of people will dive in to iron out any wrinkles. Operational history to me is military service, speed and altitude records relate directly to the aircraft in a technical way. It is more an 'embryo' page than experimental, it will turn into a great article with time. Gotta go, late o'clock here. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Spitfires from other countries.

It would be good to have some photos of Spitfires used by other countries, if they are available. I have a reasonable selection stored on my computer, but I'm weary of using them until I can sort out the copyright.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)om

Expansion of lead section

Can I suggest that the lead summary section is expanded now to more than two lines now most of the information has been added. I believe four paragraphs is the recommended maximum amount of lead text. Good work in here. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead extended, not quite four paragraphs. Howzatt looking?Minorhistorian (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff. Looking at the last sentence I wondered if 'overview' would be better than 'introduction'? Is there a list of Spitfire squadrons anywhere? Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The list of Spitfire Squadrons?...er...List of Supermarine Spitfire operators.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kanelkrank and Schpitfeur

Kanelkrank is not a German word. "Channel sickness" would be translated "Kanalkrankheit". "Schpitfeur" is also not how a German would spell Spitfire, if anything that would be "Schpittfeier", but I'm pretty sure most German pilots were able to spell Spitfire just fine. How about a source for all these claims too?84.152.111.52 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I wasn't sure about the word for "Channel sickness" and I forgot to ask some German friends for a translation. That version was written in "The Hardest Day" by Dr Alfred Price. The phrase "Achtung Schpitfeur" is an old hackneyed phrase which could have come out of some of the old Commando comics of wa-ay back. From what I can gather this was something Sir Douglas Bader wrote; I prefer the version by Stephan Bungay in "The Most Dangerous Enemy"

The standard warning cry of 'Achtung, Indianer!' ('look out, bandits!') often became 'Achtung, Spitfire!' as approaching Hurricanes were spotted.

The text has been altered accordingly, as it has in Battle of Britain.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BF-110s.jpg

The image Image:BF-110s.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spitfires of the USSR

Next to the nice new photo from Minorhistorian, we have a weak bit about the historiography of how the West has begun to learn about VVS usage of the aircraft. Why do we need this? Let's just write what we know and credit Price and whoever else in the references? Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Report No. 117

The Bf 109 Gs tested from the 12 July incident have absolutely nothing to do with this report. The 109 in question was tested on 19 March 1944, three months before the U2 landed at Manston. Dapi89 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case it was Bf 109G-2/trop captured in considerably damaged state in the Western Desert in late 1942.
Also, the G-14 was not coming into operation until July 1944, G-10 not until October 1944. High altitude G-6/AS with MW injection however was operational since March/April 1944.Kurfürst

No it wasn't. I have read the flight history on this machine (Bf 109 "Black 6", which is at RAF Hendon, and a picture is available on my user page), this machine was not used during these tests. And no, it was not damaged. It was still flying in 1997, until some cretin panicked and overshot the airfield. - With regard to the latest variant issue: thank you for confirming my point. The G-6 series was indeed the latest variant at the time of testing. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now confirmed from the RAF Museum's aircraft history sheet for JG 77's 'Black Six' (RN 228 in British colours) was in fact the aircraft trialed against the XIV. It is a somewhat complicated matter, as basically two 109Gs, the aformentioned G-2/trop and the nightfighter G-6/U2 was used in all British tactical trials. The XIV was trialed later against the gunpod G-6, too (Report 147), hence the confusion. Kurfürst (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Your "citation" is inaccurate, and you have removed Delve's citation. Bf 109G-6s were indeed captured in 1943 (See [see here). Photos provided. You have no grounds for deleting "G-6" from the article. Unless you have proof the reports were wrong and G-6s were not involved. You have not done either. Using a citation from Price that makes a (false) sweeping generalisation about early 109s beng used is nowhere near good enough. You need evidence to prove that G-6s were not specifically used in this report. I have no wish to edit war again. So let's keep edits here until you specific proof. Dapi89 (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from every single single sentence being a quote and referenced which you reverted without any basis, try searching that same board for RN 228. As for the Price quote, dr. Alfred Price comments were directly related to that specific report no. 117, which he quotes in full in his book (with original text). Do you have the Price book? The report? The history of RN 228? I have them all, there is not the slightest doubt. Just to save you some work, a quote from RAF Museum which I referenced in my edit: 1943 Packed and despatched from North Africa to UK. Prepared for packing by station salvage section at RAF Kasfereet. Photo: `Black 6' p.173.

01 Nov 43 RAF serial number RN228 allotted at request of RAE. 26 Dec 43 Arrived crated at RAF Collyweston, Lincs for No.1426 Enemy Aircraft Flight. 27 Dec 43 Unpacked but propeller missing. Aircraft assembled using port wing from a second Bf109G. John `Lofty' Westwood, ex-Fitter IIA, No.1426 Flight remembered - `......when unpacked and laid out, was very untidy and damaged due to bad handling and crating in a unsuitable crate. The two 109s (the other damaged aircraft arrived the same day) were laid out and damaged and missing parts replaced by parts removed from the second aircraft'. 31 Jan 44 RAF movement and records formal allocation to No.1426 Flight. 05 Feb 44 Replacement propeller arrived from Farnborough. 08 Feb 44 Propeller fitted and engine given preliminary ground run and found to be serviceable. RAF Camouflage and serial number RN228 applied. Photos: Aeroplane Monthly Jul 91 p.395; `Black 6' p.141; Wingspan Nov 91 p.59; Augsberg Eagle (003477) p.84; The Me109 Nowerra (003654) p.82; Aircraft Illustrated Feb 70 p.49; Aircraft Illustrated Sep 71 p.357. 19 Feb 44 After delays due to bad weather initial air test performed by Flt Lt`Lew' Lewendon. 24 Feb 44 Trial flight against Hawker Tempest V JN737 of the Air Fighting Development Unit. Flight curtailed by problems with the '109 suffering carbon monoxide in the cockpit affecting the pilot, Lewendon. See letter from Tempest pilot Bob Zobell-Aeroplane Monthly Jan 84 p.13. Flying time 45 minutes, comparing turns, zoom and rate of roll. 25/28 Feb 44 Flown by Fg Off D G M (Doug) Gough on picture taking sorties in company with a Hudson. Photos probably taken at this time -Aviation News 30 Oct-12 Nov 87 p.547; Captive Luftwaffe (009336) p.97. See Gough logbook in DoRIS (X003-8805/002) 28 Feb 44 Lewendon flew a trial with the 109 against an AFDU Mustang III. Later that day Gough flew for Ministry of Aircraft Production photographs. © ROYAL AIR FORCE MUSEUM 2007 5 29 Feb 44 Lewendon flew a trial flight against an AFDU Spitfire XIV and made a further photographic sortie accompanied by a Hudson. On the same day, Gough flew combat trials against a Corsair in RN228 (30 minutes-see Gough logbook)

etc. Kurfürst (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about missing the point. Does any of the information say, in plain English, that G-6s were not involved in the flight testing of the 19 March 1944 which is evaluated in Report No. 117 in 1944? The web link doesn't even cover the testing of captured 109s in 1944! And yes, Delve does include the original text. Dapi89 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Full text of relevant text of Report No 117 tactical trials (109/190). Via Price`s book. It can be seen that Delve's citation of the report has taken some small liberties.

