Give me a squadron of Spitfires!

Who said these words to Goering(?) ?
What made him to say this phrase?
I think that BF.109E and Spitfire Mk.Ia are quite equal in dogfight.

 

Hi Exec,

>Who said these words to Goering(?) ?

Adolf Galland

>What made him to say this phrase?

Göring's order to escort the Luftwaffe bombers by flying slow and close and at the same level.

>I think that BF.109E and Spitfire Mk.Ia are quite equal in dogfight.

"Turning doesn't win battles!"

Who said these words about the Spitfire?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

so, Galland meant that escorting is better with slow Spitfires, rather than fast Emils?

 

Hi Exec,

>so, Galland meant that escorting is better with slow Spitfires, rather than fast Emils?

No. Galland meant that flying low and slow next to the bombers would be a big mistake. It meant putting the fighters into a defensive position from which they could achieve nothing, and the turning ability of the Spitfire meant that it had better chances of defending itself (though not the bombers). Galland considered the fighter an offensive weapon (as did everyone else who had a clue), and the Emil as clearly superior in the offensive.

He didn't really want a squadron of Spitfires, he wanted his squadrons of Messerschmitts freed from the bombers so that they could sweep the sky ahead of the bombers.

A few years later, the USAAF discovered the same thing: You couldn't defend bomber with close escorts, but only by flying offensive fighter sweeps, so Galland was finally proven right by his enemies.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

still, i don't understand what the phrase "give me a squadron of spitfires" means.
1."send us to fight against spitfires, rather than escorting bombers" (sounds problematically, since i doubt Dowding will permit it)
2."give me a squadron of spitfires, and in demonstration fight i'll prove that bombers cannot be covered by close escort"
3."<anything else>"

 

Re: Re: Give me a squadron of Spitfires!

Johnson?

 

Actually this phrase is usually taken out of its original context.

It followed discussion regarding circlulation of captured spitfires among LW channel front units.

Göring asked if galland had any special wishes.

Galland replied he would want a squadron of spitfires. (to make their pilots familiar what they were against.)


His phare has been bought up out of its context in post war western semi-propaganda.

Galland has stated about this "misunderstanding" in his memoirs.

 

AFAIR it was as Illo said.

Galland wanted Spitfires for testing / training purposes

 

hi fella's read this.

http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/FW/Bob/Best.htm

and this as well.

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

galland said it? i thought goreing said it. oh well im getting rusty from lack of flying. nice thread exec

 

Re: Re: Re: Give me a squadron of Spitfires!

Hi Ada,

>>Who said these words about the Spitfire?

>Johnson?

Quite right!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Exec,

>still, i don't understand what the phrase "give me a squadron of spitfires" means.

"You have ordered us into a position of weakness where we can't employ the superior strengths of the Me 109. We'll be forced into the defensive, and we don't even have the Spitfire's turning ability to defend ourselves."

That was a pretty brilliant way of making G&ouml;ring look like a complete idiot, and G&ouml;ring as well as Gallland noticed that immediately.

"When I had said it, I was terrified of my boldness. I hadn't really meant it that way. Of course I generally preferred our Me 109 over the Spitfire. But I was incredibly annoyed by the lack of understanding and the stubborness with which the leadership gave us tasks that - because of many shortcoming that we weren't responsible for - couldn't be completed, or only partially. So much impertinence silenced even G&ouml;ring. Grumbling, he trudged off."

(From "Die Ersten und die Letzten" by Galland)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give me a squadron of Spitfires!

Who's Johnson? Galland's Johnson?
My Johnson doesn't talk but does occasionally spit!

 

My different version was from recorded interview of Galland in english. I think its downloadable somewhere on net.

Maybe search could find it.

 

Interesting interviews of galland. (not the one i was looking for)

http://home.tiscali.be/ed.ragas/awshistory/awsgalland.html
http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/wwii_int.htm
http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/interview.htm

 

ahh johnny johnson , a merry ol chap, but not to the luftwaffe.

ok, but wasn't it goreing who said, " i knew the jig was up when i seen mustangs over germany!"

 

Yes! Galland sugested, that 109 should attack Spits and Hurrs with alt and speed advantage. If Emil got to fly in formation with bombers it was loosing it. Spits could take better position and attack Ju & He. More agile spit would be better in that situation. damn.. Galland was a visioner of Luftwaffe. He wanted to start mass production of 262 but Hitler wanted to make Blitz bomber from that superb figter and it lated coming 262 into service

 

It was shortage of engines that delayed 262. Willy got those SC501(or whatever) racks in quite swiftly.

Ofcourse operational decision to use most of 1500 262s produced as bomber was major mistake. Only ca. 40 262s operated effectively as fighter. They cause big hit. So what could have 1500 done?

 

1500 jets piloted mostly by totally green pilots IMO wouldn't do much difference. If it did it would propably only delay Western allies a bit which would only result in bigger part of Europe falling in soviet hands after war. Same with other "uber weapons". Germany lost the war before it even crossed Polish border.

 

Opinions.

Here mine...

War was completely decided in east.
(ca. 80% of all casualties in WW2?)

In my opinion year 1943.

However before that time I see germans having many changes for succesful operation at east.

There are few what ifs which changed course of war.

1. Desicion of not to use full strenght forces to encircle or capture Moscow in late 1941 but instead aiming for destruction of Leningrad and capturing Stalingrad as primary objectives. Germans halted army group center to start transporting troops to south already in 1941. (Moscow was being evacuated and partially fallen into anarchy, but as attack didnt come defences were reinforced and fresh troops brought in) Army group center got late permission to attack with its understrenght forces in winter. But it was late for that. Moscow had rebuilt its defences and germans only got some 10 kilometres away from it. cost: Moscow, center of russian road and rail network.

2. Decision to attack Stalingrad and attack directly, not by encircling and cutting it. - cost: 300.000 first class troops.

3. Decision of Mannerheim not to cross Murmansk railway. Huge vain of lend lease material and food supplies. Basically russian soldier was living on US rations. Finns had nearly no opposion in east when order to stop attack came.

4. Decision of Mannerheim to leave supply route to Leningrad open. Food and material transported through lake ladoga made this city survive over 2 years of one sided siege and tied large amount of german forces.

5. I think battle of Kursk was where germans lost their last changes to keep situation stabile at east. Even if it was victory for germans in material and manpower it was big strategical defeat.
No gains at all, just wasted attack and wasted forces.

6. Decision to maximize industrial production as late as 1943.

West had only resources to attack when germany was completely on its knees.

 

Pure, clear water nonsense. Germans were not idiots as Polish war films get used to display them. Jet geschwaders were a collection of experienced pilots. Those machines were too expensive to make them a first time plane for the youth. Technical maintenance was a state of the art as well, so, the tech. staff was highly experienced as a must.