Luftwaffe scourge. British Supermarine Spitfire fighters

146
Luftwaffe scourge. British Supermarine Spitfire fighters
Spitfire in flight


“Spitfires fell to the ground, touched the sea, pierced trees, cut telegraph and high-voltage wires, collided in the air, flew into pieces, their rudders and parts of the wings fell off, and they still made safe landings, from the wheel,” – this is what the Australian pilot of this fighter, John Vader, wrote in his book Spitfire.



When the Battle of Britain was in full swing, Hermann Goering at a meeting of the Luftwaffe High Command (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe), reproaching the leadership for their inability to defeat the Royal Air Force (RAF) and achieve complete air superiority, asked what else they needed to ensure complete victory in the air, to which the young German ace pilot Adolf Galland* He answered him rather boldly: “A squadron of Spitfires!” That was the reputation Supermarine Spitfire.


Squadron of Spitfires. Photo: Imperial War Museum

The Second World War is the most terrible and bloody war, in which over 50 million people died, and left behind historical memory of many generations of people has a clear trace, so it is not surprising that weapon, which soldiers fought in this war also became legendary, and its fighting qualities have been discussed for several post-war generations.

Such weapons for us, undoubtedly, are the T-34 tank and the legendary Katyusha; for the American military, the no less legendary Aircobra fighter (P-39 Airacobra) and the battleship Missouri (USS Missouri), at which the surrender of militaristic Japan was signed on September 2, 1945, but for Great Britain the symbol of victory in this bloody war was the Royal Air Force fighter Spitfire - a masterpiece of aerodynamic technology, which was among the best fighters of the Second World War and became for the people of Britain a symbol of faith in victory in the most difficult days of the war!


Spitfire squadron in service (Supermarine Spitfire Mk XII)

Indeed, its capabilities and adaptability were so great that it was the only fighter aircraft produced before, during and after the end of World War II. The Spitfire first flew on March 5, 1936; it entered service with the Royal Air Force in 1938 and remained in service until 1955. A total of 20 such fighters were built.


Spitfire assembly plant in Woolston (Hampshire)

But let's start from the beginning...

In the beginning there were steam locomotives...


One of the most significant events in his life was probably that he learned to draw well, which played a big role in his later life and career. After leaving school as a draftsman, he found his way to a steam locomotive manufacturing plant, where he developed intricate drafting techniques and helped design the draft locomotives that still ride on the roads of the United Kingdom today.

Ultimately, by the age of twenty-three, he had developed a fairly high professional reputation, and he was invited to join the company Supermarine Aviation Works*, which was very recently founded in Southampton and specialized in the production of naval aircraft.


Production workshops of Supermarine Aviation Works, which produces seaplanes

He is Reginald Joseph Mitchell*, the head of the team of designers who developed the legendary Supermarine Spitfire fighter, born in 1895, long before any aircraft equipped with an internal combustion engine took to the air. And during the years that R. J. Mitchell worked for the company Supermarine, he managed to design 24 models of various aircraft (most of them were seaplanes).


Reginald Joseph Mitchell, head of the design team that developed the legendary Supermarine Spitfire fighter

Then seaplanes...


A huge role in the fate of the Spitfire was played by the so-called Schneider Cup - a competition held since 1912, where the main task of its participants was to show maximum speed.

Note. Jacques Schneider was a French industrial manager, licensed airplane and hot air balloon pilot, and long held the hot air balloon altitude record (10 m), but unable to fly due to a serious accident, he became a financial supporter of various competitions and flying clubs.

As a racing judge at a competition in Monaco in 1912, he noticed that seaplane design was lagging far behind other aircraft, and since seaplanes at that time promised to be the best solution for long-distance passenger transport, Schneider believed that racing seaplanes would allow them to improve faster.

And on December 5, 1912, in one of the flying clubs in France, he presented a prize for a seaplane race, and for all subsequent competitions he proposed a distance of at least 150 nautical miles. This competition was known under various names: Schneider Trophy, Schneider Cup and Flying Flirt.

The official name in French was Coupe d'Aviation Maritime Jacques Schneider. The prize was a cup worth 25 francs, and the winning pilot received 000 francs. In this case, the seaplane had to remain moored to the pier for six hours without any assistance from the crew.

Around 250 thousand spectators attended these competitions to watch these impressive races, which proves the great public interest in such events
.


Seaplane Supermarine S.6B

To participate in these competitions, R. J. Mitchell developed a car Supermarine S.6B. It was a seaplane - a tiny monoplane on two floats, which showed fantastic speed results. Supermarine S.6B, which was piloted by Lieutenant George Stainforth, was powered by Rolls-royce merlin supercharged with a capacity of 1 hp. With. and represented one of the main technical achievements of the British aviation between the two world wars.

This aircraft not only won the 1931 Schneider Prize, setting an absolute speed record of 655,67 km/h, but two weeks later it became the fastest vehicle on earth.


Seaplane Supermarine S.6B

Note. The fuel tanks of the Supermarine S.6B were placed in floats, from where fuel was pumped through the struts into a small pressure tank located above and feeding the carburetor under the influence of differential pressure, which ensured the supply of fuel to the engine during turns.

The fixed pitch propeller provided optimal performance at 655 km/h but proved problematic at low takeoff and landing speeds, severely exacerbating the torque problem*.

To reduce the drag of the aircraft, Mitchell abandoned the water cooling radiator - instead, the wing had a double skin, inside of which the steam was cooled, and after cooling, the water flowed into special containers located in the fairings of the landing gear, from where it was pumped back to the engine. The pilot was in a narrow cockpit surrounded by an oil cooling system, and the cabin was hot and uncomfortable. In addition, the already limited visibility during the take-off run was difficult, as the floats churned up the water, splashing the pilot’s glasses with splashes...



The maintenance team brings the Supermarine S.6B ashore

Outstanding performance Supermarine S.6B allowed Mitchell to be recognized as a designer of high-performance machines, which served as a further impetus for development as a future fighter Supermarine Spitfire, and the engine Rolls-royce merlin. Neither R. J. Mitchell nor co. Supermarine did not continue to produce racing seaplanes for subsequent competitions, since work on developing a new fighter at the direction of the British government took priority.

The fact is that just 18 days after the triumph Supermarine S.6B At the Schneider Cup, the British Air Ministry issued the F7/30 specification, which called for a tender and required developers to create an all-metal land-based fighter, and sought innovative solutions aimed at significantly modernizing British fighters.

And accordingly, Mitchell’s next step after Supermarine S.6B was the development of a new aircraft that meets this specification, designated Type 224.


Supermarine Type 224 - an unsuccessful fighter model

And although Type 224 turned out to be that first pancake, which usually turns out to be lumpy, disappointed the selection committee of the British MoD, and was not chosen for mass production, but failure Type 224 did not discourage the designer, and his very next project led to the development of the legendary Spitfire.

Work on the Spitfire


If we rewind a little and return to Supermarine S.6B, then it would seem that the British Ministry of Defense should have been seriously interested in it, since in the version without floats Supermarine S.6B could have become a good fighter prototype, but nothing like that happened, but rather the opposite happened - absolutely no interest was shown in the aircraft, and the wheeled fighter project could have died on the vine. The Ministry of Defense did not allocate a single penny for the further development of the future vehicle!


Supermarine S.6B delivered to the launch site

Note. Despite the promise of British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald (Ramsay MacDonald) that government support would be provided to the winner of the Schneider Cup, official funding was withdrawn long before the Schneider Cup, less than two months after the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

The official reason for the refusal was that the previous two competitions had collected enough data on high-speed flight that further expenditure of public money was unjustified, and even the committee created by the Royal Aero Club, which was responsible for organizing the 1931 Cup, in which included representatives of the aviation industry, financed from private sources
.


Italian pilots near a seaplane at the Schneider Cup

Private sources


A huge role in fate Supermarine S.6B, and subsequently the future Spitfire, and indeed R. J. Mitchell himself, was played by a socialite named Lucy Houston, who, after a conversation with the designer of the future car, decided to give him full support and allocated him 100 pounds sterling from her own pocket - a huge amount of money at that time - to further continue the development of his new single-engine seaplane Supermarine S.6B.


Lucy Houston - a socialite who financed the project of the future fighter

In the English world, this lady was a very curious and colorful figure; she was married three times to quite rich people, which allowed her to easily carry out such charitable actions and without whose money, of course, she could not Supermarine S.6B, or subsequently the Spitfire would not have been born.

Having received enough money from a socialite, Mitchell enthusiastically began working on a new car, and an engine appeared at the very right time - Rolls-royce merlin, which, when combined with a Mitchell-designed airframe, subsequently produced fantastic results.

Without Lady Houston's funding, R. J. Mitchell's design team would not have accumulated such experience in the production of high-speed aircraft that later became the Spitfire. Unfortunately, Lady Lucy never saw the Spitfire take to the skies - she died on December 29, 1936.


Lucy, Lady Houston, surrounded by RAF pilots, 1931. Mitchell is on the right. Photo: Royal Air Force Museum

Note. Lucy Houston offered then-Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald £200 to strengthen British air power and, when she was refused, installed a six-foot-tall banner on her Liberty yacht with electric lights flashing the words "Down with the traitor MacDonald."

After the 1935 parliamentary elections, Stanley Baldwin became Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Lucy Houston wrote a letter to Hitler urging Nazi Germany to join Britain in completely crushing Soviet Russia. She also demanded that the new prime minister fight more actively against socialism and withdraw from the League of Nations!

Because of the threat of war, Lady Houston sent another check for £200 to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain, the future Prime Minister, to purchase fighter aircraft for the defense of London. But the British military believed that bombers, not fighters, would save the country.

Without Houston's participation, there might never have been a fighter aircraft called the Spitfire, and Lady Lucy herself would never have earned such honorary titles as "Godmother of the Royal Air Force" and "The Woman Who Won the War." As early as 1958, on the centenary of the birth of Lucy Houston, Lord Tedder, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, publicly expressed regret that there was not enough a monument to Lucy Houston on the white cliffs of Dover (Kent).


Continuation of work on the fighter


So, thanks to the donation of this society lady, after the success Supermarine S.6B, R. J. Mitchell was able to continue working on the monoplane, gaining extensive experience in the production of high-speed aircraft, which ultimately helped him in the development of the legendary Spitfire.

After failure with Type 224 at the very beginning of 1934, Mitchell conceived a fundamentally different machine, which was supposed to incorporate a combination of high-speed and maneuverable characteristics, coupled with powerful weapons and ease of use.


Supermarine Type 224 - an unsuccessful fighter model

First of all, the plane conceived by Mitchell was supposed to be an interceptor capable of protecting the island from air raids by German aircraft - people still remembered how Zeppelins bombed British cities during the First World War, and Mitchell was well aware of what the new German planes could do to the island even greater disasters.

Initially, the fighter was designed for an engine Rolls-Royce Goshawk power 600 hp s., the same as was installed on Type 224. But due to its lack of power, it held back some of the innovative implementations of Mitchell's next-generation aircraft, which embodied the desire for greater aerodynamic perfection.

The situation was saved by the new twelve-cylinder engine from Rolls-Royce RV-12 (later named Merlin), demonstrating a power of 650 hp. With. at the ground and 790 l. With. at an altitude of more than three thousand meters. And at a company production meeting Supermarine Aviation Works a decision is made to tailor the fighter design to the engine Rolls-Royce RV-12.

The matter immediately got off the ground - the Ministry of Aviation immediately showed interest in such a promising project, and by the beginning of December 1934, an agreement was concluded with the company to finance the construction of the prototype. And by April of the following year, a full-size wooden demonstration model of the future machine was ready.


Twelve-cylinder engine from Rolls-Royce RV-12, later named Merlin

It should be recalled here that in 1934 R. J. Mitchell made a trip to Germany and saw the rapid rearmament of the Luftwaffe, and also visited factories that were equipped with advanced modern designs, far superior to the British, which prompted him to quickly begin work on the fighter that would later will be named Spitfire.

Note. An engine was chosen to drive the new fighter Rolls-royce merlin – powerful four-stroke v-shaped 12-cylinder engine with power from 650 to 1 hp. With. (taking into account further modernization), depending on the specific option. This choice proved decisive in the success of the aircraft, since the engine Rolls-royce merlin provided the speed and performance necessary for air combat.

But, as is always the case, this engine also had one serious drawback compared to German engines, which were equipped with a fuel injection system that ensures precise delivery of fuel into the combustion chamber. The Rolls-Royce Merlin still used a carburetor, the only advantage of which was that it was much simpler, cheaper and required much fewer components, which is why it turned off during a dive and a short flight in an inverted position - to it so-called “negative overload forces”, and fuel stopped flowing into the carburetor.

Thus, a German pilot with a Spitfire on his tail could simply do a “negative G”, going into a dive, and the Spitfire, fearing a decrease in pressure in front of the carburetor, would lag behind the pursued car, preventing the engine from cutting out, it was just a matter of a second or two, but it was precisely this second that the German pilot needed to get behind the Spitfire or break away from its pursuit.

But Spitfire pilots figured out a way to get around this carburetor problem and began to perform a half-turn before diving, which meant that the force of gravity acted in the opposite direction and the carburetor never remained “dry”.

However, cunning maneuvers by the pilots were not a solution, and by 1941 this carburetor problem was solved by one of the company’s employees, engineer Beatrice Schilling, who proposed drilling a hole in one of the carburetor walls with the diameter of a penny coin, which made it possible to avoid “drying out” of the carburetors . This simple and temporary design solution solved the problem of reverse overload until the advent of true negative overload carburetors in 1943. This invention was called “Miss Shilling’s Hole”, and she herself, because of the diameter of the hole she proposed, was called “Money Penny”.


In the first row on the right is engineer Beatrice Schilling, who proposed drilling a hole in one of the walls of the carburetor with the diameter of a penny coin, which made it possible to avoid the “drying out” of the carburetors. Design team

This engine was used not only on Spitfires, but also on heavy four-engine Lancaster bombers (Avro Lancaster), Mosquito fighter-bombers (De Havilland Mosquito), Hurricane fighters (Hawker Hurricane) and on American Mustang fighters (North American P-51 Mustang).

So the engine Rolls-royce merlin became for the British as much a symbol of the Second World War as the Spitfire itself.