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Maximum Speeds 38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.

Maximum Climb 39. The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190 (BMW.801D) or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.

Dive 40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle 41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

Rate of Roll 42. The FW 190 is very much better.

Conclusion 43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G

Maximum speed 44. The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.

Maximum Climb 45. Same results. At 16,000 ft. indentical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV out-climbs the Me.109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without opening throttle. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the Me.109G quite easily.

Dive 46. During the initial part of the dive, the Me.109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 m.p.h. is reached, the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the Me.109G.

Turning Circle 47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction.

Rate of Roll 48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion 49. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Me.109G in every respect. Kurfürst (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we get into specifics, (some of which have been omitted above), I say again, where does Price say, specifically, that Bf 109 G-6s were not involved in the tests for no. 117 on 19 March 1944? He deosn't, deos he? Dapi89 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Price quotes Report No. 117 in full, but he does not claims G-6s were not involved. Immidiately after the report he notes that the 109 and 190 (which I believe was an A-4 but I cannot track down to exact machine) were older machines etc. However, I think RN 228's (=Black Six) history - which was noted as a reference to the plane tested being in fact a G-2/trp, not Price (so I do not understand why Price is mentioned in the first place) -is very clear in the matter.. not to mention that if you want to include in the edit that it was a G-6, it is you who have to prove it was one (burden of evidence), not everybody else that it was not... ;) If you read all the above, it becomes quite clear that in this report, it was RN 228. The dates match etc. Kurfürst (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. And the "dates" do not "match". There is absolutely no mention of the 19 March. And the web source mentions testing of the G-2/ trop in 1943 only. !!!!!!!It doesn't even mention anything about 1944. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

19 March 1944 is the date the *report* (No 117) is dated, ie. when it was finished. Flight testing, naturally, took place earlier. To quote Report No 117
In accordance with instructions from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., tactical trials have been completed on Spitfire XIV. Aircraft No. RB.141 was delivered to this Unit on 28.1.44 for comparative trials with the Tempest V. It was discovered that this aircraft was not representative of production aircraft for Squadrons, and Spitfire XIV No. RB.179 was made available and delivered on 25.2.44. The operational weight with full fuel and ammunition is 8,400 lbs. To give a clear picture to the greatest number, the Spitfire IX (maximum engine settings +18 lbs boost, 3,000 revs) has been chosen for full comparison, and not the Spitfire XII which is a low altitude aircraft built only in small numbers. Tactical comparisons have been made with the Tempest V and Mustang III, and combat trials have been carried out against the FW 190 (BMW 801D) and Me 109G.
Let us recall G-2/trop Black Six history quoted earlier: 29 Feb 44 Lewendon flew a trial flight against an AFDU Spitfire XIV and made a further photographic sortie accompanied by a Hudson. On the same day, Gough flew combat trials against a Corsair in RN228 (30 minutes-see Gough logbook)
25 February RB 179 Spitfire XIV arrives to AFDU. Then on 29 February 1944 the G-2trop/BlackSix/RN228 is tested against a XIV at AFDU. Report No 117 is finalized on 19 March 1944..
Nope, the web transcript of the G-2/trop is only one of the tests RN 228 went through. This one deals with the first ones done in 42/43. It underwent about a dozen different other flight tests, all detailed in the RAF Museum's service history of RN228/Black6.
Nope it does not. It mentions the conditions of the G-2/trop that was used in the 1944 trials (Report 117) when it was originally captured in November 1942, near Tobruk.

Besides what is your source exactly that to that it was a G-6, if I may ask? Kurfürst (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW more details of RN 228 history via RAF Museum paper:

29 Feb 44 Lewendon flew a trial flight against an AFDU Spitfire XIV and made a further photographic sortie accompanied by a Hudson. On the same day, Gough flew combat trials against a Corsair in RN228 (30 minutes-see Gough logbook). 01 Mar 44 Gough flew against a NAFDU Seafire III in the morning (25 minutes) and a Corsair in the afternoon (One hour)-see Gough logbook. 02 Mar 44 Flown for first time by Fg Off Jack Staples. Afterwards Lewendon took off for a trial flight against a Tempest which failed to appear. 07 Mar 44 Staples flew a trial against a NAFDU Hellcat. 12 Mar 44 Unserviceable because of a faulty ignition harness, which was removed. 16&21 Mar 44 Air tests by Lewendon. 22 Mar 44 Fg Off Lewis-Watts flew RN228 for the first time but bent one prop blade tip on take-off whilst trying to avoid an Airspeed Oxford. Sgt Dowie started to crop the propeller tips in order to even up the blades. 23 Mar 44 Repairs complete - air tested. In the afternoon No.1426 Flight began a new tour - its twelfth - with Lewendon flying RN228 accompanied by a Fw190A4, and Bf110C-5, escorted into Hullavington by two Spitfires from Colerne, then displayed to a large crowd. Photo around this time – War Prizes - The Album p.62. Kurfürst (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, stop splitting my comments up, it is not the done thing, and it makes threads difficult to follow. All you have done is to copy and paste information in a desperate attempt to prove that no G-6 took part in these trials. You are piecing bits of history together to prove this was the case, which is OR. The webiste you are qoutong excerpts from does not even mention the Black 6. [ Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&diff=237339277&oldid=237332261] you have attempted to prove this:

"Regarding the captured FW 190A and the Bf 109G against which the Spitfire XIV was tested, it should be borne in mind that were in each case relatively early versions with performances somewhat lower than the latest sub-types the Luftwaffe had in service early in 1944. The tested Bf 109 was a tropicalised G-2/trop of JG 77, Werknummer 10 639, tactical marking 'Black Six' was captured at Gambut Main airfield, SE of Tobruk in November 1942 in a 'shot up' state. After having been evaluated in the Middle-East", with this: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html No. 209 Group. TEST OF ME.109G. 1943, (note the obvious mistake in the date), and this: "in December 1943 it was packed&shipped to Britain, arriving as 'very untidy and damaged due to bad handling and crating in a unsuitable crate'. Missing propeller and other parts were replaced with cannibalised parts from another 109. Several trials were flown with the aircraft, now designated 'RN 228' including trial flight against an AFDU Spitfire XIV on 29 February 1944.", with this "Individual history, Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/TROP W/NR.10639 `Black 6'/RN228/8478M/G-USTV. R.A.F. Museum 2007". No proper citation, and no page number.