Pre-war photograph taken outside the building where Supermarine's administrative, commercial, design and experimental departments were based

So, by mid-1935, the work of Mitchell's team engineers led to the creation of the final version of the Spitfire, a fighter that had a speed of almost 64 km/h faster than its direct competitor, the Hurricane. Ingenious architecture born in the depths of the company Supermarine The Spitfire was the result of the vision and engineering prowess of one man: Reginald Joseph Mitchell.

Something about the design


The design of the Spitfire was innovative for its time, and although the rival Hurricane also had a superior design, the Spitfire was still much more innovative and radical in its design.

Key features of the newly born fighter included a sleek elliptical wing, designed by Canadian engineer Beverly Shenstone, with a very thin airfoil providing exceptional maneuverability and speed, especially at high altitudes, and its all-metal, stressed-skin aluminum construction* and retractable landing gear were advanced technologies that set it apart from its contemporaries.


The combination of a large wing area with a thin elliptical shape and a large fairing filling the low-pressure zone where the upper part of the wing meets the fuselage contributed to better turning, which was an unpleasant shock to the Luftwaffe pilots who first encountered the Spitfire...

If you look closely at the wing, it resembles the wing of the German Heinkel - one of the light sports German aircraft, and evil tongues whispered that the developer of the wing - Beverly Shenstone - who himself worked for some time at the Heinkel Flugzeugwerke company, borrowed some design ideas there - all-metal, cantilever, two-spar and elliptical wing.

The innovative solutions of the developers also include removable wing tips, which were produced in three types - classic round, shortened and pointed, using which it was possible to change the wing area and its properties. The main purpose of such winglets was to reduce the inductive drag of the wing, save fuel and improve performance when climbing and reducing the take-off run.


The finished wing with landing gear and wheel sits in a felt-covered support awaiting delivery to the final assembly line.

The power set of the wing included two spars and twenty-one ribs, and the duralumin tension* The wing skin was load-bearing and was attached to the frame with hidden rivets. The struts of the tricycle landing gear, retractable by an integrated hydraulic system, were attached to the reinforced wing spar in the fuselage area, and two cooling radiators were placed under the wings, which were aerodynamically covered by a common air fairing.


Fuel tank on the left and a set of frames for the lower part of the fuselage on the right

All the wing mechanization was suspended from the rear spar - all-metal ailerons and two-section flaps, also all-metal. The drive of the entire mechanical piping of the wing was pneumatic, and inside it, between the ribs, there were weapon compartments and ammunition.


Left: A worker polishes a propeller blade. Right: Female workers install electrical wiring. This activity is divided into successive stages

It should be noted here that the plane turned out to be very beautiful, so beautiful that the British aviation historian Ray Johnson in his articles talked about the sexuality of this plane, comparing the smooth contours of the fighter with the lines of a woman’s body. Here’s how pilot Diana Barnato Walker, who flew Spitfires from the factory to military airfields, gives the aircraft a description:

“There was romance in it. It's more than a car. It was like he knew when you needed to turn. And he has such wonderful wings, he looks beautiful.”


Right: Generator purchased for Merlin engine. Left: hydraulic hoses

There is a funny story going around among the creators - when someone told Mitchell as a compliment that he had created a fantastically beautiful plane with an amazingly beautiful wing, Mitchell replied:

“I don’t care how beautiful it is, the most important thing for me is how many machine guns I can put in it!”

Note. The Spitfire was the first British fighter to have hidden rivets, that is, they were riveted flush with the skin, but during the war, due to time constraints, they produced a batch of cars with ordinary, mushroom-shaped rivets, and these cars immediately lost speed about 40–45 km/h. And despite the fact that finishing a car with hidden rivets was difficult, expensive and time-consuming, manufacturers still stopped making such mushroom-shaped “warty” Spitfires and returned to the original technology.


Oxygen valve (left) and manual windshield de-icer pump (right)

First flight


By the fall of 1935, the idea contained in the idea began to be embodied in metal. Some changes to the design were made during the construction of the prototypes - in order to improve visibility of the rear hemisphere, the cockpit glazing area was slightly increased, and instead of one exhaust manifold located under the fuselage, separate pipes were installed. In February 1936, construction of the machine was completed, and on March 5, the elegant silver machine, under the control of Captain Joseph Summers, made its first flight, marking the beginning of a legendary chapter in the history of aviation.


The prototype of the Spitfire, which the company Supermarine designated by the index K5054 and Captain Joseph Summers (1904–1954), the chief test pilot, who before a flight always liked to urinate on the rear wheel of the plane for good luck. Landing just 8 minutes later, Summers was supposed to have said, "Don't change anything!"

This iconic British fighter, still under the designation K5054, took off for the first time at Eastleigh airfield (Eastleigh), Hampshire, which is now an airport. The factory was also located in Eastleigh Supermarine Aviation Works, where the Spitfire was designed and built. The Spitfire prototype that took to the skies had a maximum speed of 550 km/h, which was even higher than the requirements of the Ministry of Aviation, thereby the new aircraft exceeded all expectations and was almost 65 km/h faster than its direct competitor, the Hurricane!


The prototype of the Spitfire, which Supermarine designated with the index K5054

R. J. Mitchell, the Spitfire's designer, paid close attention to the safety and reliability of the pilot - the aircraft's retractable landing gear was still a novelty at that time, and many early accidents were caused by pilots forgetting to lower the wheels before landing.


Mitchell sits on the running board of his car, surrounded by other employees. Supermarine. First from left is test pilot Joseph Summers. Photo: Royal Air Force Museum

It is probably unnecessary to say that the first flight was a resounding success - the fighter demonstrated excellent controllability and performance characteristics, immediately revealing its potential as a fighter of the highest level, thereby laying the foundation for further development.


After the successful flight of the first Spitfire prototype, K5054, in March 1936, test pilot Joseph Summers declared: “I don’t want anything touched.”

weaponry


In May 1935, the Ministry of Aviation approved the final version of the armament of the new fighter - instead of the originally planned four machine guns and four twenty-kilogram bombs, the new requirement required the installation of 8 short-barreled Vickers K wing machine guns of 7,69 mm rifle caliber (or 7,71. 100 at different times) with XNUMX rounds of ammunition per barrel, but these machine guns had very weak firepower.

And gradually the Vickers began to be displaced from British military aircraft, and in their place came the 12,7-mm American Browning M2 with belt feed, which turned out to be preferable due to its higher rate of fire, larger caliber and convenient aerodynamic profile. And by 2, after the Battle of Britain, the Vickers had already been completely forced out of the Royal Air Force fighter squadrons.


Vickers K machine gun, rifle caliber

Note. It should be noted here that in order to install various modifications of weapons, it was necessary to modify the design of the wing itself, therefore, depending on the installed weapons, the aircraft had different wings, the type of which usually indicated the armament of the fighter that a particular aircraft could carry.

So, for example, “wing A” (A-wing) had eight 7,71 mm machine guns, “wing B” (B-wing) had four 7,7 mm machine guns and two 20 mm cannons, and the “wing C (C-wing or Universal Wing) could be equipped with either four 20-mm cannons, or two 20-mm cannons and four 7,71-mm machine guns, while the “E-wing” (E-wing) had two 20-mm mm Hispano cannons and two 12,7 mm Browning M2 machine guns.



12,7 mm Browning M2 aircraft machine gun (.50 AN M2)

The eight Vickers K machine guns fitted to the original version of the fighter certainly gave it great firepower, but when the Germans began adding armor to their bombers, it was discovered that the power of these machine guns was no longer enough, and the developers began to experiment with the use of A 20-mm Hispano cannon, which was already guaranteed to hit air targets. But the installation of the Hispano cannon, in addition to increasing firepower, also created many problems, one of which was the size of the cannon itself.

Another early problem with this gun was its tendency to jam when overloaded during combat, and if one gun jammed, the recoil from the other was enough to seriously throw the Spitfire off course.



Spitfire weapon testing at Biggin Hill airfield

The same cannot be said about flying at high altitudes, when the guns began to freeze at high altitudes, which required innovative solutions such as pumping hot air from the engine to the guns.


Gunsmiths of the Polish 315th Squadron replace the 20 mm Hispano cannon. This Spitfire (Spitfire Mk V) originally carried a drum gun, which was later replaced by a belt-fed version

This new weapon was so unreliable that the squadron testing it asked for their old Spitfires to be returned to them! But by August 1940, a more reliable system for attaching guns and supplying ammunition to them was introduced into the design, and the problem of jamming was successfully solved.


20mm Hispano drum-fed gun

Armored protection


During the First World War and after its end, some design bureaus developed armored "attack aircraft" with the layout of a conventional fighter, but with much heavier armor. However, when planning a future war, military theorists did not assume that these aircraft would subsequently become fully effective fighters!


Fighter armor locations

For example, Hurricanes and Spitfires entered production without any armor plates. Their need was quickly recognized after the outbreak of World War II, and their modifications were given a very high priority. Most of the Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters that flew in the Battle of France, which was the majority of the force, did not yet have armor installed, but all fighters had already been modified before the Battle of Britain began. For the Spitfire this included 33kg of armor plate and armored windshield glass bolted to the outside.


Left: The armor plate that fits into the cockpit behind the pilot's head. Right: Cabin with new internal bulletproof windshield

Note. One of the first specialized single-seat fighters with armor already installed was the Polikarpov I-16 Type 4, which flew in 1934 and entered mass production at the Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod plants in 1935, where a small 8 mm thick headrest armor plate was installed. The windshield remained a simple sheet of curved plexiglass. However, the small Soviet fighter, the most advanced single-seat fighter of its time, was again far ahead of its time.

Aviation armor for installation on aircraft had been under consideration in the USSR since around 1930, when the country developed suitable nickel-molybdenum steel alloys. Moreover, most countries did not install armor on their fighters until almost 1940...


As mentioned above, the Spitfires of the very first releases had no armor protection at all, but with the beginning of the war the need for armor on a fighter aircraft became clear very, very quickly, but the installation of armor was limited by strict weight restrictions.

The developers only managed to install an armored partition behind the pilot’s seat that could withstand hits from rifle-caliber bullets, and increase the frontal armored glass of the cockpit canopy to a thickness of 38 mm, covering it with transparent laminated panels. In addition, the fuel tanks were covered on top with 3-mm light alloy plates, the plates of which could withstand hits from rifle-caliber bullets when fired from sharp angles.

Emergency stock


On board the fighter there was a supply of water, an emergency ration in a sealed tin can, and an inflatable boat with a carbon dioxide cylinder - in case of an emergency landing.

Spitfire's first battle



The first battle in which Spitfires took part took place on October 16, 1939. On this day, aircraft of the 602nd (city of Glasgow) and 603rd (city of Edinburgh) divisions entered into battle with German Junkers bombers (Ju-88), which carried out air strikes on the ships of the Royal fleet over the Firth of Forth (Firth of Forth) off the eastern coast of Scotland. This was the first air attack on Britain since the end of the First World War. As a result of this battle, two German planes were shot down.


Left: An aircraft spotter watches the skies over London, 1940. Right: receiving station towers

The Spitfires' high speed meant that they were able to intercept and destroy two Junkers 88s and seriously damage another. Thus, the power and lethal capabilities of the Spitfire have now been proven in practice!


In the Battle of Britain

In the Battle of Britain


In the early summer of 1940, the situation for Britain was critical - it remained the last European power opposing Hitler, and Hitler was seriously considering the possibility of Operation Sea Lion, which included a large landing on the island, and the decisive moment for the Spitfire had arrived!


Battle of Britain. The pilots rush to their cars

And in order for the plan to succeed, Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to destroy the Royal Air Force. With 1 fighters and 030 bombers, the Germans launched several simultaneous raids on August 1, 320. The British had 13 fighters - Hurricanes and Spitfires - and the most powerful radar system in Europe. And even despite the numerical
superiority, the Germans clashed harshly with fighter pilots, who offered them heroic resistance.


A Messerschmitt shot down by a British Spitfire over London is displayed in front of the Houses of Parliament, 1940.

Described by Prime Minister Winston Churchill as “the few,” these pilots had two key weapons with which they fought off German fighters and bombers. One of these was the Hurricane, which inflicted more than fifty percent of the Luftwaffe's losses. The second was the hero of this article, the iconic, lightning-fast and highly capable interceptor aircraft known as the Spitfire (Supermarine Spitfire Mk I).


Maintenance (left) and gyroscopic sight (right)

Note. The Hurricane fighter was known for its ruggedness and reliability, and proved very effective in combat against enemy bombers. It was the Hurricane pilots who shot down the most aircraft over the skies of Britain. Indeed, 55% of German aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes, 42% by Spitfires, but there were twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires!


A British fighter squadron near a Spitfire. This squadron destroyed 73 enemy aircraft and damaged another 38

The rigid controls and narrow chassis of the German Messerschmitt fighter (Messershmitt BF 109) were a disadvantage compared to the Spitfire, whose sleek lines and two-stage supercharged Merlin engine made it easier for British pilots to fly at high altitudes.

Ultimately, the Spitfire had better combat capability and the Germans lost more aircraft, making it a hero of the Battle of Britain and an icon of British air combat ever since. Here are some of the key ways in which Spitfires contributed to the Battle of Britain:

1. Air superiority. The Spitfire was a high-performance fighter aircraft known for its speed, maneuverability and firepower. It was capable of at least on par or even with an advantage in certain conditions against the best German fighters, especially the Messerschmitt, earning air superiority.

2. Improved features. The Spitfire's exceptional maneuverability and tight turning radius made it highly effective in dogfights. British pilots were able to engage in close combat and usually outperform their opponents, gaining an advantage in dogfights.

3. Versatility. This fighter was versatile and capable of performing a variety of combat missions - it could intercept enemy fighters and bombers, accompany reconnaissance aircraft and, if necessary, even conduct ground attacks. Such high adaptability allowed him to respond to the constantly changing situation on the battlefield.

4. Bomber escort. Spitfires, along with Hurricanes, provided vital escort protection for British bombers such as the Avro Lancaster and Vickers Wellington from attack by German fighters.

5. Interception at heights. The design of the Spitfire gave it the ability to operate effectively at high altitudes, allowing it to intercept German bombers flying at medium and high altitudes.

6. Psychological impact. The Spitfire, with its elegant design and distinctive elliptical wings, became a symbol of British resistance and determination. His presence in the skies raised morale both among the British population and among the Royal Air Force pilots themselves, and conversely, struck fear into the hearts of the enemies who saw him.

7. Defense of British cities. By thwarting Göring's attempts to gain air superiority, the Spitfires helped protect British cities from devastating aerial bombardment, and this was an important aspect of the battle as the Luftwaffe's failure to establish air superiority over Britain led to the abandonment of Operation Sea Lion, the planned invasion of Britain.

8. Non-stop production. The British aviation industry was able to increase production of Spitfire fighters during the Battle of Britain, providing the front with a steady supply of aircraft, allowing the Royal Air Force to replace inevitable losses and thus maintain a powerful fighter force throughout the campaign. The Spitfire's well-thought-out design also made it relatively easy to maintain and repair, reducing downtime and ensuring that the aircraft could quickly return to combat duty after sustaining damage.


Spitfire pilots

In the end, the Spitfire, along with the Hurricane and the valiant efforts of the British pilots, played a hugely significant role in the aerial victory for Britain, and their tenacity and skill completely denied the Luftwaffe air superiority, marking a turning point in the war and testament to an enduring legacy." Spitfires" as one of the most iconic fighter aircraft in history.


Reloading machine guns on a Spitfire before a combat takeoff

Note. Since the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire has undergone many changes, culminating in its final iteration (the Supermarine Spitfire Mk24) in 1947, and its revolutionary design and then-advanced performance have influenced many generations of fighter aircraft to follow.

For example, Geoffrey Quill, Supermarine's chief test pilot, joined the Royal Air Force to more fully study the fighter in combat at the height of the Battle of Britain and flew for several weeks with No. 65 Squadron RAF in order to experience for yourself all the problems that the Spitfire pilots spoke about when using the fighter in combat.

Over the course of nineteen days, Quill recommended several major improvements to the Spitfires, including redesigning the canopy to improve visibility and replacing the existing canvas ailerons, which had a tendency to swell during dives, with metal ones. And these recommendations of his were quickly included in the design, to the delight of the pilots. By the way, during tests of the Spitfire, he personally shot down two Messerschmitt Bf 109s!



Jeffrey Kindersley Quill, Chief Test Pilot, Supermarine

Spitfires and radar



Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)

By the end of 1936, a closely linked radar early warning system known as Chain home (CH), and since 1939 a new system has appeared - Chain Home Low (CHL), capable of detecting low-flying targets.

Combined with observation stations (men on the coast with binoculars), this provided British air defense forces with an important method of early warning of air attack. This radar could detect approaching enemy aircraft at a distance of 129 km and played a decisive role in the Battle of Britain.

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Towers for transmitting and receiving antennas of the Chain Home Low tracking station

The radar was a vital part of Air Marshal Hugh Dowding's system - Britain's highly effective and sophisticated air defense network, which enabled RAF Fighter Command toRAF) to react instantly to bombers approaching the island, which gave a few extra precious minutes to the Spitfire pilots, who could already intercept the Luftwaffe before they reached their targets, thereby using precious pilot and aircraft resources to maximum efficiency.

Throughout the war and during the Battle of Britain, many of those manning radar stations at RAF stations were women - members of the Women's Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force).

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Interior of the reception area at the CHL AMES Type 2 station

Note. Although radar was an important tool for Britain's victory, the technology was actually developed in Germany, but the Luftwaffe did not realize the huge role radar played in British defense. German planes attacked ships, airfields and cities, but their goal was never to destroy radar stations. An exception is that only one radar station on the Isle of Wight received serious damage. And this important oversight by the German command allowed British air defenses to stay one step ahead during the Battle of Britain. And the radar stations dotted all over the coast of Britain were one of the reasons that Spitfire flights were always a huge success!

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Left: Radar operator Denise Miley "flying" the aircraft on a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). Right: Interior of the station reception area

Deployment


Although the Spitfire is usually associated with the Battle of Britain and the War in Europe, it saw active service in other theaters around the world, such as:

1. Spitfires were widely used in the Mediterranean, where they saw action over North Africa, Italy and the Mediterranean.

2. Spitfires were also used in North Africa to counter Axis forces in campaigns such as Operation Torch (Operation Torch – landing of Allied forces in French North Africa on November 8, 1942) and the Tunisian campaign (battles in North Africa 1942–1943).

3. Spitfires were operated by several Commonwealth air forces in the Asia-Pacific theater - the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) and India. They were used for a variety of purposes, including air defense and ground attack.

4. Spitfires served with the Royal Air Force in Burma, where they were an important component of the Burma campaign against Japanese forces. The arrival of the Spitfires helped prevent Japanese advances into China and India. By January 1944, six Spitfire squadrons had played a major role in achieving air superiority over western Burma.

5. The Chinese Kuomintang Air Force received Spitfires as part of Lend-Lease agreements with the Allies, and these aircraft contributed to China's war effort against the Japanese occupation forces.

6. 1 Spitfires took part on the Soviet-German front.

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
British Spitfire pilots in Burma

Soviet-German front


Deliveries of Spitfire fighters (Spitfire Mk. IX) to our country began in January 1943 - the first shipments arrived through Iran, and then through our northern ports. At first these were old aircraft that had undergone repairs and modernization, and later new aircraft began to arrive, straight from the factories, and deliveries ended after the end of the war in Europe - in the summer of 1945. Only two of them are high-rise.

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Spitfire at a Soviet airfield

The Spitfire, with its powerful and high-altitude engine, had a significantly greater service ceiling than all domestic serial fighters - it confidently climbed to an altitude of 12 meters, which was 500 meters more than the Yak-2U (improved) and 450 meters - than the La-9. The Spitfires were superior to the above-mentioned Yakovlevs and Lavochkins both in their rate of climb and in their armament, and the special equipment installed on the fighter made it stand out for the better.

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Soviet pilots

But at low and medium altitudes, where battles usually took place on the Soviet-German front, the Spitfire was seriously inferior to domestic fighters - for example, in ground speed they lost to the La-7 by about as much as 100 km/h, so the use of these fighters at the front the aviation command was considered inappropriate, and most of them were sent to air defense regiments.

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Soviet officers near a Spitfire fighter

The first batches of fighters delivered, as mentioned above, included used aircraft that had already served in the Royal Air Force; moreover, it was discovered that the Merlin engine installed on them was very sensitive to the dusty airfields of the Soviet-German front, and All these problems were further aggravated by a serious shortage of spare parts...

Women in the Royal Air Force - WRAF (Women's Royal Air Force)
Construction of the engineering and technical staff of the 26th Guards IAP in 1945. In the background are Spitfire fighters (Mk. IX) with Guard insignia

The first Spitfires were adopted by the 28th Independent Reconnaissance Squadron of the Northern Fleet, where they successfully photographed the German heavy cruisers Scharnhorst and Admiral von Scheer, among other warships, in the Norwegian fjord Altenfjord.


Spitfire for aerial reconnaissance. The F24 aerial camera with an 8-inch lens, installed in a blister under the wing of the aircraft, is clearly visible

Spitfires also took part in the air battles for Kuban, where they were used mainly to support ground forces behind the front line, and in the Black Sea Fleet they provided air cover for fleet bases.


"Spitfire" (Spitfire Mk. Vb) with a Soviet radio direction finder RPK-10M. The round antenna above the cockpit fairing is clearly visible

Note. You will smile, but Soviet pilots first tested the Spitfire in March 1941 in the most unexpected place - in Germany, when the Soviet delegation arrived there, and the Germans showed the captured Spitfire (Spitfire Mk. Ia) to the Soviet representatives and even allowed the test pilot S.P. Suprun (1907–1941) to test it. S.P. Suprun took off on it and was clearly impressed - he liked its excellent stability and easy handling, and the only shortcomings he noted were the small fuel supply and the lack of cannons and large-caliber machine guns.


Stepan Pavlovich Suprun - test pilot and the first Soviet pilot to fly the Spitfire

Sometimes already heavily used engines often failed, and fighters were repeatedly forced to make forced landings, and even then, only one Spitfire was written off for non-combat reasons...

Curiosities. Spare parts for this fighter were a constant problem, but aviation specialists were very inventive - for example, Lieutenant Engineer Manochkin, head of the aircraft repair base, installed wheels from the MiG-3 fighter on the Spitfire.

Sometimes, due to a lack of spare parts, aviation technicians, as a temporary measure, placed washers cut from empty cans on the piston rings in order to somehow keep the fighters in working order. Spitfires on the Soviet-German front sometimes even suffered from mistaken identity, as they were sometimes mistaken for Messerschmitts from certain angles (Messershmitt BF 109).


Spitfires on Soviet ships


The Soviet command had plans to use Spitfires as catapult fighters to protect large warships, as was done in the British Navy, and by the end of 1943, design work began at the Leningrad plant to install a catapult on a warship, and already the following year Work began on modifying the Black Sea Fleet cruiser Molotov, and by the fall of 1944, ten Spitfires were transferred to the specially formed 24th Naval Aviation Squadron, based at the Alma-Tomak airfield (Crimea).


"Spitfire" mounted on the catapult of the cruiser "Molotov"

During the Great Patriotic War, Spitfire launches were not carried out from a catapult, but in 1946, three successful launches from a ship’s deck followed by landing at the Gelendzhik airfield from the Molotov cruiser were nevertheless carried out and completed without incident.

For test flights from a catapult, the pilots received a Swiss Longin wristwatch as a reward (Longines ) from the commander of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force.

"Seafire" - marine version


"Seafire" (Supermarine Seafire) was an urgent modification of the Spitfire, intended to create a carrier-based fighter, where the chassis was slightly improved, which from the very beginning of the Spitfire’s creation was not designed for the harsh conditions of landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. New naval aircraft (Seafire Mk IB) was a modification of the ground-based Spitfire (Spitfire Mk Vb), in which the landing gear was strengthened, a retractable brake hook was added (hook*) and the fuselage was significantly strengthened.


Seafire with folded wings. The aerofinisher is clearly visible from behind (hook)

In addition, the Seafire received many small parts necessary to adapt the marine Seafire to the special operating conditions of the fleet, including anti-icing devices for radio antennas, an air intake damper (only on Spitfires in tropical zones) and installation for signal signals. cartridges.


Emergency landing of Seafire on the deck of an aircraft carrier

The main obstacle to converting the future Seafire from the Spitfire was the fact that during the development of the Spitfire it was never intended to be used aboard an aircraft carrier. In addition, the type's two main problems were poor forward visibility and the inability to carry large quantities of fuel on board.


Seafire takes off from the deck of the aircraft carrier HMS Furious

All Seafires (like the Spitfires) had a disadvantage similar to the German one Messerschmitt BF109 – narrow chassis track (albeit wider than that of the Messerschmitt), which was the cause of many accidents associated with loss of lateral stability when moving along the deck.


Left: Another bad landing. Right: aircraft technician

But during the fighter's operational life, it was discovered that due to the more complex approach techniques used to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier, approach techniques were difficult, visibility (due to the cockpit layout) was limited at best, and landing gear destruction was common. In addition, the arresting hooks had a tendency to overshoot and bounce back into the fuselage with an inevitable subsequent collision with the deck parking lot or ship barrier.

Therefore, as a fleet defense interceptor, the Seafires were excellent vehicles, but their fragility was their Achilles heel, causing most of the vehicles to be lost as a result of chassis failures during hard landings, rather than due to enemy action. By June 1945, auxiliary fuel tanks were added to the Seafire, which increased its combat range by 50 percent and allowed it to take part in serious offensive operations.


Seafires had folding wings for placement on aircraft carriers

A total of 2 Seafires were produced, both converted from Spitfires and assembled to accommodate changes to the design.

Note. Back in 1940, the creators of the Spitfire proposed a naval version of the fighter with a brake hook and folding wings, and the Navy requested permission from the Ministry of Aviation to build 50 Spitfire aircraft with a folding wing and a brake hook, but for unknown reasons, Winston Churchill, who was at that time moment the First Lord of the Admiralty, canceled this request. Perhaps fearing a German invasion of the island, it was essential to continue production of land-based Spitfires in order for the Royal Air Force (RAF) to defend the island.

This naval fighter had manually folding wings and a more powerful (2 hp) engine for greater hangar space. Rolls-Royce Griffon with a single-stage supercharger.


During the war, the Seafire was used to provide air cover during the Allied invasion of Sicily and the subsequent invasion of mainland Italy. She took part in the D-Day landings, providing air support for the troops as they landed on the beaches of Normandy, and in the later stages of the Second World War Seafire joined the British Pacific Fleet, where she valiantly repelled kamikaze attacks by the Japanese. pilots.

Already during the Korean War, the 800th Naval Aviation Squadron used Seafires operating from a light aircraft carrier HMS Triumph. Other users of the type included the French Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy.


Seafires on the deck of the aircraft carrier HMS_Triumph during the Korean War. 1950

Winemaking


Full-scale production of Spitfires began at the company's own plant Supermarine in Woolston, near Southampton, but the order could not be completed within the promised 15 months - Supermarine was a small company, moreover, fearing German bombing, the company adopted a plan to disperse individual workshops and factories.


Left: Prime Minister Winston Churchill watches a woman riveting a fuselage. Right: Women sort through ammunition destined for Supermarine Spitfires

Even before the German bombing in September 1940 and after the destruction of the Woolston and Itchen factories, the company Supermarine began evacuating production facilities to other areas so that production could continue - sometimes even requiring the support of the Minister for Aircraft Manufacturing, Lord Beaverbrook.


Left: The Merlins were tested in separate chambers, each equipped with a lift and an adjustable platform lift for engine installation and removal. Right: Rolls-Royce Merlin engines being assembled in Derby

Typically, the relocated workshops were located in and around Southampton, as well as the other manufacturing clusters of Winchester, Salisbury, Trowbridge, Newbury and Reading. And the main assembly plant was located in Castle Bromwich (bromwich castle), in the Birmingham area, which eventually produced more than half of all Spitfires produced and had its own network of subcontracting suppliers of over 300 companies.


Women's Voluntary Service - Women from Wickham, Hampshire, sort the different types of rivets needed to make the Spitfire.