I am asking that you provide specific information that the G-2/trop was involved in these trials. So far this does not mention the Black 6, or any G-2 for that matter. Dapi89 (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you need a specific information that the G-2/trop was involved in these trials, here it is : 29 Feb 44 Lewendon flew a trial flight against an AFDU Spitfire XIV and made a further photographic sortie accompanied by a Hudson. On the same day, Gough flew combat trials against a Corsair in RN228 (30 minutes-see Gough logbook).

This is from "Simpson, Andrew. A/C SERIAL NO.W/Nr.10639. SECTION 2BIndividual history, Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/TROP W/NR.10639 `Black 6'/RN228/8478M/G-USTV. MUSEUM ACCESSION NUMBER X 001-2501. Royal Air Force Museum. 2007. Pg. 5.".

Now as for the rest, its just nice additional data. Price comments are for Report 117 which he quotes in his book. The note of TEST OF ME.109G. 1943 (this is the first test of G-2/trop RN228/Black Six) is merely pointing out that earlier tests were also made on the same aircraft, and gives some insight into its initial condition. It is not referring to the Report 117, but the aircraft at an earlier date which participated in the Report 117 trials that is dealt with in the article section.

You have removed all this, against wikipedia guidelines, without providing an alternative, and without supporting the claim that it was a G-6 type (my first mistake actually..). This is far more than sufficient proof of the aircraft, each statement is verifiable from the referenced sources. Your claim OTOH that it was a G-6 is not referenced, nor verifiable. The burden of proof is on you. Kurfürst (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No I have not. The websites citations you provided made no mention of these trials, or any G-2 involved in them. By your own admission, Price deos not say that any G-6 was not involved, which is what your amendments were implying. The only source I believe you have that is relevant, is this "Individual history, Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/TROP W/NR.10639 `Black 6'/RN228/8478M/G-USTV. R.A.F. Museum 2007" you keep referring to. As far as I can see it is not verifiable, as it is not a published work. I am going to dig out the book on this aircraft and let you know exactly what it has to say. Dapi89 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what the problem is, u think its not a published work. I can assure you it is, I found it somewhere on the internet, its on PDF. It goes onto detailing the history of "Black Six", starting from late 1942 where it was converted from an 109F-3 through its war years, restoration etc. It is not terrible hard to find either Kurfürst (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again we get into the realms of arguing over details which are mainly provided through the internet, ie:

self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)...is (perhaps counterintuitively) regarded as unacceptable on Wikipedia...For whatever it's worth, I believe that this situation is illustrative of the pitfalls when Wikipedia strays away from description and explanation (encyclopedic) and into evaluation and interpretation (unencyclopedic). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For that reason I have accepted Rlandmann's word and removed such material from the spitfire performance site, replacing it wherever possible with secondary published information. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed.
Self-published sources do not apply in this case. The core of the debate is what 109G type was used in the trials; the answer to that can be found in that PDF above, which is not published by me, it is published by the RAF Museum, a respectable organisation. As to that it was an older model, this is again a quote from Alfred Price. The only self published source is the the reference of earlier trials of the same aircraft, merely to illustrate the point. Perhaps it should be moved to a footnote, not being intergral to the main question? Kurfürst (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the report quoted does not specify the subtype of 109G used in the March 1944 trials; an extract from Aeroplane Monthly July 1992 in an article on the restoration of Black 6:

After a brief overhaul, 10693 was displayed to the Press in February 1944...as RN228. Flown throughout that year by pilots of 1426 Flt, but mainly by the CO, Flt Lt Lewendon..and Fg Off Doug Gough, the 109 proved useful in trial combat against such types as the Tempest V and Corsair (?) even though it was now outdated.

Although the Spitfire XIV is not mentioned, the G-2 does appear to be the primary aircraft used in the comparison trials and I can find no mention of a G-6 being used until the July 1944 trials; William Green specifies in Augsburg Eagle that the G-6/U2 which had landed at Manston was used. (1980, pp.112-114).Minorhistorian (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of one pilot

At the time Clostermann was writing about he was in a Tempest squadron, so his views are a little skewed.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

'Skewed'..? In what way. He was there... Kurfürst (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Flying Hawker Tempests. As an "eyewitness" to what was happening with the Spitfire units hardly reliable. Why couldn't you have quoted from "Johnny" Johnston's "Wing Leader"? He was, after all directly involved and in command of a Spitfire wing. As it is Clostermann's book is riddled with errors describing what was happening in his own unit, 274 Squadron.
For example he describes how, between 15 February and 15 March 1945 "we had 31 pilots killed or missing" (Chapter "The Rhine" p.197, 1953 edition). During that period The Typhoon and Tempest Story (Thomas and Shores 1988) lists 17 Tempest pilots killed or missing from the entire Tempest wing (p.214). Just prior to this Clostermann describes how "On the 20th March the duty Anson had brought us four Sergeant pilots and one Warrant officer. The last of these five new recruits got himself killed on the 23rd." (p.196) There were no Tempests destroyed or even damaged on the 23rd, and a W/O Ligtenstein of 33 Sqn became a PoW on March 26 (Thomas and Shores, p.214.) Clostermann again; "Brown was one of these four Sergeant pilots...before he could even unpack, he had been called back to dispersal for an op. Led by Hibbert, in a section of four he had come up against a dozen Focke-Wulfs and, by the greatest luck had succeded in damaging one and getting home.But Hibbert and Humphries had been shot down"( p.196). Thomas and Shores show than on March 24 a Sgt. Brown of 56 Sqn shot down an Fw 190 while flying with a 56 Sqn section; II.JG/26 lost three pilots in the same area - 56 Sqn suffered no losses (p.191). They also list a F/L Humphries of 3 Sqn shot down and killed by flak on the 28th March (p.214). There was a F/L Hibbert on 274 Sqn, but he managed to get through to the end of the war without being shot down (pp.180, 190). These errors and distortions can be found on just two pages of Clostermann's book and many others can be described in detail.
Now to the material you've quoted; Clostermann claims "Typhoon formations frequently lost 6 or 7 machines out of 12 in encounters with Fw 190s and Me 109s". This is not backed up by anything solid and is contradicted by the record of Typhoon losses in Thomas and Shores; the biggest Typhoon killer by far is flak; for example between 6 June 1944 and 31 December there are 36 Typhoons confirmed as being shot down by German fighters; from 1 January to 8 May there are 3 Typhoons confirmed shot down by fighters (pp.202 -211) - this is not the massacre claimed by Clostermann.
"The Spitfires were powerless. There was only one wing of 3 Spitfire XVIs (seven squadrons, actually - 610, 91, 322, which reached Belgium by September 1944, soon to be joined by 41, 130, 350 and 403 [Price 1995, p.33]) and the rest were equipped with Spitfire IX's or XVI's." He is correct in that most of these units were used on fighter bomber ops. "The Huns, knowing the Spit's quality in a dogfight carefully avoided taking them on." What a shame Clostermann didn't have access to the information available to Shores and Thomas when they wrote their books on the 2nd TAF:
Shores, Christopher and Chris Thomas. Second Tactical Air Force Volume One. Spartan to Normandy, June 1943 to June 1944. Hersham, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd., 2004. ISBN 1-903223-40-7.
Shores, Christopher and Chris Thomas. Second Tactical Air Force Volume Two. Breakout to Bodenplatte, July 1944 to January 1945. Hersham, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd., 2005. ISBN 1-903223-41-5.
Shores, Christopher and Chris Thomas. Second Tactical Air Force Volume Three. From the Rhine to Victory, January to May 1945. Hersham, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd., 2006. ISBN 1-903223-60-1.
These are written as day-by-day accounts of all activity by the 2nd TAF and are full of entries showing the "careful Huns" being shot down by "powerless Spitfires" - including five in one day by French-Canadian Dick Audet flying a fighter bomber Mk IXE {also described by Price 1995, pp.74-76). Again, flak was the main Spifire killer.
In short, Clostermann's book, although exciting colourful and well written, is not a source of reliable information and should only be cited with a great deal of caution. BTW:It is also well known that Clostermann claimed 33 enemy aircraft shot down; at least 15 of these have been ruled out by reputable aviation historians.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Clostermann would be that reliable. If you look at the text, it would seem he is writing about the period before the Ardennes offensive, roughly about September-October 1944 (see Arnhem etc. referenced). And frankly, I don't that if Clostermann's memory was cheating him a few days. Now as to Spitfire XIV Squadrons, you have acknowledged that at the time C. was writing this (around September) the 3 Sqns were essentially the correct number. There were certainly not seven, ie. as on Bodenplatte, the 2nd TAF OOB shows 4 Sqns (41,130,350,610) of them with 125 Wing. A fifth, 402, was with 126 Wing (which otherwise was an IX Wing ). Five fighter Squadrons and thats it. The other two you are referring to, 430 Squdron had FR XIVs and were with the 39 Recce wing. They were reconnaissance, not fighters. Finally the last 'XIV Squadron', No. 2, was again with a reconnaissance unit, 39 Recce wing, with a mix of FR XIVs and Allison Mustang IIs. They were not fighter either. There were no more XIV units with the 2nd TAF, which was made up in bulk by IXs and Typhoons. Basically C. is right in this (for September), and also in the general sense he right in stating that there were only a handful of XIV Squadrons around that could compete with the new German fighters in speed. Now to address Typhoon losses, you note the overall losses were slight. If I go through the known German claims list for the West, indeed I find relatively few number of Typhoons/Tempests claimed for the 2nd half of 1944. The ones that were claimed, however, are coming in big packages, indicating there were indeed some days of 'messacre' - ie. 17th August, and especially 26th September - when Typhoon Squadrons were running into some angry Jägers of JG 4, 11 and 27, even if the steady killer was flak. In effect this is what the core of C. claims, that there were days when Typhoon Sqdns were hit hard. Recalling from a recent Bodenplatte book, it is also noted in there that many Typhoon Squadrons were literlally bled dry by the end of the year, having only 4-6 fighters on strenght, and only 1-3 of these being servicable, out of the establisment of 22, which is quite scary. That also underlines C.'s point. Perhaps you can break down those 36 confirmed losses to enemy fighters (what about unconfirmed ones that just disappeared without a trace?). As to Clostermann claims/confirmable 'kills', I do not think this is very different from the overclaims of fighter pilots in general - the general overclaim factor was around 2 to 3 anyway, so why make a big fuss of it. Now as for the five-a-day Spitfire pilots, its a colorful, but unlikely story, like 185 in day. ;) I have collected the 2nd TAF claims a while ago, and there are indeed very few of them - something like 180 IIRC - for the period, and lets not forget these are merely claims, out of which perhaps half materialized on the other side. Perhaps you can break down all the claims of the 2nd TAF for this period by month instead of picking single stories of Spitfire pilots who had a very vivid imagination when it came to (over)claiming. Certainly the 2nd TAF was not seeing much action in the air, even though this is the most murderous period of the Reichsverteidigung and the USAAF formations, see 2nd November etc.