Since the start of the war, there have been literally hundreds of subcontractors, usually small companies, producing everything from tiny parts to large sections of the aircraft, such as the tail section or the leading edge of a wing. In many cases, multiple companies supplied the same parts to meet demand as quickly as possible or simply to avoid becoming overly dependent on a single source.


Spitfire fighters under construction at Castle Bromwich

Post-war use


The era of the piston-engined monoplane fighter lasted from approximately 1935 to 1950, and the Spitfire was unique in that it was the only aircraft to span this entire period and remained the best until the very end, further highlighting the true talent of its creator - R. J. Mitchell. But the advent of jet fighters (Messerschmitt Me. 262) stopped the further development of piston aircraft and showed engineers the way to the future - after the end of the war, designers everywhere turned to the production of fighter aircraft with jet engines, and therefore the post-war service life of the Spitfires was short.

After World War II, Spitfires continued to serve in various air forces around the world, including Belgium, France, Greece, Norway and the Netherlands. Many of these countries continued to operate the "remnants" of the Spitfires in anticipation of the transition to newer aircraft with jet engines.

They participated in the Greek Civil War (1946–1949), in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, where the Israeli Air Force (IAF) they played an important role in providing air superiority over the region, and in the later conflict of 1956 (the "Suez Crisis"), it was flown by both the Israelis and the Egyptians. He also saw action in Korea in the early 1950s, and his popularity continued to remain high until the 1960s.


Israeli Supermarine Spitfire in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Value


Supermarine SpitfireBorn of a dream and refined over years of development, the aircraft has etched its name into the annals of global aviation history, with its remarkable design, combat prowess and enduring heritage making it a symbol of innovation and courage. Reflecting on the history of the Spitfire today brings to mind not only its pivotal role in World War II, but also the indomitable spirit of all those who designed, built and flew this legendary aircraft.


The Spitfire could be loaded with two 250 lb bombs on the wings and one 500 lb bomb under the fuselage

Not only was the Spitfire an effective fighter, but it also had a significant impact on British morale during World War II - sleek and elegant design with a powerful engine Rolls-Royce made it a symbol of British technological prowess and military might, and the Spitfire itself became a symbol of British military might and a source of national pride.


Spitfire pilots in Burma. Although the Spitfire is usually associated with the Battle of Britain, it was also used in British theaters around the world during World War II

The Spitfire's iconic status continued to grow after the war, when it became an attribute of British resilience and determination during the darkest and most unpredictable days of the conflict, and pilots and historians continue to celebrate its legendary status to this day.


Fighters in Burma

Concluding the description of this legendary fighter, it is worth noting the special attitude of the British towards fighter pilots, pilots who saved the islands from raids by German Junkers and Heinkels - for them they were real demigods.


This is how the Spitfires sometimes returned from battle. But they returned...

For example, the British writer and World War II pilot Roald Dahl (Roald Dahl) in one of his stories recalls how, after being wounded and demobilized, he returned home, and one evening several drunken and adventure-seeking soldiers approached him on the street. At first they wanted to beat the officer, but then they noticed he was wearing a flying uniform and immediately left him alone - even for hooligans, the pilot was an inviolable person.


Spitfire repair in the field

Heritage


The Spitfire remains one of the most famous fighter aircraft in aviation history, and its legacy continues to this day.

Many Spitfires survived the war and can be seen today in museums and air shows around the world. The Spitfire has also inspired numerous films, books and works of art, and its iconic design has been replicated in countless other aircraft - it will always be remembered as one of the most iconic aircraft in history and as a testament to the ingenuity and determination of those who designed, built and operated it.


To increase the flight range, additional fuel tanks were attached to the Spitfire

In the post-war era, the Spitfire acquired iconic status, largely due to its decisive role in the Battle of Britain, and surely no other aircraft model graced children's bedrooms in such numbers. The Spitfire, with its speed and graceful lines, remains the shining star of air shows around the world, with approximately 50 examples still flying. This fighter is on permanent display in many museums around the world, most notably the Imperial War Museum and the Science Museum in London, the city it did so much to protect.


Installation of a camera in the Spitfire fuselage for photographic reconnaissance

The Spitfire remains a popular aircraft among aviation enthusiasts to this day, and many organizations and individuals are dedicated to the preservation and restoration of these historic aircraft.

Information


* Adolph Galland (Adolf Galland, 1912–1996). By the end of World War II, Lieutenant General of Aviation, Luftwaffe ace pilot and one of its organizers. He comes from a family of descendants of French Huguenots.

During the war (Western Front) he flew more than 700 combat missions, of which he was shot down four times. He was responsible for 104 enemy aircraft shot down, including seven victories in the Messerschmitt Me jet fighter. 262. Constantly clashed with Goering. Author of the post-war memoirs “The First and the Last. German fighters on the Western Front 1941–1945."

* Reginald Joseph Mitchell (Reginald Joseph Mitchell, 1895–1937). It should be remembered that Mitchell was diagnosed with cancer in 1933 and suffered severe pain until his death on June 11, 1937.

* Supermarine Aviation Works. British aircraft manufacturer founded in 1913 to build powerboats. In 1916 the company was renamed Supermarine Aviation Works Ltd and became famous for a series of Schneider Trophy victories with its seaplanes.

* Stressed sheathing. Since under the influence of the pressure difference both above and below the wing and fuselage, as well as the bending moment, the upper skin of the wing is always loaded with forces working in compression, and the lower - in tension, which leads to the formation of “folds” and leads to significant increase in aerodynamic drag. Therefore, the aircraft skin must be rigid and always maintain its given shape.

* Hook (brake hook) is a special device for landing an aircraft on the deck of a ship or a short runway, reducing its mileage. It was first used in 1911 in the USA when landing on the deck of the battleship USS Pennsylvania.

To the reader. As stated above, the British Spitfire was one of the most popular fighter aircraft of the Second World War - the basic airframe, developed back in 1936, proved to be extremely adaptable, able to withstand much more powerful engines installed on it and significantly increased aerodynamic loads than it could handle. the originally intended role was that of a short-range interceptor.

And this would lead to all twenty-four Spitfire models being produced throughout the Second World War and even after it, as part of the continuous efforts of the designers to meet the requirements of the Royal Air Force and their success against the ever-improving enemy aircraft.

Therefore, in order to avoid questions and criticism, I did not consider all brands of fighters produced during this period, because this would require a whole book, but limited myself to only a general description of the history of development, design and use in combat conditions. Hope for understanding...


Used materials:
1. V. Kotelnikov - “Spitfire”. The best allied fighter.
2. Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady – Spitfire: The History.
3. Materials of Russian and foreign specialized magazines.
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    April 27 2024 04: 45
    Very informative and very interesting.
    A well-deserved plus to the author!!! good
    1. +13
      April 27 2024 08: 43
      Many thanks to the author! It’s been a while since I’ve seen anything like this on topvar. And in the old days, military reviews were famous for precisely such articles. Great, Nikolai!!!
      1. +8
        April 27 2024 12: 54
        Quote: Richard
        Many thanks to the author!

        hi
        1. +4
          April 28 2024 13: 01
          I join in the gratitude and express my admiration for the level of the article and the presentation of the material.

          A small request - to translate all units of measurement in clear terms, including 6 feet of inscription height or 100 thousand pounds sterling 1930s.
    2. +1
      April 27 2024 10: 03
      There are books on the Internet, freely available, where much more is said about this aircraft, as well as many others, and with a greater understanding of the issue. For example, Vladimir Kotelnikov, author of many books on WWII aviation - "Spitfire. The best fighter of the Royal Air Force")))
      1. -6
        April 27 2024 10: 48
        The article is good, but there are little things of a historical nature that distort reality and are inspired by the modern interpretation of the history of World War II in the West. Not as a quibble, but many post-war historians believed that the Battle of Britain in the air was lost by the British due to a lack of aircrew and extreme overexertion of forces. The morale of many pilots by the end of the campaign was below par and even refused to fly. The Britons were lucky that Hitler suddenly stopped his attacks.
        1. -6
          April 27 2024 11: 41
          England stood “on the edge” in August - September 40, and only Hitler’s distraction to other directions saved them from disaster. Once again I am convinced that life is unfair. How many problems could have been avoided if this vile island had ceased to exist in the form in which it exists now.
          1. +4
            April 27 2024 12: 28
            Quote: TermNachTER
            England stood “on the edge” in August - September 40, and only Hitler’s distraction to other directions saved them from disaster.

            In fact, the diversion of Hitler’s attention to other directions occurred precisely because of the impossibility of using the available forces to directly and finally resolve the issue with Britain - by landing on the Island. Therefore, the Germans resorted to indirect action, believing that in order for Britain to capitulate, it was necessary to deprive it of its last ally on the continent.
            The hope of England is Russia and America. If hopes for Russia collapse, America will also fall away from England, since the defeat of Russia will result in the incredible strengthening of Japan in East Asia.

            If Russia is defeated, England will lose its last hope. Then Germany will dominate in Europe and the Balkans.
            Conclusion: In accordance with this reasoning, Russia should be eliminated. The deadline is spring 1941.
            © one vegan artist
            ICHH, all the armed forces of the Reich immediately agreed that it was better to fight with the USSR than to land on the Island. Apparently, no one believed in the success of the Sea Lion. smile
            1. -4
              April 27 2024 12: 57
              Whether the Germans could have landed in England or not is a moot point, since the matter never came to fruition. But they could very well continue to bomb industrial and transport hubs. They had enough planes and military equipment. The situation was so difficult that in April - May, the British were seriously planning to buy aircraft from Italy.
              Did everyone believe in the success of “Barbarossa”?))) From my personal point of view, “Sea Lion” is much more real than the war against the USSR. Since this war, the war did not have any options favorable to Hitler at all.
              1. +4
                April 27 2024 13: 53
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Did everyone believe in the success of “Barbarossa”?))) From my personal point of view, “Sea Lion” is much more real than the war against the USSR. Since this war, the war did not have any options favorable to Hitler at all.

                So the Sea Lion also had no chance. Moreover, the inevitability of defeat was even more obvious. Actually, there were two options: a landing on a wide front with the destruction of landing craft on the approach, or a landing on a narrow front with a meat grinder on the shore. For even the RN forces based in the Canal and on the approaches to it were many times greater than the entire Kriegsmarine. And they would definitely have air cover - they would have thrown all their reserves into repelling the RAF landing.
                1. -6
                  April 27 2024 14: 03
                  The inevitability of the defeat of "Barbarossa" is visible to the naked eye when looking at a large-scale geographical map. While Sea Lion had some chances of success.
                  1. +2
                    April 27 2024 22: 04
                    . The inevitability of the defeat of "Barbarossa" is visible to the naked eye

                    Barbarossa itself ended as a brilliant success. The problems started later.
                    1. -1
                      April 28 2024 09: 05
                      Success?))) it was supposed to reach the line Arkhangelsk - Rybinsk and further along the Volga to Astrakhan. Where did you stop? This is not even to mention the fact that reaching this line did not at all guarantee victory in the war. In general, the mental abilities of the planners of Hitler's General Staff plunge me into the deepest amazement.
                      1. 0
                        April 28 2024 09: 23
                        . The mental abilities of the planners of Hitler's General Staff plunge me into the deepest amazement.

                        This is because you are not aware of their activities.
                        it was supposed to go to the line Arkhangelsk - Rybinsk and further along the Volga to Astrakhan

                        It was supposed to destroy the spacecraft in border battles and reach the Dnieper-Dvina line. This was done beyond all expectations. Blitzkrieg to a depth of more than 300 km in 41 is impossible. And even later it is impossible: the Americans of 44, who were incomparably stronger in terms of supplies, quickly covered the same 300 km and stopped for six months. Similarly, the late spacecraft went from Smolensk to Berlin for a year in three stages: Bagration - a stop to tighten up the rear and remove the threat from the flanks - Vistula-Oder - stop - Berlin. American and even more so Soviet planners were much weaker than Halder’s headquarters, I assure you.

                        The paragraph that after a lost border battle the USSR capitulates was added by political instructors and had nothing to do with military planning. It's just a slogan. Moscow in three days, so to speak, or rather, as not only the Germans liked to say, victory by Christmas. But for objective reasons, it was impossible to defeat the USSR by blitzkrieg; a transition to total war was required: Hitler refused to admit this for too long, until 43.

                        But the USSR was entirely about total war, so it was much better prepared for such a development of events. Despite all its absurdities and madness.
                      2. -1
                        April 28 2024 21: 28
                        I read Halder's memoirs. To put it mildly - not impressive. But the geographical map is impressive - from the Dnieper to the Urals, well, very far)))
                    2. 0
                      6 May 2024 13: 24
                      Quote: Negro
                      Barbarossa itself ended as a brilliant success.

                      Nope. The first phase of "Barbarossa" ended with success:
                      The main forces of the Russian ground forces located in Western Russia must be destroyed in bold operations through deep, rapid extension of tank wedges. The retreat of combat-ready enemy troops into the wide expanses of Russian territory must be prevented.

                      For KOVO, the planned line of defeat is “before the latter reach the Dnieper.” For ZOVO - up to the connection of GA "Center" and "South" beyond the Pripyat swamps.
                      And here is the second phase:
                      By rapid pursuit a line must be reached from which the Russian air force will not be able to carry out raids on Imperial German territory.
                      - failed completely. For the rapid pursuit collided with the second line of defense from the rear divisions of the border districts and the reserves of the internal districts deployed along the Dnieper line in advance.
                      1. 0
                        Yesterday, 16: 14
                        . By rapid pursuit a line must be reached from which the Russian air force will not be able to carry out raids on Imperial German territory.
                        - failed completely.

                        You're not seriously mentioning the ADD as a real military force, are you? Defending the territory of the Reich from Comrade Golovanov is a task from the buy free series. Unless there could be some nuances in East Prussia, and even then minor ones.

                        Another thing is that the hypothesis of an immediate panicked flight of the remnants of the enemy forces is not part of the actual military plan. And this is no longer a question for Gadder.
                  2. +2
                    April 27 2024 22: 35
                    There was nothing visible there. Twenty years ago, Russia was brought to capitulation with one left hand (they fought the French and British with their right). We hoped to repeat it under better conditions.
        2. +1
          April 27 2024 12: 26
          Quote: Xenofont
          The Battle of Britain in the air was lost by the British due to a lack of aircrew and extreme overexertion of forces. The morale of many pilots by the end of the campaign was below par and even refused to fly. The Britons were lucky that Hitler suddenly stopped his attacks.