PS: I'd love to quote JJs book but I do not have it. Kurfürst (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask why did you quote Clostermann, who was flying Tempests, in an article about Spitfires? As to your conjecture about what time period he might have been writing about, read what Clostermann writes: "The Runstedt offensive had come as a surprise", just one paragraph down from the ones you have quoted; " ...the average standard of German fighter pilots was much higher at the turn of the year 1944-5", one paragraph before the ones you have quoted ie: He is most definitely not writing about the September-October period as you claim.
You've missed out 91 and 332 Squadrons which were most definitely part of 2 TAF.
Clostermann again: "Typhoon squadrons frequently lost 6 or 7 machines out of 12..." It is a very specific claim he is making - he did not write that "Typhoon squadrons lost 6 or 7 machine out of 12 due either to flak or to encounters with Fw 190's..." What has "The ones that were claimed, however, are coming in big packages, indicating there were indeed some days of 'messacre' - ie. 17th August, and especially 26th September - when Typhoon Squadrons were running into some angry Jägers of JG 4, 11 and 27, even if the steady killer was flak. In effect this is what the core of C. claims" got to do with anything? Clostermann claims that this "frequently" - a specific statement, which does not require interpretation, or trying to get to the "core" of, to figure out.
Recalling from a recent Bodenplatte book, it is also noted in there that many Typhoon Squadrons were literlally bled dry by the end of the year, having only 4-6 fighters on strenght, and only 1-3 of these being servicable, out of the establisment of 22, which is quite scary. That also underlines C.'s point. I thought you had the 2 TAF OOB from Bodenplatte? Why, then, do you have to recall these figures from a recent unspecified book that you read some time? Can you specify which squadrons were bled down to 1-3 servicable aircraft? Some Typhoon units took hevy casualties, but theres no mention of such figures in Shores and Thomas' books on the 2nd TAF, and they have studied the records thoroughly.
Do you have proof that "five-a-day Spitfire pilots, its a colorful, but unlikely story" is untrue and that Auden had a "very vivid imagination when it came to (over)claiming?" Shores and Thomas have examined this in detail and found no problems with it. Are you, then, claiming that you know better?
Again, why bother using Clostermann, who's memory cheats him in far more instances than over a few days? For other examples he claims that on March 24 1945, during an evening attack on Rheine, he encounters a Ju 88 which he fires at and then describes how his wing-man collides with it; subsequently he is hit by flak and his Tempest is destroyed in a crash landing, with Clostermann ending up in hospital (pp.199-202.) It is just a little odd that there is nothing to verify any of this; 274 Squadron lost two Tempests, F/Ls Stark and Kennedy the first possibly shot down by E Rudorffer of II./JG 27, the other shot down by flak, no mention of a Tempest crashed by Clostermann (Thomas and Shores, p.214). My point still stands, Clostermann's recall of events is far from reliable, and why you have bothered citing him, in lieu of a Spitfire pilot in what is, after all, an article about the Spitfire is a little hard to fathom.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
.... instead of all that pointless arguing, which takes us nowhere, why don't you just start to dig up the statistics. For example, it would be interesting to know how many claims were made by Spitfires - after all your problem seems to be that a veteran's description of the Battles he took part is not reliable enough -, and how many of those were actually true, how common were 5-a-day Spitfire pilots in late 1944? Last time I checked Shores, I found only very few claims made by the 2nd TAF in late 1944 - that underlines what Clostermann was noting, that the Germans simply ignored the Spitfires as they were just too slow, and went on their business undisturbed. In response, you brought up the exception from the rule..
"You've missed out 91 and 332 Squadrons which were most definitely part of 2 TAF." Now thats interesting, because Halley says that 91 Squdron re-equipped from XIVs back to Mk IXBs in August 1944, and it did not even leave Britain, being based in Biggin Hill, Manston, Duxford - not really Belgian airfields are they. No 332 Squadrons? Spitfire IXs all the way between November 1942 and September 1945. Armed recce and ground attack operations in late 1944, NW Europe. A fail to grasp why you refer to them.. Kurfürst (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it was 322(Dutch) Squadron I was referring to, not the Norwegian unit ie; a typo and 91 was re-equipped with the Spitfire 21. Fair enough, I know when to admit that I'm wrong. I note that you've stopped claiming that Auden suffered from an overactive imagination - please don't make such claims without some strong evidence. "The View from the cockpit"...of a Tempest V pilot discussing Spitfires. That is hilarious :)Minorhistorian (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Most pilots did overclaim. When I see more than two victories in one engagement, I just become sceptical. Now as for Tempest V pilot doing Spitfire talk, Clostermann was not a Tempest V pilot until December 1944 - according to the wiki article on him. Before that he was a well established Spitfire pilot. Now, in his book/quote he refers to German airfields near Arnhem etc., and altough I did not check, my guts tell me the Germans did not have airfields in that area any longer due to Allied advance in December. They probably did in the autumn though, ie. September-Octoberish.. ;) Kurfürst (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Clostermann refers to a large area viz; "the Arnhem-Osnabrück-Koblenz triangle" - there is a lot of German territory included. He does not specifically single out the Arnhem area. As you should know after the Arnhem raid of September 1944 the entire area was evacuated of Dutch cililians by the Germans in retaliation and new military installations set up; most of Holland was not liberated until May 1945. Between July and December Clostermann was not flying, either as a Spitfire or as a Tempest pilot, nor was he part of 2 TAF during this time.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kurfürst