          The topic is not for this article, but the Luftwaffe simply ran out of steam. There were large losses of both aircraft and personnel, which were still difficult for German industry to restore. Well, if you read the British publications, they defeated the Luftwaffe with devastating light...
        3. +1
          April 28 2024 23: 36
          Here Anglophiles are fighting the historical truth, minus all those who deny Western fakes about the victorious campaign over Britain. Arguments, as usual, are not presented in the absence of erudition.
      2. +2
        April 27 2024 10: 50
        Nevertheless ! A book for amateurs and “those who need it” - and here it is in the public domain, without the need to search, buy or “steal” the author’s content!
        Respect to the author of this article on Topvar!
        1. 0
          April 27 2024 11: 37
          Well, I want to say that the article is largely “transcribed” from there, with some abbreviations)))
          1. +2
            April 27 2024 12: 22
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Well, I want to say that the article is largely “transcribed” from there, with some abbreviations)))

            Can you provide the address too?
            1. -3
              April 27 2024 12: 58
              Of course I can - take Kotelnikov’s book and read it.
              1. +4
                April 27 2024 13: 00
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Of course I can - take Kotelnikov’s book and read

                You probably immediately rushed to comment without even reading?
                1. 0
                  April 27 2024 13: 03
                  I read many of Kotelnikov’s books, about Hurricane, Mustang, etc., that’s why I say that to a large extent, it’s “pulled” from there.
                  1. +3
                    April 27 2024 13: 07
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    I read many of Kotelnikov’s books, about Hurricane, Mustang, etc., that’s why I say that to a large extent, it’s “pulled” from there.

                    I'm not talking about Kotelnikov's book. Look at the end of the article
  2. -1
    April 27 2024 04: 56
    Quote: N. Kunuev
    “C-wing” (C-wing or Universal Wing)
    The author forgot to mention the “D wing”, specially adapted for the installation of reconnaissance photographic and film equipment. The article is definitely a plus!
    1. +6
      April 27 2024 06: 35
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      The author forgot to mention the "D wing"

      Yes, I forgot. I have not yet mentioned many others - for mounting special equipment, additional fuel tanks, etc. I forgot something, didn’t finish something - the format of the article...
  3. +17
    April 27 2024 05: 24
    for the American military, the no less legendary Aircobra fighter (P-39 Airacobra)
    For the Americans, the Cobra was not a legendary aircraft. Most of the P-39s were delivered under Lend-Lease to the USSR. Here it would be more appropriate to mention a Mustang, Thunderbolt or B-17 or B-29.
    a masterpiece of aerodynamic technology
    what technology?
    The Supermarine S.6B, piloted by Lieutenant George Stainforth, was powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
    There was no Merlin on S.6B, naturally. There was a Rolls-Royce R.
    That's it, I didn't read any further.
    1. +12
      April 27 2024 06: 24
      hi I wanted to write the same about the P39 and P51, they got ahead of me, plus in some places the article smacks of machine translation. Well, the Spitfire is without a doubt an excellent aircraft.
      1. 0
        April 27 2024 06: 33
        Quote: Alexey 1970
        the article in some places smacks of machine translation

        Do you require any literary delights from a technical article? wink
        1. +6
          April 27 2024 06: 37
          Do you require any literary delights from a technical article? Well then, let’s get straight to the operating instructions. Excellent reading and no questions will arise.
        2. +3
          April 27 2024 10: 07
          Well, one could get away from obvious Anglicisms, such as “deadly”.
    2. +5
      April 27 2024 06: 26
      Quote from Sancheas
      There was no Merlin on S.6B, naturally

      Inappropriate typo...

      Quote from Sancheas
      There was a Rolls-Royce R

      If we look at history, then Rolls-royce merlin hatched from Rolls-Royce R, which was a racing variant that in turn hatched from Rolls-Royce Buzzard, While Rolls-Royce Buzzard, was a parent Rolls-Royce Kestre. Rolls Royce R - was not burdened with the requirements of reliability and durability imposed on fighter aircraft - it was an engine specially tuned for racing and had a very small circulation, something a little more than ten pieces. Continuing the history of engines Rolls-Royce, we can also recall Griffon - was probably the best liquid-cooled piston aircraft engine that went back in time and became a semblance Rolls-Royce R, having absorbed all the best from him. Engines are a fascinating topic and, unfortunately, do not fit into the format of this article...

      Quote from Sancheas
      That's it, I didn't read further

      Wikipedia is waiting for you 24 hours a day...
    3. +1
      April 27 2024 06: 35
      Yes, after the legendary Airacobra, interest in the article disappeared.
      But the photos are good.
      1. +5
        April 27 2024 06: 38
        Quote from tsvetahaki
        Yes, after the legendary Airacobra, interest in the article disappeared

        All American literature about World War II writes with admiration about P-39 Airacobra just like we talk about the T-34 or Katyusha...
        1. -3
          April 27 2024 22: 10
          . P-39 Airacobra is exactly the same as we are about the T-34 or Katyusha...

          “Everything”, “exactly the same”. These phrases speak only about your level of mastery of the material. The Cobra was a mediocre aircraft, the T-34 was an extremely unsuccessful machine, and rocket mortars were downright sabotage.
          1. +1
            3 May 2024 09: 37
            Your level of mastery of the material is off the charts; you present your own preconceptions as the ultimate truth. From what exact sources did you decide that “the Cobra was a mediocre aircraft, the T-34 an extremely unsuccessful machine, and rocket-propelled mortars were completely sabotage”?
            1. -1
              3 May 2024 11: 41
              . From what exact sources did you decide that “the Cobra was a mediocre aircraft, the T-34 an extremely unsuccessful machine, and rocket-propelled mortars were completely sabotage”?

              It’s rather funny that you are seeing these rather banal statements for the first time. The Cobra is a rather stupid aircraft with a relatively weak engine and a not very outstanding airframe and weapons. It in no way belongs to the masterpieces of American aircraft manufacturing. Unlike the later versions of the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning and Corsair. An early T-34 with an early gearbox, an early air filter and especially a two-man turret is terrible. That is, it’s not that “there are disadvantages”, but simply extremely bad. The T-34-85 was brought up to the average level for the hospital. In the conditions of WWII in general and WWII in particular, a rocket launcher was an extremely unsuccessful solution: it has no advantages relative to a conventional heavy mortar, but it has a lot of disadvantages. WWII in particular - since some Englishmen could invent anything, rich people have expensive entertainment. But the spacecraft experienced a huge shortage of artillery, including heavy artillery, and therefore the extremely scarce resources (fire control, mechanization, supply, production, design) spent on guards mortars cost it much more.
              1. 0
                3 May 2024 14: 59
                Yes, you know, I like to make people laugh. However, Lieutenant General Erich Schneider wrote: “The Russians, having created an exceptionally successful and completely new type of tank, have made a great leap forward in the field of tank building. Due to the fact that they managed to keep all their work on the production of these tanks well classified, the sudden appearance of new vehicles at the front had a great effect... With their T-34 tank, the Russians convincingly proved the exceptional suitability of diesel for installing it on a tank,”
                Heinz Wilhelm Guderian recalled in his memoirs: “The reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks, and most importantly, about their new tactics were especially disappointing. Our anti-tank weapons of that time could operate successfully against T-34 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barreled 75-mm cannon had the ability to destroy the T-34 tank from the rear, hitting its engine through the shutters. This required great skill."
                German tankman Otto Carius in his monograph “Tigers in the Mud. Memoirs of a German Tankman" also did not skimp on compliments of the T-34: "Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: Russian T-34 tanks appeared for the first time! The amazement was complete. How could it be that those at the top did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? The T-34, with its good armor, ideal shape and magnificent 76,2 mm long-barreled gun, awed everyone, and all German tanks were afraid of it until the end of the military conflict." It’s strange, because in fact, “the T-34 was an extremely unsuccessful machine ".
                The R-39 airacobra was considered in the USSR to be a fighter with powerful weapons and difficult piloting, but it was armed with guards regiments with experienced pilots. Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Pokryshkin, Akhmet Khan Sultan, Pavel Kutakhov, Vadim Fadeev, Nikolai Gulaev will not let you lie. It’s strange that the best fighter units were armed with such mediocrity.
                Regarding the guards mortars, I had several questions: in what year did the spacecraft experience a huge shortage of artillery, what exactly? Shells or guns? At the beginning of the war or always? Honestly, I don’t understand at all what the complaint is about the Katyusha, they were developed before the war, they produced 11, what’s wrong? Didn't they produce other types of weapons or what?
                1. -1
                  3 May 2024 18: 31
                  .Yes, you know, I like to make people laugh.

                  Is it true? Hmm, it can get better.
                  Lieutenant General, Erich Schneider, wrote

                  When German generals sat down to write why they lost the war, the most amazing things came to their minds. A half-page sign would be enough: country/population/GDP. But no fee will be paid for such a sign.
                  For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barreled 75-mm cannon had the ability to destroy the T-34 tank from the rear, hitting its engine through the shutters. This required great skill."

                  As you can see, Guderian also loved to amuse people, and he did it, not as a reproach, better than you. Still, not everyone will dare to discuss how an infantry mortar (in modern money, a breech-loading mortar) will represent an anti-tank gun.
                  It was almost as fun to throw a short-gun four - for Soviet rubles, an artank like a 76mm BT-7 or T-28 - into an oncoming tank battle - although the German tank divisions had more suitable products for such a case.
                  German tankman Otto Carius in his monograph

                  Otto Karius fought in 41, if I’m not mistaken, with 38t. Yes, I wouldn’t recommend fighting with 38t medium tanks. Even if it's a T-34. It was also lucky that he was facing a blind Kharkov resident, and not, say, a long-gun troika.
                  It’s strange, because in fact, “the T-34 is an extremely unsuccessful machine.”

                  Nothing strange. Firstly, the fascists are trolling. Secondly, during the war, it was customary for the Germans to boast, and after that, on the contrary, to become poor.
                  It’s strange that the best fighter units were armed with such mediocrity.

                  Nothing strange. Recently, there was a relatively balanced article by Skomorokhov on Cobra, in the comments, including me, who spoke in some detail. The mediocre American plane was the best or one of the best Soviet ones. The quality of fighters in the USSR was especially bad, even compared to the rest of Soviet aviation.
                  Regarding the guards mortars, I had several questions: in what year did the spacecraft experience a huge shortage of artillery, what exactly?

                  The entire war and all the artillery. The spacecraft did relatively well except with mortars. Any figures for the density of barrels per kilometer of some offensive operation (what densities were created for several hours) - this is not completely, but in many respects the barrels of mortars and ZiS-3.

                  I love this illustration: if all the divisional artillery is removed from an American state infantry division of 43 years old, then its salvo weight on regimental guns alone will be higher than that of a full-fledged Soviet rifle division of 42 years old.

                  As for higher levels, there is another great example: the main Soviet hull gun was the ML-20, a pretty good design for those years. Its analogue was the English 5,5inch. The characteristics are similar, the output volume is almost the same.

                  Now estimate the number of Soviet and British rifle/infantry corps that these guns supported. And accordingly, how many guns were there per hull.

                  If it’s not enough, try to compare RVGK yourself, that is, calibers higher than ML-20. The picture is the same there.
                  Honestly, I don’t understand at all what the complaint is about “Katyusha”

                  I think I listed it.
                  1. Fire control. After the death of the regular army in 41, the number of competent artillery officers was extremely limited. If you put them on a BM battery, then you don’t have them for the same ML-20 battery.
                  2. Mechanization. It was the British who issued three tractors for every two divisional guns. The spacecraft had huge problems with mechanization - and the guards mortars were completely mechanized.
                  3. Supply - useless weapons create the same logistics burden as useful ones. Logistics has never been CA's strong suit.
                  4. Production. Separate tsimes. Before the war, RSs were riveted by plant #70. Instead of the shells of armor-piercing shells that he had sharpened before. As a result of such decisions (not only this particular one, everything was magical there), in the first months of the war, armor-piercing shells for your favorite T-34s were issued, figuratively speaking, in batches of three. To the company. To the hello with shells, there’s also the hello with gunpowder: on a PC, they require three times more than is acceptable for a 122mm howitzer shot. The USSR also turned out to be poor in gunpowder: already in the fall, nitro gunpowder for the RS arrived from Britain.
                  5. Engineering and design resources. It's difficult to say anything here. The enemies of the people Korolev and Glushko, who had something to do with the RSs, were mainly engaged in logging just before the war. So it is difficult to give advice on a more rational use of the poor Soviet design potential. Here, so to speak, the grave will correct it. In 53.
  4. 0
    April 27 2024 06: 04
    I thought that Hitler hoped to make a separate peace with Great Britain and therefore did not completely destroy it from the air. And he sent Hess there in 1941, who negotiated there for a week, and then lived in a house in a prison yard in Berlin until he was 90, before hanging himself (they say they helped so that he wouldn’t tell too much).
    If you look at the losses and their replacement by both sides, there were only two months left before the complete destruction of British aviation by Germany. And the outstanding aircraft has nothing to do with it.
    1. 0
      April 27 2024 06: 32
      Quote: bya965
      And he sent Hess there in 1941

      Hess landed his plane unsuccessfully, was arrested and served in prison until the Nuremberg trials. He did not conduct any negotiations. In any case, this is the official version...
      1. +1
        April 27 2024 06: 38
        Quote: Luminman
        Hess landed his plane unsuccessfully

        Made me laugh. In principle, he could not land him; he would simply be shot down at the airfield. In field?
        The only thing he could do was jump out with a parachute.
        He chose the departure date according to his horoscope. On May 10, 1941, Hess, wearing a brown overall, flew across the English Channel in an Me-110 and parachuted near Hamilton's estate in Scotland, south of Glasgow, breaking his ankle when he hit the tail of the aircraft. The Messerschmitt crash attracted the attention of local residents. Within minutes of landing, Hess was caught by farmer David McLean. The pilot identified himself as Officer Alfred Gorn and demanded an appointment with Hamilton.

        “Hess’s strange mission caused confusion in London, stupor in Berlin, and deepest mistrust in Moscow,” stated the historian Beevor. “The British government reacted completely incorrectly to this event. It should have immediately stated directly that Hitler tried to negotiate peace, but his proposal was categorically rejected. It did not do this, thereby creating Stalin's belief that Hess's flight was organized by the British secret service. He had long suspected that Churchill was trying to provoke Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union. And now he was probably thinking: had the ardent anti-communist Churchill entered into a conspiracy with Germany?

        Hess was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 17, 1987, 93-year-old Hess, according to the official version, committed suicide.
        1. -2
          April 27 2024 06: 52
          Quote: bya965
          In principle, he could not land him; he would simply be shot down at the airfield. In field?
          The only thing he could do was jump out with a parachute

          He was flying to meet Lord Hamilton, whom he knew personally. I don’t remember how he landed - either it was forced by the weather or a landing with a parachute - I don’t want to look for it, and that’s not what the article is about...
    2. 0
      April 27 2024 22: 15
      . I thought that Hitler hoped to make a separate peace with Great Britain and therefore did not

      If the word “thought” could be applied to you, then you would be aware that Hess’s flight took place in the spring of 41. So the word "separate" doesn't really apply to a potential peace - unless you mean Britain's repudiation of its obligations to the governments of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in exile. By the way, the British really abandoned them all, but a little later and without any participation from Hess.
      1. 0
        April 28 2024 04: 02
        Quote: bya965
        I thought that Hitler hoped to make a separate peace with Great Britain and therefore did not completely destroy it from the air. And he sent Hess there in 1941, who negotiated there for a week,

        I gave my full sentence. Your version is cropped:
        Quote: Negro
        . I thought that Hitler hoped to make a separate peace with Great Britain and therefore did not

        If you had read my second sentence, you would have been aware of 41 years and negotiations.
        1. +2
          April 28 2024 08: 28
          Your clarification does not change the fact that in May 1941, virtually no one except Britain fought with the Reich.
  5. BAI
    +4
    April 27 2024 06: 30
    for the American military, the no less legendary Aircobra fighter (P-39 Airacobra) and the battleship USS Missouri,

    The Airacobra was not popular in the USA, although many were made
  6. +9
    April 27 2024 06: 35
    Hermann Goering, at a meeting of the Luftwaffe High Command (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe), reproaching the leadership for their inability to defeat the Royal Air Force (RAF) and achieve complete air superiority, asked what else they needed to ensure complete victory in the air, to which the young German ace pilot Adolf Galland* answered him rather boldly: “A squadron of Spitfires!” Such was the reputation of the Supermarine Spitfire.

    Hmm, this is the case when “the answer is adjusted to the answer at the end of the textbook”... It’s a pity.
    Let's read what Galland himself recalled in his memoirs:
    "...Finally, as time was running out, he became more friendly and asked what we would like to ask for our air connections. Mölders
    asked that the Me-109 series be created with a more powerful engine. Request
    promised to satisfy. "And you?" - Goering turned to me. Without any hesitation, I
    said: “I would like my unit to be manned by Spitfires.”
    this, I felt a little shocked, because in fact I didn’t think so. Of course, I generally preferred our Me-109 to the Spitfire, but I was incredibly irritated by the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which our command gave us orders that we either could not carry out or could not carry out completely - due to all those shortcomings for which we certainly could not be blamed. Such shameless impudence simply left Goering speechless. He stamped his foot and walked out, uttering a cry of dissatisfaction and irritation..."

    The young German commander of the Spitfire aviation regiment did not put it above everyone else, then he considered the Me-109 such a miracle fighter
  7. +7
    April 27 2024 06: 36
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Very informative and very interesting.
    A well-deserved plus to the author!!! good

    It would also be nice to translate the article into Russian!
    Washers placed under the piston rings. I wonder if the “author” has ever seen a piston with piston rings?
    “Tense sheathing” in the Russian tradition is called working sheathing.
    Probably not a two-stage engine, but an engine with a two-stage supercharger.
    The P-39 was certainly not a symbol of victory for the Americans.
    Unfortunately, this is not an article, but only a draft of an article; you can publish something like this only with very little respect for the reader (and yourself). The reader should not do the work of both the author and the editor and the proofreader during the reading process!
    1. 0
      April 27 2024 07: 04
      Quote: Grossvater
      Washers placed under the piston rings. I wonder if the “author” has ever seen a piston with piston rings?

      I installed these rings on my motorcycle myself when I was still in school. And even an additional ring for the piston, after the turner made a groove for it. And just in my school years I screwed on more nuts than you put out letters in this comment... Now about the washers. It was cut out of cans and placed under worn rings - technically this is possible. These gaskets probably have something else besides the ring, the name is a backing, a gasket or a size increaser, I don’t know. Here are the cards in your hands to come up with...

      Quote: Grossvater
      "Tense sheathing" in the Russian tradition is called working sheathing

      The male penis in Russian tradition is also called somewhat differently. And in sopromat - this is called stressed sheathing...

      Quote: Grossvater
      very much disrespecting the reader (and himself)

      I certainly don’t respect you, but I don’t want to apply this to you word from Russian tradition
      1. +12
        April 27 2024 09: 40
        The male penis in Russian tradition is also called somewhat differently. And in strength of materials, this is called stressed sheathing...

        I don’t know about penises, maybe you really are an expert in them, but you can’t say the same about the strength of materials and the design of aircraft. There is no such thing in strength of materials as a stressed skin of an aircraft. There is a hard covering, but it works. You can easily verify this by opening any textbook on strength calculations of aircraft, for example, Odintsov’s. Or
        FUSELAGE, WINGS AND TERMINATION
        PLANES AND HELICOPTERS
        TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
        GOST 25890-76
        1. +7
          April 27 2024 09: 58
          In addition to the previous comment, another source on the topic.
        2. 0
          April 27 2024 12: 18
          Quote: Dekabrist
          There is no such thing in strength of materials as stressed skin of an aircraft

          In sopromat there is such a concept as voltage (adj. tense), and the strength of materials itself does not consider either aircraft, ships, or construction beams. Only structural elements and forces acting on them. Below is a screenshot from the Britannica website, I hope you trust her?

          Quote: Dekabrist
          There is a hard covering, but it works

          There are skins included in the strength set of the structure, i.e. those that take on some part of the load and subsequently redistribute them to other, similar structural elements, while others do not. For example, the first airplanes and airships were simply covered with fabric to reduce drag.
          1. +4
            April 27 2024 13: 18
            In strength of strength there is such a thing as tension (adj. tense)

            Such a concept as mechanical voltage exists in continuum mechanics. Part of continuum mechanics is the mechanics of a deformable solid, part of which, in turn, is the resistance of materials. There are also such concepts as deformation, internal forces, strength. Do you get it?
            For example, the first airplanes and airships were simply covered with fabric to reduce drag.

            Aerodynamic resistance. This type of cladding is called non-functional.
          2. +5
            April 27 2024 14: 53
            Below is a screenshot from the Britannica website, I hope you trust her?

            Encyclopædia Britannica - English edition.
            In this case, we are dealing with an unqualified translation of a technical text. There is such a subject - “Fundamentals of Technical Translation”. There, just such a case is dealt with - which term to choose - from the native language or a foreign one.
            1. -1
              April 27 2024 16: 20
              Quote: Dekabrist
              There is just such a case being dealt with

              This portal has an excellent section, its name is news. You should probably go there, there’s a lot of things to sort out there. And the people are competent...
              1. +5
                April 27 2024 16: 25
                That is, in essence, you have nothing to say, but natural stubbornness does not allow you to stop in time and pushes you to generate nonsense. An ordinary case in modern times.
                1. -2
                  April 27 2024 16: 37
                  Quote: Luminman
                  That is, in essence, you have nothing to say,
                  This portal has an excellent section, its name is news
                  1. +5
                    April 27 2024 16: 38
                    This is no longer interesting, don't repeat yourself. All the best and creative success.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  8. +4
    April 27 2024 06: 39
    Quote from Sancheas
    Here it would be more appropriate to mention a Mustang, Thunderbolt or B-17 or B-29.

    wink B-24s with R-38s are also suitable, but certainly not R-39s!
    1. -3
      April 27 2024 07: 14
      Quote: Grossvater
      B-24s with R-38s are also suitable, but certainly not R-39s!

      Can you explain this or are you just moving air back and forth?
      1. 0
        April 28 2024 07: 28
        Various modifications of the P-38 went through the entire war, and were flown by the best American aces.
  9. +1
    April 27 2024 06: 44
    The Spitfire was the first British fighter to have hidden rivets, that is, they were riveted flush with the skin, but during the war, due to time constraints, a batch of cars were produced with conventional, mushroom-shaped rivets
    By the way, there is a funny story. I don't know if it's true or not.
    Indeed, blind riveting is much more labor-intensive. Therefore, during the war the following experiment was carried out:
    On one fighter they measured the maximum speeds at different altitudes, and then the mechanics spent a hell of a time covering it with split peas, simulating rivet heads, in order to conduct tests in this version. As the author correctly noted, the riveting remained hidden.
    1. +3
      April 27 2024 12: 41
      There was another point of view: the main thing is manufacturability, and with a powerful engine the barn will fly.
      Its visual embodiment was the “Hellcat” - a great victory of manufacturability (sheathing with narrow overlapping stripes) over aerodynamics:

      Rear fuselage skin 1. A6M “Zero” 2. F4F “Wildcat” 3. F6F “Hellcat”. Obviously, the design used on the F6F significantly worsened the aerodynamics of the vehicle. However, this scheme made it possible to radically reduce the number of complex-shaped skin sheets that required stamping or knocking out, as well as local adjustment, which greatly simplified and reduced the cost of production of these fighters. Some enthusiastic mechanics on aircraft carriers, using a scraper and sandpaper, partially smoothed out this “ladder”, as a result, the maximum speed of the aircraft increased by 10-15 km/h.

      © midnike
      1. -3
        April 27 2024 12: 59
        Quote: Alexey RA
        sheathing with narrow overlapping strips

        Well, this is already the case when the stamps in the workshop have exhausted their service life, and all the toolmakers have been drafted into the army... wink
        1. 0
          April 27 2024 21: 23
          In the US, were all toolmakers drafted into the army?
      2. Alf
        +1
        April 27 2024 20: 27
        Quote: Alexey RA
        a great victory of manufacturability (sheathing with narrow overlapping stripes) over aerodynamics:

        Usually they say about the American Hellcat and Thunderbolt fighters that power wins over aerodynamics.
        1. +1
          April 27 2024 21: 22
          F4 "Phantom" was called "Brick with powerful engines"!
          1. Alf
            0
            April 27 2024 21: 23
            Quote: hohol95
            F4 "Phantom" was called "Brick with powerful engines"!

            I haven't heard it, but I believe it. And who called them that?
            1. +1
              April 27 2024 21: 29
              The Yankees themselves.
              A long time ago I read somewhere about the same nickname “Phantoms”.
              1. Alf
                0
                April 27 2024 21: 34
                Quote: hohol95
                The Yankees themselves.
                A long time ago I read somewhere about the same nickname “Phantoms”.

                Thank you, I didn’t.
                1. 0
                  April 27 2024 21: 38
                  So their “WildKet” and “HalKet” are from the same “opera”.
                  Minimum aerodynamics and “a shitload of horses” in the engine.
                  Plus eight M2 Brownings in the wings. And “bottomless fuel tanks” for an exorbitant flight range!
                  1. Alf
                    +1
                    April 27 2024 21: 41
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Plus eight M2 Brownings in the wings.

                    6, but in this case it is not important. And Buffalo is in the same crowd.
                    1. +1
                      April 27 2024 21: 43
                      Buffalo "shone" only among the Finns!
                      They promoted him.
                      Neither the Dutch nor the Yankees took off against Japanese fighters.
                      1. Alf
                        +1
                        April 27 2024 21: 45
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Neither the Dutch nor the Yankees took off against Japanese fighters.

                        Why didn’t it take off? It took off, but it landed in parts. I understand your emphasis about “took off.”
                      2. +2
                        April 27 2024 21: 59
                        It turns out that the British also used Bychkov with their Super-Duper Aviation Industry...
                        https://dzen.ru/a/Y5YtcEJtaWUzkDpf
                        ZEN
                        Pacific Ocean 1/72 (great stories about aviation that fought in the Pacific Ocean, China and Southeast Asia)
                        "...
                        There were so many complaints about the “Bull” that in 1940 the British decided ... to purchase another 170 vehicles of the Brewster 339E modification (Model 339-13 - also a “land” F2A-2 without an inflatable rescue boat, brake hook and attachment points to the catapult ). The vehicle, again designated "Buffalo" Mk I, was modified according to British standards, in particular, full-fledged pilot protection (armored back + armored glass) and protected fuel tanks appeared, respectively, the British "Bull" gained weight, in comparison with its ancestor, the F2A-2, more than 400 kg.
                        ...
                        Forty-nine of the one hundred and seventy "Buffalos", although called the same: "Buffalo" Mk I, were supplied in a tricky version of the Model 339-21: the stock Wright G-1820 G105 "Cyclone" engines were replaced with used, rebuilt engines " Cyclone" taken from civilian Douglas DC-3. This was not a deception on the part of the supplier, but a conscious choice of the customer: In the USA, engine production did not keep pace with the production of airframes: the proverb about “a bird in the hand” worked. History is silent about the performance characteristics of such “cadavers,” but it is mentioned that due to the peculiarities of the fuel system, such vehicles could not operate at altitudes above 5000 m, which, if so, was not at all good.
                        In addition, 41 Buffaloes were delivered directly to the Far East from April 167, and three copies went to the Metropolis for testing. It would be better not to try it. The total weight of the vehicle with a “normal” engine (s/n W8133) exceeded three tons, exceeding the contract price by almost 300 kg, the speed dropped to 473 km/h, and the climb rate almost doubled (583 m/min). For comparison, the main future competitor, Nakajima Ki-27, has more than 900 m/min.
                        It was getting dark ...
                        ...
                        The priority of the Far Eastern theater of operations is evidenced by the simple fact that the first fighters in Singapore appeared only in February 41 and they were ... “Blenheims” of the “IF” modification of the 27th RAF squadron, very unique and niche fighters.
                        ...
                        Now about the sad stuff. About losses.