..is again deleting material he doesn't like. Dapi89 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) - Oh and renowned Luftwaffe historias Donald Caldwell and Richard Muller say that the majority of units in late 1944 were under the command of Jagddivision 3. This formation covered N.Germany and Netherlands. So the bulk of German fighters in the west were there. So the notion they were deployed in S.E Europe is not true either. Dapi89 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

....and is now deleting, tampering, and distoring cited material. He also believed Donald Caldwell is dubious as a source! Dapi89 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claims by Dapi89

This editor has recently added a large number of claims after the quote from Pierre Clostermann was added (which appearantly he does not like). These new edits include various claims about

  • 1, incompleteness of LW orders of battle
  • 2, various claims about that the availability of LW fighters, however without specifying a date it is rather useless. Several days included a lot more than just 500 LW fighter sorties in late 1944, see definitive authors like Girbig, therefore the statement that just 500 fighters.
  • 3, Alleged, miraculous claims by Spitfire units over Rumania while on escort duty (77 to 1 loss).
  • 4, Addition of details of RAF raids on Rumanian oil fields/plants, which is hard to understand in context of Western Europe and USAAF raids on synthetic plants in Germany

Since the burden of proof is with the editor who makes the claims, it would be nice if Dapi89 could provide direct quotes that prove that these works were cited in their. The date of the action and the involved LW fighters should be included to verify wheater such losses were reported or not. There is also some doubt about the validity of these 'quotes'. In addition there seem to be severe mixing of dates, events and locations in the current edit. This should be clarified. Kurfürst (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All this has been cited. Making your "complaints" feeble and unjustified. For someone who claims to be a Luftwaffe eunthusiast, for you to claim Caldwell is a dubious source is the best one I have heard from you. Caldwell makes a point of reporting losses by the side that suffers them. He always mentions overclaiming. 2. Specfific dates are given, as you well know. (Either that or you don't read properly) 3. No it doesn't. It syas RAF Mustangs were included as well. 4. The context is you have been placing information into the D-Day to VE section which says the bulk of the LW was operating there. Caldwell and Muller say this is a no no. They are more reliable than Shores, whos focus is more on Allied Air Forces. Do an online search on Caldwell. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with the Romanian campaign being included in the D to VE day section. What is wrong with your campaign knowledge? Dapi89 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "BS" at all - Kurfürst's request for you to quote directly from your sources (here on the talk page) to support your arguments is entirely reasonable - take a look at the constructive dialogue by him and Minorhistorian in the section above.
I know that tensions continue to run high in this and a few related articles, but it seems that real progress has been made - please continue the collaborative process. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Randalmann, just look at the title. "Dubious claims by Dapi89", so he is questioning me, not the source. He keeps saying the burden of proof is on me, yet I have always cited my work on wikipedia along with specific figures and dates all the time! He uses generalisations like "the Bulk of LW fighters were concentrated against the USAAF", without providing specifics and has the nerve to ask me for the polar opposite, when already given! My tone is indicative of someone who is tired of dealing with a problematic editor who has insulted me and others over a consistent period of time. I have always answered his questions, yet he persists. The problem with "quoting" is that Caldwell likes to provide Order of table tables for claims and graphs for strength returns. I can add that if you like? Dapi89 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) -

Yes - he's questioning your use of the source, not the source itself (and of course, could have put it a little more diplomatically). But anyway, can we address the specific points in dispute? Kurfürst, what exactly do you mean by "incompleteness of LW orders of battle"? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so he is questioming me. Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Questioning one's edits is not personal, it is how wikipedia works. And I am not the one using edits notes like 'an agenda driven spitfire hater'... Since Dapi89 is continuing to become personal, I have to point out this. This contains evidence to his violations of the 3RR, personal attacks in both personal talk- and article discussion pages, and even insultings in editing notes..!
As to the question, I have spent some time reading Wikipedia guidelines, and although I am sure I have still missed a lot of things, I think I got the burden of evidence part right. You are claiming that 77 LW fighters were lost in exchange of only one Spitfire. This is sensational, if true. Problem is that you don't say when this happen, where this happened (August? October? November?), what units have participated and what evidence is there for it. You refuse to give a direct quote from the author. No wonder it is [dubious – discuss]. Furthermore it is not me who doubt Caldwell, it is you who dismiss Shores. What I doubt is your interpretation of Caldwell. Why? Because you have misquoted Irving, Bergström, Murray earlier for the sake of POV-pushing, that is why. Especially if you can't decide in your edits wheter those alleged Spitfire escort sorties took place against in the context of synthetic oil refineries (ur 1st edit), Rumanian oil fields (2nd edit), or mysterious 'Reich oil fields' (3rd edit, I wonder why Rumanian oil fields was now removed?).
Tell me, is it Caldwell who is so self-conflicting? There is only one way to tell: if you quote the relevant parts of Caldwell/Muller directly. Can you do that, please?
"incompleteness of LW orders of battle" - this was claimed earlier for LW orders of Battle, referring to Caldwell again, that they are incomplete. I am not sure if this is still in the edit. I would like to know if it is Caldwell himself who notes this, or it is some generalised remark made to create a level of uncertainity of the reader. In any case, I fail to see how this Rumanian stuff and German fighter OOBs are relevant to the article. Kurfürst (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - please check to see if the disputed text about the order of battles is still here - if so, please point it out, and state (concisely!) why you feel it is problematic. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have checked it is still there, but in the meanwhile the context was made much much clearer. Thank you. Though I still fail to see why are LW OOB's are such an important question in an article about Spit operational history, that they are in the main text body. I would rather move it to an appropriate article, or a footnote, and leaving a short summary in the main text, if that is absolutely neccessary. Kurfürst (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to counter this, with this a complete lie, and personal attack. He falsely stating I have manipulated articles. Dapi89 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the rubbish I am talking about. The Murray information was to support "200 fewer bombers". If you look at google books you will see the citation was justified and verifiable, so that is false as well. And the same for Irving. You didn't bother to trace his citation to the sources section did you? It reveals the figures for production came from Milch's notes. If you had also bothered to read the next page (p. 164 I believe) Irving demonstrates perfectly clearly what Milch felt about production levels.

I am not refusing to give anything. You should have simply asked for it in the begining, like a normal person, instead of moving everything around and removing my citations. And given your appalling behaviour, past and present, I am not going to justify myself to someone who compulsively lies and insults me. As for the change in "Romanian" to "Reich", yes it is difficult to work out what Caldwell is referring to. It seems this particular mission was a diversion to the synthetic oil plants in W.Germany (not Polesti). RAF Bomber Command used an attack by the 8AF to attack this target. The days loses were as already given. Specifically Spitfire claims were not discussed, so the Spitfire's percentage of the kill total is unknown, which is conveyed in the article.