                        43 Buffaloes were lost in air battles, and another 43 vehicles were destroyed at airfields. Plus 22 Buffaloes were destroyed in accidents and disasters, including emergency landings on battle-damaged vehicles. Considering that out of almost 150 vehicles available at the beginning of the war, only six Buffalos survived the “meat grinder”, more than thirty vehicles were simply abandoned during numerous retreats: the lot of all retreating armies at all times.”
                      3. Alf
                        0
                        April 27 2024 22: 16
                        C'est la vie...Your own factories are not made of rubber.
                      4. +1
                        April 27 2024 22: 23
                        The factories are not rubber, but rubber must be imported from the colonies...
                      5. Alf
                        +1
                        April 27 2024 22: 17
                        Quote: hohol95
                        It was getting dark ...

                        The ass was approaching by leaps and bounds...
                      6. +1
                        6 May 2024 13: 05
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Buffalo "shone" only among the Finns!
                        They promoted him.
                        Neither the Dutch nor the Yankees took off against Japanese fighters.

                        It’s just that the Finnish “Buffalo” and the American naval “Buffalo” are actually two different machines. In general, the history of Buffalo is a clear example of the fact that “the best is the enemy of the good.”
                        The Finns took the early lightweight F2A with a more powerful engine than the base model, and even lighter by removing the “marine” equipment.
                        And the Yankees used a later modification, which became heavier by as much as 460 kg (a quarter of the weight of the original model!). Even the new engine didn't help here.
                    2. 0
                      April 28 2024 07: 29
                      He is from a different crowd of Wildcats and went through this war.
                      1. Alf
                        +1
                        April 28 2024 20: 23
                        Quote: Maxim G
                        He is from a different crowd of Wildcats and went through this war.

                        Both the F4F and F2A are both pre-war representatives of the "new wave" aircraft.
                      2. 0
                        April 29 2024 09: 26
                        The Wildcat was a successful aircraft that was produced and used throughout the war, and the Buffalo was finished in 1942, the Wildcat in 1945.
                        Well, the series is not comparable.
  10. +2
    April 27 2024 07: 31
    Yak 1/3 was produced before, during and after the war. Lagg3/La5/7 were produced in the same way. Just because we changed the name doesn't mean the approach should be different with the Spitfire.
    1. -3
      April 27 2024 08: 15
      Yak 1/3 was produced before, during and after the war. Lagg3/La5/7 were produced in the same way
      The Yak-1 was taken out of production during the war. LaGG too. Lavochkin was produced, but rather by inertia
  11. +2
    April 27 2024 09: 28
    Great article, beautifully presented! I read it with pleasure, but the more incomprehensible numbers like
    poster height six feet,
    . Please always use units of measurement that we understand. Even pounds sterling from the 1930s could be illustratively converted into today's pounds. I honestly have no idea how much money it is, and I was too lazy to Google it.
    1. -2
      April 27 2024 12: 01
      Quote: Proctologist
      Please always use units of measurement that we understand.

      Of course, I didn’t notice about feet, but pounds sterling, in my opinion, is perceived more clearly, especially since converting to pounds today, in my opinion, is simply impossible. Or it won’t reflect accurate purchasing power...
  12. +7
    April 27 2024 09: 48
    Good article, a lot of interesting information, which is rare on the site these days. But the impression is spoiled by the author’s “evil” reaction to constructive criticism. No one is immune from mistakes, this is natural, but why react like that?
    1. +8
      April 27 2024 10: 26
      School-level compilation from Murzil-like articles on the Internet.
      First of all from here:
      https://www.spitfires.com/post/the-history-of-the-spitfire
      https://www.spitfires.com/post/from-history-to-sky-experiencing-the-battle-of-britain-s-legacy-with-spitfire-flights

      Entire paragraphs are translated by Google and left as is without any processing
      Sometimes the author edited the whole thing:

      original
      In the end, the Spitfire, along with the Hurricane and the valiant efforts of British pilots, played a hugely significant role in the victory of the Battle of Britain. Their resilience and skill denied the Luftwaffe air superiority, which was a turning point in the war and a testament to the Spitfire's enduring legacy as one of the most iconic fighter aircraft in history.


      Author's article
      In the end, the Spitfire, along with the Hurricane and the valiant efforts of the British pilots, played a hugely significant role in the aerial victory for Britain, and their tenacity and skill completely denied the Luftwaffe air superiority, marking a turning point in the war and testament to an enduring legacy." Spitfires" as one of the most iconic fighter aircraft in history.


      Original
      These men, named “The Few” by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, had two key weapons with which to fend off the German fighters and bombers. One was the Hawker Hurricane, which affected 60% of losses to the German air force, the Luftwaffe. The other was the iconic, lightning-fast high-performance interceptor aircraft known as the Supermarine Spitfire Mk I.


      Author's article
      Described by Prime Minister Winston Churchill as “the few,” these pilots had two key weapons with which they fought off German fighters and bombers. One of these was the Hurricane, which inflicted more than fifty percent of the Luftwaffe's losses. The second was the hero of this article, the iconic, lightning fast and highly capable interceptor aircraft known as the Spitfire (Supermarine Spitfire Mk I).


      Enjoy a high-performance Spitfire
      1. +4
        April 27 2024 10: 36
        School-level compilation from Murzil-like articles on the Internet.

        The assessment is, in general, correct. But as a topic for communication, the article would be suitable for these times. Without fish...
        1. +2
          April 27 2024 10: 49
          To start communication, you need to formulate questions or controversial theses, at least in an implicit form. This is not the case.
          The appearance of the Spitfire is described many times, as is its role in the Battle of Britain. The topic has been beaten to the point of impossibility.
          Article (more precisely, the English original laughing ) demonstrates a boyish delight in front of the plane
          This despite the fact that Spit 1 was generally inferior to Emil
          1. -1
            April 27 2024 11: 57
            Quote: Engineer
            The topic has been beaten to the point of impossibility.

            Confucius has a saying - if you are the smartest person in the room, this is not your room. Can you explain to me why you are reading these articles?

            Yes, and I have long noticed how you like to emphasize your “spiritual height” with the help of vulgar melodramatic images and operetta emotions...
          2. +6
            April 27 2024 13: 59
            To start communication, you need to formulate questions or controversial theses, at least in an implicit form. This is not the case.

            There are enough controversial theses in the article, for example -
            The situation was saved by the new twelve-cylinder engine from the Rolls-Royce RV-12

            Such an engine did not exist in nature. There was a PV-12 engine, which in the future was called Merlin. I admit that this is an author's mistake, but such inaccuracies are an indicator of the level.
            Or
            The Spitfire first flew on March 5, 1936; it entered service with the Royal Air Force in 1938 and remained in service until 1955.

            The author “stole” 6 years of combat service from the aircraft.
            The trainer version of the Mk IX, the Spitfire T.9, was in service with the IAC (Irish Air Corps) until 1961.
        2. +1
          April 27 2024 13: 10
          Quote: Dekabrist
          But as a topic for communication, an article would be suitable for these times

          For any topic you also need people...
          1. +5
            April 27 2024 13: 21
            Here I agree with you. The site's policy of persistently and regularly reducing the quality of content has borne fruit. The level of the audience "fell by a rapid jack."
      2. -3
        April 27 2024 11: 50
        Quote: Engineer
        School-level compilation from Murzil-like articles on the Internet.
        First of all from here:
        https://www.spitfires.com

        Unlike the Murzilka-like layer sitting between the monitor and the chair and scribbling these comments, https://www.spitfires.com - the most complete information resource about this aircraft. I am pleased that you are so interested in my work and my search on the Internet, however, could you also name the compiled Murzil-like articles? Or do a literary translation yourself so that everyone gasps? Or do you come here just to write words on fences?
        1. +3
          April 27 2024 12: 23
          Everything is indecently simple
          spitfires.com is a good site for its niche - give it to the average reader initial idea of ​​the subject.
          Google translation of spitfires.com materials without indicating the source is hackwork and plagiarism in its purest form
          It is noteworthy that there are zero actual author’s thoughts in the entire article. This is the content laughing
          1. 0
            April 27 2024 12: 37
            Quote: Engineer
            Google translation of spitfires.com materials without indicating the source is hack work and plagiarism

            I speak English as well as Russian and, unlike you, I don’t need Google. Now about plagiarism. The texts from spitfires.com are taken partly from aviation museums (mainly the royal one), partly from the technical sections of newspapers. I don’t know where they get them, but I suspect that they are copying them from the same Museum. If you are so smart and have so much oil in your head, find the original source and I will link to it. I once dabbled in writing code and was involved in promoting sites to the top and I am well aware of what the uniqueness of a text is, but not at all its original source.
    2. -4
      April 27 2024 12: 41
      Quote: Dekabrist
      But the impression is spoiled by the author’s “evil” reaction to constructive criticism

      I can be intemperate sometimes, but rub my nose in constructive criticism...
      1. +4
        April 27 2024 13: 22
        but rub my nose in constructive criticism...

        For example, regarding “stressed” cladding. The criticism is quite constructive, but you continue to persist.
  13. +4
    April 27 2024 09: 49
    Thanks to the author for an interesting material.
    But the author has a mistake: the Yak-1-9 also began to be produced before the war, and was produced after.
    The differences in the Yakovlev family were still less than those of the early and later modifications of the Spitfire.
  14. +2
    April 27 2024 10: 34
    I read that one of the reasons for the failure of the landing in Dieppe in 1942 was the appearance of Focke-Wulfs among the Fritz. The Fockers kicked the vaunted Spitfires' ass (108 British shot down versus 48 Germans, although of course it wasn't just the Spitfires fighting there). The result was the Germans seizing air supremacy over the landing area. Although, judging by the number of more than a hundred British shot down alone, they had solid air cover...
    1. +3
      April 27 2024 10: 50
      The article is certainly good, the author has dug through large amounts of information. But, as for me, the style is too laudatory for praising foreign technology. They covered everything and shot down everyone... But they did not cover and shot down little during the destruction of such large industrial centers of England as Coventry and Birmingham in 1940, the Krauts destroyed the port of London and did a lot of other things. The Germans lost because of poor decisions, not because of the Spitfires. If there had not been these mistakes of the Luftwaffe command, the miscalculations of Goering’s fat trust, the vaunted Spitfires would not have helped. The insolent Saxons, led by Their Royal Majesties, would have to flee to Canada, which, by the way, was planned...

      I don’t remember such laudatory articles about Soviet WWII fighters on VO. Maybe I'm wrong?...
      1. -2
        April 27 2024 12: 51
        Quote: Timofey Charuta
        But, as for me, the style is too laudatory for praising foreign technology

        He was guided mainly by English-language sources. They love to write about their equipment ah, Yes ох. But the Spitfire is actually a good car and is recognized as one of the best fighters of World War II

        Quote: Timofey Charuta
        The Germans lost because of poor decisions, not because of the Spitfires

        Well of course! Spitfires, along with Hurricanes were just instruments of war. It's really a good tool. If the Germans had destroyed radars, struck airfields and seaports, and not bombed residential areas of London, then the war might have taken a different path.
        1. 0
          April 27 2024 19: 20
          Were there "Spits" in North Africa or were there "Hurricanes" and "Tomahawks" P-40s?
          And there the battles took place at lower altitudes than above Great Britain.
          1. Alf
            +2
            April 27 2024 20: 32
            Quote: hohol95
            There were "Spits" in North Africa

            Were . And even something as exotic as Sleeping with American Stars.
            1. 0
              April 27 2024 21: 15
              The attempt is not torture ...
              The British Yankees did not take tanks for themselves.
              And the Yankees took the 6-pounder QF 6 pounder cannon for themselves. They just write that they had problems with the production of OFS and initially took the OFS from the British.
              1. Alf
                +1
                April 27 2024 21: 17
                Quote: hohol95
                The British Yankees did not take tanks for themselves.

                Apparently, so as not to embarrass himself in front of the Hans. laughing
                1. +1
                  April 27 2024 21: 20
                  There is a fable that the Teutons called American tanks “Zippo Lighters.”
                  And one day Rommel, like Galand, declared Teutonic superiority over the Yankees, but would like more Zippo Lighters for his DAF!
                  1. Alf
                    +1
                    April 27 2024 21: 22
                    Quote: hohol95
                    There is a fable that the Teutons called American tanks “Zippo Lighters.”

                    You might think that German tanks operated on water... As they say, wouldn’t it be better, godfather, to turn on yourself?
                    1. 0
                      April 27 2024 21: 28
                      The fuel tanks and ammunition racks of the Teutons were located differently.
                      The M4 Sherman had armor linings on the sides in the areas where ammunition was stowed.
                      There are 2 on the starboard side and one on the left side.
                      American 75mm shells detonated just as well as Soviet 76,2mm shells from the F-34 and ZiS-5 guns! And high-octane gasoline is a very fire hazard.
      2. 0
        April 27 2024 19: 22
        We ourselves love to “spit from the Eiffel Tower” towards our equipment...
        And “glaze” everything imported...
      3. +1
        April 27 2024 22: 50
        Quote: Timofey Charuta
        The Germans lost because of poor decisions, not because of the Spitfires.

        You know, if the Allies had not made the wrong decisions, the Germans would have ended in Belgium.
        1. +1
          April 28 2024 07: 55
          Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
          You know, if the Allies had not made the wrong decisions, the Germans would have ended in Belgium.


          Churchill generally called WWII a “war of errors.” But this is already part of the series - if my grandmother had Faberge, then she would be my grandfather...

          It’s just that the author of the article strongly hints that the Battle of England and in general... the Britons won thanks to their super-duper gop-with-sneak Spit. And all the other reasons for the defeat of the Krauts in the air are flowers on the side of the road...

          The history of WWII and subsequent wars teaches that sooner or later there is an adequate answer to any “miracle weapon”. Moreover, even if the technical level of the opponents is significantly different. The Palestinians, in their slippers and without heavy weapons, greatly upset the over-praised Israelis with their Merkavas and really cool aircraft.