More importantly, citations have been given for for the Order of Battle figures. Your lack of understanding of how any historian presents his work is palpable. OOBs are given in lists, as you should know, so your "give me a quote" tone is rather silly. Caldwell makes it quite clear that these lists are incomplete with regard to strength returns given. He gives known strength returns. As for Total German day fighter strength, again this is estimated by Caldwell (as strength returns for all 6 years are obviously incomplete). He points out, and totally refutes your claim that the bulk of these machines were deployed against the oilfields in September 1944. 1,000 in the defence of central Europe were available for operations at this time, while 1,800 alone were available for combat in the west. German fighter units in Romania in September 1944 were mixed in with Eastern front units by June 1944, making it impossible to tell just how many fighters were operating in the "oil" capacity at this time. Even considering that all E.F fighters were at some point deployed in Romania they only reach a combined total of 2,250 compared to a total of 1,800 plus 1,000 for the other two fronts (negating even the Med. Theatre). So your generalisation of a "quote", if this indeed is what it is, that says the bulk of the German fighter force concentrated in Romania, is false. Dapi89 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As to your earlier misquotes of Murray, Irving etc., the other editors seem to agree with me as your misquotes (in particular: Irving's book was tried to be sold as 'Erhard Milch's diary', a sentence of Irving's text that spoke of SE and TE fighter production was tried to be quoted as 'inadequate fighter and bomber production, to support Dapi89's thesis that was LW bomber force was decreasing after the BoB - a claim that was disproved by LW strenght reports via Murray, which were quoted, then these strenght reports were removed by Dapi89, later they were tried to be dismissed as that if Murray would have claimed they are for the no. of bombers deployed for Barbarossa, however Murray did not make any such claim etc. As to 'Murray supporting 200 bombers', understand that Dapi89's claim in that particular article was the LW bomber numbers declined as result of the Battle of Britain (July - October 1940). Murray's bomber numbers between end of June and the start of November 1940 actually show a slight increase. Murray actually notes the decreased number of available bombers before the Battle of Britain (compared to the no. available for the Battle of France), during and after which the number of bombers rose. I must apologize for taking such a long road to discuss this, but this makes my concerns regarding these new quotes more understandable perhaps. It should be also noted that after I have corrected Dapi89's misquotes of Irving and Murray in that article, it was in agreement and with preliminary discussions with other editors agreed with this correction of the quotes - see present state of the BoB article. Ie. other editors appear to agree that there have been misquotes, even if Dapi89 continues to argue this.
Related to the subject, I have only one single question: what is the date of this operation in which Spitfires also participated in against German (Rumanian?) Oil Targets? Your original edit suggested that the claims were made by Spitfires, and they alone claimed all those un-believable 77 German fighters, for a single loss. I have corrected this according to the information you have provided. Kurfürst (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to indicate the level of uncertainty regarding the kill claims noted above. Currently it is not known when the even occured, where this event occured, and to what extent were Spitfire units involved, if they were involved at all. Without this information, it is impossible to confirm this citation, and it is only told that the losses are for the entire day for the LW, (where? when? what units? to what cause?), not solely against RAF or Spitfires. As the original sentence cannot be tweaked in a fashionable way to make clear the dubious connection to Spitfire operations, I have choose the remove the loss part until some exact information about losses that is verifiable in its validity and its connection to Spitfire operations can be unearthed; until then, it is sufficient to note the contribution of RAF Mustangs and Spitfires as escort to Lancaster against oil targets without going into dubious claims. Currently, nothing more can be verified as reliable information, which connects to the article's subject. Kurfürst (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pulling KF's edits out of Dapi89's:

Kurfürst, please do not insert your comments into those of other editors. It makes for VERY difficult reading and comprehension. Contain your comments to a new entry. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, just just wanted to avoid duplicating sentences etc. Thanks! Kurfürst (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Much of the Clostermann material used is irrelevant to Spitfire operations in the first place and is debateble anyway; this has now been removed. Most of the rest of it, apart from the use of Mk IXs and XIVs as fighter bombers, is also contestable. Example: The piece about there only being 3 Mk XIV squadrons only applies for a few weeks; although Kurfürst claims that Clostermann is only referring to the September-October period this is patently not true (qv above). Indeed, having to disprove Clostermann's theorys, point by point, has, as Nimbus has explained, made this section almost unreadable. As I have demonstrated in a previous discussion, Clostermann is a far from reliable source and citing him at length in this article has been a waste of time and energy. I vote that the entire section goes. BTW It would be good if Kurfürst could be more accurate in what he uses for citations Andrew Thomas' "Griffon Engine Aces" 2008, only has 96 pages - I have no idea where the extra 200 or 300 odd pages come from. Also, I will repeat a point I have made earlier, referring to the use of:

self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)...is (perhaps counterintuitively) regarded as unacceptable on Wikipedia...For whatever it's worth, I believe that this situation is illustrative of the pitfalls when Wikipedia strays away from description and explanation (encyclopedic) and into evaluation and interpretation (unencyclopedic). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC) For that reason I have accepted Rlandmann's word and removed material from the spitfire performance site, replacing it wherever possible with secondary published information. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed.

I am asking that something be done about this.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverted. You have debated Clostermann without any evidence presented, and appearantly you only want to remove him because you do not like what he says. As to your claims about Spitfire XIV Squadrons, you have removed referenced cites regarding their activity, and replaced it with your own opinion, which is flawed BTW.

'The piece about there only being 3 Mk XIV squadrons only applies for a few weeks;' Considering for example XIV squadrons, Clostermann is totally right about there being only three, as the the rest of the XIV Squadrons did not transfer to the continent until DECEMBER. See in and also regarding citations, its a little flaw since I believes the 'Thomas' reference refers to Thomas and Shores 2nd TAF volume of June-December 1944. Appearantly its another book of Thomas alone. I will correct this and add to proper book to the bibiliography later. I also add that what made the section unreadable is the rather desperate attempts to 'disprove' Clostermann's quote. If I have to choose between Closterman's 'theories', as you call them, and your theories, I would rather stay with Clostermann, a decorated fighter pilot who had first hand experience in the events involved. Kurfürst (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Kurfürst, don't put your new talk entry inside another editor's entry. Please place your entry below the signature of the editor you are responding to. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have answered none of the points I have raised. The question is has adding this quote from Clostermann improved the article in any way? Has it materially added any new or relevant information to the article? Most of it has nothing whatsoever to to do with Spitfire operations - Clostermann describes tactical reconnaissance Me 262s roaming at will. No mention of Arado 234s. Large formations of 100 or more Luftwaffe fighters attacking troops and convoys? When and where? There's no convincing evidence that this happened. What has describing Typhoon losses (attributing them mostly and erroneously to Luftwaffe fighters got to do with Spitfire operations? There were more than three Mk XIV squadrons; Clostermann did not specify any time period as to when there was only one wing of three squadrons - there is a clear implication that there were never more than three squadrons operating, which is obviously wrong. The information that Spitfire Mk IX and XVIs were used as fighter bombers was already in the article and properly cited - why repeat this information just one paragraph later? Kurfürst added this material, it is up to him to explain how it has improved or added to this article.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You have not presented a single shred of evidence to your theories. Right now what is happening is that you toss out pieces of referenced information written by well respected authors, and then replace it with your version of history. Finally, the 'more than three Spitfire XIV' Squadrons only happen to exist in your head until December 1945 on the Continent, see the professional opinion of Thomas and Shores. None of your claims are referenced, none of them are evidenced. And as long as you fail to reference and prove them, they will be reverted. Wikipedia rules out subjective opinion, and unverifiable, unreferenced POV pushing. Kurfürst (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good look around and all I can say is I am disgusted with the egotistical garbage that the three of you are spouting, here and elsewhere. I guess not one of you cares a bloody thing about the sacrifices, pain and heartache that many of the brave men who's lives you are describing went through. My great uncle flew Spitfires on fighter-bomber operations over the last ten months of the war. It took over 25 years before he could stop waking up at night screaming - he saw four of his mates killed and several wounded before he reached 24 years old. For some reason, from whats been written here anyone would think that using Spitfires for F/B ops was just a walk in the park, secondary to the real role of being a fighter pilot. I respect the views of aviation historians who actually take time out to listen to or read the experiences of those who did the fighting. I have absolutely none for people who simply quote statistics and facts ad nauseum and bicker about them until the cows come home-it's a total waste of time and makes simple, ordinary folks like me think what a bunch of idiots there are swarming around the net. (I've copied this onto your user pages as well, just in case you miss this)Circlingsky (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck through my previous comments because I now realise that they come under no personal attack and I have no intention of starting things off on the wrong foot. Still, as an outsider the "discussion" taking place here and the constant changes being made to the page are frustrating and to me extremely annoying. One of the reasons I started looking through Wikipedia is because my great uncle died recently and left me all of his old material so I decided to look things up on the net and came across the Wikipedia pages which are some of the first places on Google. There is lots of good information but I find the way that some things are being "discussed" is pretty immature - I've done some editing up until a few years ago and I know people can get really caught up in things but from the outside looking in it's like watching kids in a sandbox. The reason I find things annoying is that many of you don't seem to realise that some of the old veterans who were directly involved in the events described do actually read these pages. My uncle was 87 and up until a few months ago he was constantly on the computer keeping in contact with some of his old mates and reading. From looking at his computer logs he did frequently read some of the Wikipedia pages.Circlingsky (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a breath