          Here they write something like “No matter what you say, the Spit was a good plane...”. So who says this is a bad plane? It is traditionally included in the top ten, often in the top five. That is, there were others no worse, including Soviet ones. I would be pleased with a similar laudatory article, for example, about the Yak-3, La-7, etc. and so on. And if we talk about longevity, the Soviet U-2 “maize plant” probably lasted the longest. Royal gift for the Romanian King Mihai...
          1. +2
            April 28 2024 10: 18
            . The history of WWII and subsequent wars teaches that sooner or later there is an adequate answer to any “miracle weapon”

            Britain's miracle weapon in this case was a centralized air defense system based on a chain of radar stations. The Germans did not have time to find the answer.

            The Japanese had time - in 45 they tried to knock out the radar patrol ships, which played a key role in the air defense system of the American formations - but this did not help them much.
            The Palestinians, in their slippers and without heavy weapons, greatly upset the over-praised Israelis with their Merkavas and really cool aircraft.

            They didn't upset me. The military and political leadership and, of course, the intelligence services were upset - and this is putting it mildly. That’s why they’ve been trying to curry favor with cannibalism for six months now, the bastards.
            That is, there were others no worse, including Soviet

            They were no worse, they were even much better. But there were no Soviets among them.
            The U-2 probably lasted the longest.

            The U-2 was produced until 1953.
  15. +1
    April 27 2024 11: 04
    ...to which the young German ace pilot Adolf Galland* answered him rather boldly - “Spitfire squadron!” Such was the reputation of the Supermarine Spitfire.
    Just a young man... Let's say, an almost unfeathered young man born in 1912
    In 1937, Galland volunteered for the Condor Legion, which took part in the Spanish Civil War on the side of Francisco Franco's nationalists. After the end of the war in Spain, Galland, based on combat experience, developed several doctrines and technical recommendations for attacking enemy troops from the air, and also served as an instructor in attack aircraft. With the outbreak of World War II, Galland made several sorties to destroy enemy ground forces, after which he convinced the command to transfer him to fighter units of the Luftwaffe...., Galland, already as the commander of the Jagdgeschwader 26 "Schlageter" squadron, took part in the French campaign and the Battle of Britain , where German pilots over the English Channel and Northern France clashed with the best pilots of the British Royal Air Force. By November 1941, Galland had 96 aerial victories
    At what meeting, where and when did “young ace Galland” say such words?
    Messerschmitt Bf 109 modifications E-3 and E-4, and at the end of the “Battle of Britain” - also E-7. Both cars had their disadvantages and their advantages: the Spitfire was slightly faster below 1500 m and superior in horizontal maneuver, but the Bf 109 gained altitude better and accelerated faster in a dive. English pilots usually tried to break away from the enemy, who was “on their tail,” by making sharp turns, while the Germans dived or took advantage of another shortcoming of the Spitfire, provoking it to perform a “slide.” At the same time, the Merlin with its float carburetor could stall, but the DB 601 on the Messerschmitt, which had direct injection, worked fine.
    When applying their proven air combat tactics, the Spitfire was not at all suitable for the Germans. And considering that Galland himself contributed quite a bit to the development of this tactic, the statement “give us Spitfires and we will win” is tantamount to shooting first in your left leg, then in your right leg, and then in your forehead. And considering that only in the modification of the Spitfire MkV, the first flight of which was made in 1940, the British were able to more or less be on equal terms with the Bf 109 E-7, although the Germans already had the Bf 109 F... The article may be interestingly written, but after this “historical pearl” at the beginning of the article puts me in the mood to read this opus completely “andз"bad".
  16. +1
    April 27 2024 11: 13
    The article is quite lengthy, but it was interesting to read; I almost burst into tears when the author began to sing Spit’s praises. But everything was ruined by a curtsey to the fascist pilot.
  17. +4
    April 27 2024 13: 06
    The stiff controls and narrow landing gear of the German Messerschmitt BF 109 fighter were a disadvantage compared to the Spitfire, whose sleek lines and two-stage supercharged Merlin engine made it easier for British pilots to fly at high altitudes.

    I wonder if the author himself understood what he wanted to say? lol
    1. +5
      April 27 2024 15: 48
      Quote: whowhy
      Interestingly, the author himself understood what he wanted to say by this

      He doesn't even know what he wrote about. laughing
      The rigid controls and narrow landing gear of the German Messerschmitt BF 109 fighter were a disadvantage compared to the Spitfire,
      This author is not even aware that the chassis track of the Bf 109 was wider than that of the Spitfire, and the wingspan of the Spit was larger, which is why the Spitfire more often grabbed the ground with its wing tip than the Messer... In general, another article of the next " zpIcealist" type "Avitsionny expErd". laughing
      1. -5
        April 27 2024 16: 34
        Quote: Fitter65
        This author is not even aware that the chassis track of the Bf 109 was wider than that of the Spitfire, and the wingspan of the Spit was larger, which is why the Spitfire more often grabbed the ground with its wing tip

        Commentator will not remind me what exact chassis track size it had Messershmitt Bf 109 and Spitfire. Only, according to models specifically, Avitsyonny you are our zpIcealist and the same expErda, otherwise all these letters of yours are nothing more than excrement in a puddle. I am waiting...
        P.S. And in terms of wingspan too...
        1. +6
          April 27 2024 18: 16
          Quote: Luminman
          The commentator will not remind me what exact chassis track size the Messershmitt Bf 109 and the Spitfire had. Only, according to the models specifically, you are our avicious zpIcealist and the same expErda, otherwise all these letters of yours are nothing more than like excrement in a puddle. I am waiting...

          What am I waiting for? You scribbled an article, you should know such little things without me. "Izstoryk", you did not answer my question. When (what date), where (place, and the corresponding document where is it written down) “the young pilot Galland” asked Goering to give him a squadron of Spitfires? But, I am not a proud person, I will answer your question first. Chassis track, if suddenly you didn’t know what it is, then in this case it is the distance between the wheels that are located under the wing of the aircraft, in this case the Bf 109 and Spitfire. First we take the Bf 109 E/F, its track = 1975mm. On modifications G up to the 6th it was almost the same, then due to the increase in the thickness and diameter of the wheel it changed by about 5-6 mm, depending on which publication it is written in . Next is the Spitfire, the squadron of which Galland dreamed of, if you believe it. From MkI to Mk IX, in principle, like on Mk XVI, it was 5 feet 8,5 inches, which is approximately 1740 mm, as on Seafires and Spits with Griffins. Based on the Messers, I can even tell you where it says “Monogram Close-Up No 09 - Bf-109F”. But for Spitfire laughing ... I answered your question. Now I'm waiting for an answer to my question. It became interesting this way. And who is it that sits in our puddle and spoils the oxygen for the tadpoles there with its lower hemispheres? Let’s answer the question and then I’ll tell you where it’s written about the Spitfire’s chassis track. This is not on the “Corner of Heaven”... So I’m waiting for an answer to my question, Luminman = puddle bubbler.
          1. +5
            April 27 2024 19: 21
            and then I’ll tell you where it’s written about the Spitfire’s chassis track.

            Second line from the top in the table.
            1. +2
              April 28 2024 03: 40
              Quote: Dekabrist
              and then I’ll tell you where it’s written about the Spitfire’s chassis track.

              Second line from the top in the table.
              Well, the whole intrigue has been ruined. laughing laughing laughing good
              laughing
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. exo
    +3
    April 27 2024 16: 46
    Probably, for the Americans, the P-51 Mustang was such a symbol. Not the R-39. Otherwise, interesting article.
  20. 0
    April 27 2024 17: 16
    power from 650 to 1 hp. With. (taking into account further modernization), depending on the specific option.

    As a result of the modernization, the engine power increased by 2.5 times; what remains of the original design? In addition, I suspect that the motor mount had to be strengthened.
    Well, about ease of production. Countersunk rivet heads are clearly more complicated than regular ones; in the article the author writes that they tried to switch to regular ones and this led to a drop in speed.
    1. Alf
      0
      April 27 2024 20: 36
      Quote: Not the fighter
      In addition, I suspect that the motor mount had to be strengthened.

      Of course, just look at Spieth's nose 1-5, 8-9, 14 and 21.
  21. -1
    April 27 2024 19: 05
    Good article. You can also add about the successful experiments of the Germans in installing DB601 engines.
  22. +3
    April 27 2024 19: 07
    As always, it all comes down to concept and proportions. To the author of the article, thank you very much for your work because I can imagine the time it takes to create an article of this size, but in all honesty, especially remembering Skomorokhov’s articles on aviation topics, I would like to wish for a deeper insight into both the topic and the method of presentation. All these flaws listed above, “hard skin”, “Airacobra”, etc., would not be perceived so sharply if the author had his own view of this aircraft, here it would be possible to discuss it, but alas. Retelling the history of creation and combat use is, by and large, not so important, also using the enthusiastic expressions of foreign “describers.” Here it would be necessary to describe the concept for which the aircraft was created, and based on it, consider the correspondence of both. For example, the Spitfire was created as an interceptor of target air defense, which is very clearly visible in its deck version, where, apart from the air defense of a ship unit, it was not suitable for anything else. All other tasks, such as a front-line fighter used from unpaved runways or an escort fighter, were performed mediocrely.
    Yes, the designers managed to combine a large wing area, and therefore good horizontal maneuverability, with high flight speed, making the wing thin, which in turn required the creation of a durable spar with a low construction height. And they created it, a steel truss structure, the barrels of cannons and machine guns passed through it! The reserve of a large wing area helped out the Spitfire when it received more powerful engines and, accordingly, became much heavier. But the load on the wing area returned to “normal”, remaining much less than that of contemporary German fighters. Etc. and so on.
    1. +1
      April 28 2024 09: 53
      . remaining much smaller than that of contemporary German fighters.

      This was considered a plus in the 30s, when they were preparing for horizontal battles, but in the conditions of WWII and vertical battles it turned out to be a disadvantage. The highly loaded wing was taxiing, and the Spitfire's oversized wing literally prevented it from flying.
  23. 0
    April 27 2024 20: 27
    Just think - the 109th was also produced throughout the war and also after the war - and what does this mean? - and the Yaks can also be considered Yak-1st
  24. +3
    April 27 2024 22: 06
    I liked the article. Plus a lot of non-standard photos. The impression was spoiled by the author himself being overly aggressive in his comments.
  25. +3
    April 27 2024 22: 35
    Hm. The volume of text aroused some enthusiasm. Alas, he quickly disappeared.

    Author! You don’t seem to be a full-time employee of VO who has to push the plan along the shaft every day? Why the hell are you writing on a topic that you don’t understand, and most importantly, that isn’t interesting to you? A blunder on a blunder. Well, okay, you don’t know that 0.50 machine guns were practically never used in England. Okay, you don’t know the power of later modifications of Merlin (2000+). But where did you get the Nizhny Novgorod plant from in 1935? Didn't you live in the USSR?

    Why the hell leave obviously murzilic fragments of the Zvezda/Discovery channel level? Until the very end, remained the best Spitfire in 1950, with the MiG-15 alive? Have you even read “your” text?
  26. +2
    April 27 2024 23: 14
    Controversial plane. Good, but not as magnificent as the British like to present it (and as it is described in English words in the article). There were also some shortcomings.
    1. -1
      April 28 2024 09: 48
      Spit was a fighter created on an excellent production, technical, and engineering basis. But it was conceptually outdated by the beginning of WWII. He's very good, but could be a lot better.

      However, the latter can be said about almost any aircraft.
  27. -3
    April 28 2024 00: 42
    the plane is downright scary. look at the Yak-3 and this terrible wart. it's about aesthetics.
    By the end of the Battle of England, the Air Force's small-shaven, combat-ready fighter aircraft, in principle, had a maximum of a week of combat left. The fighter pilots who remained in service, due to the monstrous stress on the psyche due to frequent interception flights, began to avoid battles in alarming numbers and also did not add enthusiasm to the outcome of this operation, even if Goering maintained the set pace for another week. but the Germans, not realizing that their codes had long been broken and all their planned routes were known to the enemy in advance, thought that the problem lay in another area, namely in the supposedly inflated number of combat-ready fighters the enemy had, this was a mistake, but this is what saved England in as a result from the Nazi landing in the metropolis.
    the performance characteristics of the Spitfire are decent, that’s not what we’re talking about, the point is that this was not the reason for the Nazis’ refusal to conquer the skies above the English Channel and subsequent ground intervention. no need to fool your brain. learn history.
  28. 0
    April 28 2024 17: 30
    More good articles like this
  29. MSN
    0
    April 28 2024 21: 51
    But at low and medium altitudes, where battles usually took place on the Soviet-German front, the Spitfire was seriously inferior to domestic fighters - for example, in ground speed they lost to the La-7 by about as much as 100 km/h

    Spitfire LF IX during tests at TsAGI showed 549 km/h. La-7 plant No. 452101-39 during testing and LII - 597 km/h. The difference is 48 km/h. Where does 100 come from? Are you comparing it to the one from 1940? Despite the fact that long ago in 1944 there were the twelfth and fourteenth Spitfires, and even the twenty-first with Griffons. And near the ground they didn’t lag behind the La-7 at all
  30. 0
    April 29 2024 18: 16
    I haven’t seen such serious interesting articles for a long time, thank you.
  31. -3
    April 29 2024 19: 25
    It was enough for me that the Airacobra and Missouri are legendary for Americans. Screwed legend, they didn’t fly on one, the second didn’t do anything special, they pulled out all the aircraft carriers on themselves.
  32. 0
    April 29 2024 20: 42
    Many thanks to the author of the article! Smart, competent, with love for aviation!!!
  33. -1
    4 May 2024 20: 23
    Quote: Alexey 1970
    Do you require any literary delights from a technical article?

    It's not very technical. More propaganda, and also translated. They say our Spit is the best... But the fact that his wing load is ridiculous is not mentioned in the “technical” article. In general, in the absence of a Mustang, Spit will pass for a legend...
  34. 0
    5 May 2024 19: 47
    Why does the author write so respectfully about this scum, Houston, or was it the degenerate who didn’t want to destroy Russia along with Hitler?
  35. kig
    0
    6 May 2024 06: 07
    for the American military, the no less legendary Aircobra fighter (P-39 Airacobra

    yes, yes, there was even a joke about these planes: the P-400 is the same P-40, but with a “zero” on the tail.

    The P-400 is the Cobra for the British Air Force, which the Americans requisitioned and called the P-400 for their speed in knots, and the P-40 is the Curtiss P-40. So even if they were a legend for the Americans, it was with very dubious overtones.