If you guys could stand back for a minute you would see that the quality of this article is descending rapidly, it is now unreadable and not very interesting. I say that as a Spitfire enthusiast and it is a great shame that editors are discussing at great length some very trivial details that can be found in books if the reader wants to research further. The article needs to be thinned out quite drastically. There is obviously conflicting information in the many references available on the Spitfire, if the truth can't be determined then I suggest the information is left out of the article. All the Spitfire articles are becoming places where editors fear to tread, which is not what this project is about. Nimbus (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gees, I see that some things haven't changed around here! Some people need to get a life. I'm also a Spitfire enthusiast - I have all of my great uncle's logbooks, letters, diaries etc from his WW2 days flying Spitfires over Europe. It makes me puke seeing people who had nothing to do with these horrific events wrangling over semantics from the comfort of an armchair. Grow up!Circlingsky (talk) . —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

New set of false information being spread by Minorhistorian

Minorhistorian's latest edit goes as follows: Flight Lieutenant Pierre Clostermann, a veteran Spitfire pilot who flew Tempest Vs from March 1945,[1][2] wrote his opinion of Spitfire operations over Europe at the time: Minorhistorian is referring to Thomas and Shores. It is clear though that it is another case of falsification of a source, as reading Thomas and Shores on page 203, notes to following: "Free French Fighter Ace and Author. Pierre Henry Clostermann, DFC & Bar. ... After a spell off operation, he returned to 2nd TAF in January 1945, serving with 122 Wing in Holland, flying Tempests." Minorhistorian has been falsificating this source and was pushing the date to March 1945, in order to dismiss Clostermann, who's account he wishes to get rid of it by all means or so it would appear. Kurfürst (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Clostermann, again

Christopher Shores and Chris Thomas make it very clear that Pierre Clostermann returned to operations on 8 March 1945

On the previous day 274 Squadron had been joined by the Free French pilot, Flt Lt Pierre Clostermann who, during the previous summer had flown Spitfires with 602 Squadron. Shores and Thomas 2006 p.447

Clostermann's book, with all of it's errors, says nothing about when he joined 274 Sqn and using Wikipedia to support a case is not accepted.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how Kurfürst insists on December 1944, yet Shores and Thomas says January 1945 when Clostermann returned to 2 TAF; Volume 3 makes it quite clear that he did not resume operations until March 1945 on 274 Sqn. I was in error in not adding the correct date to the cite and not adding Vol 3 to the bibliography. Clear enough?Minorhistorian (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is also interesting how desperately Minorhistorian is cherry picking the Thomas and Shores volumes in order to dismiss Clostermann. At the same time, "forgetting" to mention Clostermann was a veteran Spitfire pilot of Normandy and 1943, which Shores notes... "forgetting" to note that Clostermann was around with 122 Wing in January 1945, which Shores notes. "Forgetting" to note, after going through Clostermann's book in order to discredit him, that Clostermann's last leave day was Xmas 1944, after which he promtly boarded and Anson, and transferred to 122 Wing in Volkel... See page 221 of Clostermann's book: 'I spent Christmas, my last remaining leave, in Jacques company, before boarding the duty Anson with all my belongings.. ... 'Volkel' said our pilot simply.(ie. upon arrival)". Kurfürst (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Clostermann's service as a pilot doesn't make him an expert historian. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It is also interesting how desperately Minorhistorian is cherry picking the Thomas and Shores volumes in order to dismiss Clostermann. At the same time, "forgetting" to mention Clostermann was a veteran Spitfire pilot of Normandy and 1943, which Shores notes... "forgetting" to note that Clostermann was around with 122 Wing in January 1945, which Shores notes. "Forgetting" to note, after going through Clostermann's book in order to discredit him, that Clostermann's last leave day was Xmas 1944, Is a complete joke. To be accused of " desperately cherry picking" when I am backing up my statements with Shores' and Thomas' research, a normal part of editing in Wikipedia, is hilarious. Indeed, it is quite obvious that Kurfürst has desperately "cherry picked" Clostermann in an attempt to invalidate or weaken the Spitfire's role as a fighter and fighter-bomber during the last months of the war.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Its quite clear that you are ready to reach to any tool to dismiss the view of one of the most decorated and experienced Allied aces of the time, when it does not fit your rosy pink view of Spitfire superiority, which you are so eager to describe as often as possible in your edits. Its quite obvious that your agenda here is to advance a nationalistic POV that does not tolerate any other view, and goes against Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewe. You will not succeed in that agenda, and you will not be allowed to degenerate this article any further with your lengthy edits and amendments that add no information at all, but only seek to argue and push for your rosy pink POV, and dismiss any information that does not fit in your world. If you must spout out your nonsense, 'prove' how irrelevant is the opinion of a veteran fighter ace who took part in those fights against your 'infallible' opinion, then put that garbage where it belongs, to the footnotes. Anybody who bothers with reading that can read it there, and it does not destroy the readability of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Minorhistorian is now claiming that 'properly sourced information was removed'. Of course it was not, it was moved to the footnotes in an unchanged form. Its another annoying example of POV pushing. Kurfürst (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Thomas 1988, p.130
  2. ^ Thomas and Shores 2005, p.447
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history/Archive_1&oldid=844520652"