# Best Battle of Britain Aircraft



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Which aircraft do you think was the best during the Battle of Britain?

I have a feeling the Hurricane and Spitfire will run away with this but it will still be interesting to see.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

The Hurricane gets my vote BTW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

hurricane, but i aint voted yet.....................


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 5, 2004)

For me Spitfire. It ruled in te late versions


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 5, 2004)

Spitfires have always been a favorite of mine. One of those all time great fighter planes! 

I like how far it progressed during the war. I mean during the BoB, the old Mk.I II Spits were actually relatively crappy compared to later models.
They had float carburettors, 0.303in. machine guns (spread too far apart to be _extremely_ effective) with no cannons. Mk.I's had fabric covered control surfaces which ballooned at high speeds, and manual landing gear.
Mk.II's were a bit of an improvement.

Compare these to the later war Spits!
Yet at the time of the BoB, the early ones were enough to counter the early German planes (with some help from the Hurricane  ), so I guess it's rather a moot point. 

So what I'm trying to say, in a rather long winded round about way, is that the Spitfire gets my vote. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hurricane, but i aint voted yet.....................



If you have a clear answer why havent you voted....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

because i very rarely vote in polls.........



> the old Mk.I II Spits were actually relatively crappy compared to later models.



many pilots that flow both early and late models prefered the earlier marks, mainly because they were more manouverable, the later versions were much heavier.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 5, 2004)

Come to think of it, I seem to remember reading that.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 5, 2004)

It's the same with 109's...



Anyway, Spitfeuer for me!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Didnt think you'd go with that for a second, expected you to be a 109 man...


----------



## redcoat (Dec 5, 2004)

I voted Spitfire.
Though in truth the Spitfire and the Bf 109 are so close in performance that its difficult to choose.
But being British tipped the scales.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 5, 2004)

just by looking at my name and u can tell what i'm going to vote 4 - 109 rocks


----------



## JCS (Dec 5, 2004)

I voted for the 109. (suprise, suprise  )

It was kind of hard to chose though, with all my favorite German planes in one poll.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 5, 2004)

Spitfire, of corse ! Everybody here know that I prefer the Spitfire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Hurricane took out more planes 8)

Glad to see the 111 has a vote


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

yes perhaps the fact that the hurricane shot down 65% of all aircraft shot down during the entire battle (including ground defences) will turn a few votes towards the hurricane...............


----------



## Maestro (Dec 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes perhaps the fact that the hurricane shot down 65% of all aircraft shot down during the entire battle (including ground defences) will turn a few votes towards the hurricane...............



Yeah, but don't forget that there was much more Hurricane squadrons than Spitfire squadrons because the Spitfire was relatively new when the BoB began. So it's just normal that the Hurricane shot down more planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

And the fact that most of the pilots preferred the Hurricane should err thigs the Hurricanes way too...


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 6, 2004)

The Hurricane (which got my vote) was also a superior gun platform to the Spit. Its eight guns were concentrated in two banks of four, rather than being spread along the wing as they were in the Spit, giving a better concentration of fire.

It's true that the Hurri got more kills, and was in more squadrons. However, it also found itself, more often than not, attacking bomber formations, which meant it had the defensive fire of these aircraft to face, as well as the danger of escort fighters and friendly flak, which, IMHO, was made thier task just as difficult, if not more so, than the dogfighting which Spits were often involved in. I think that the Spitfire gets the glamour because of its cleaner lines and the mystique which grew up around both the aircraft and RJ Mitchell. However, the Hurri was the true workhorse of the RAF both during the BoB and the Battle of France.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Yup. Its a shame it wasnt further developed really, it was kind of obsolete by 1941.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 6, 2004)

Yeah, the Spit was flashier. Victory in the BoB more or less hinged on the Hurricane, but...c'mon!! It's the Spitfire we're talkin' about, boys!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

But at the time the Hurricane was better...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 6, 2004)

*LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA* (I can't hear you) *LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA*...


----------



## JCS (Dec 6, 2004)

For looks I have to go with the Hurricane, theres just something about the Spit that I dont like...


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

The Spitfire had a higher top speed and I'd trust it more in a turning fight than that cow of a fighter the Hurricane. And as we well know, a concentrated gun platform didn't matter for turds during the BoB because your average RAF fighter pilot was such a lousy shot that the spray effect of the Spitfire's staggered guns was probably more effective in any case.

I'm convinced that these "kills" that we get for posting are based on BoB scores by RAF pilots. Terribly bloated and most unconfirmed.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 6, 2004)

BombTaxi said:


> I think that the Spitfire gets the glamour because of its cleaner lines and the mystique which grew up around both the aircraft and RJ Mitchell. However, the Hurri was the true workhorse of the RAF both during the BoB and the Battle of France.



Come on ! The Hurricane (even the Mk. IIC) got outclassed by the Spitfire Mk. IX in 1942. The Hurricane was a great plane, but not as great as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was faster and more manoeuvrable than the Hurricane.

During the BoB, the only reason why Hurricanes were sent to take on the bombers was because it could take on more fire than the Spitfire.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

By Battle of France, I meant the actions in 1940 prior to the BoB. The Hurricane fought 109s sucessfully in that campaign, as it did in the BoB, and it continued to give good service in the Western Desert until 1941. I dont dispute that in terms of absolute performance, the Spit was the better a/c: but the fact remains that it was the Hurri that won the BoB!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

JCS said:


> For looks I have to go with the Hurricane, theres just something about the Spit that I dont like...



I know what you mean (Except for the late war versions which looked incredible)



Cheap Labour said:


> I'm convinced that these "kills" that we get for posting are based on BoB scores by RAF pilots. Terribly bloated and most unconfirmed.


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 7, 2004)

Am I the only one who thinks that dogfights are more difficult than bombers without escort?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Dunno if I understand you right, but Yes I do think that dogfighting a 109 is more difficult than taking on an unescorted bomber formation.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

rebel8303 said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that dogfights are more difficult than bombers without escort?



Thats very true, but I would argue that attacking a formation of bombers, while thier escort is attempting to catch you, and with a large amount of flak flying around, is just as difficult as a dogfight. This is the situation that faced many British pilots (in both type of aircraft) during the BoB.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Since when did British fighter pilots encounter flak during the BoB?


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

Since it was shooting at the bombers they were trying to intercept. The LW had the same problems over Germany in 44/45. Flak gunners aimed a big box of fire at the bombers, and the fighters ran the risk of catching some if they werent careful. There was, of course, no way to make sure that the flak gunners stopped firing for each fighter pass.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Oh right 8)


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 7, 2004)

To which there was a forever ongoing battle, with the Flak gunners saying they were more effective and that the fighters needed to stay away in flak zones, then the pilots saying that THEY were more effective and then flak needed to stop whenever fighters were around. "just look at how many more we shoot down than you flak-types!" to which the flak gunners would say "yes, but look how many people and planes you're losing, stretching the resources of the fatherland" blah blah blah blah.


----------



## redcoat (Dec 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes perhaps the fact that the hurricane shot down 65% of all aircraft shot down during the entire battle (including ground defences) will turn a few votes towards the hurricane...............


Yes the Hurricane was a good gun platform, however if you wanted to survive the battle the Spitfire was the better choice.

You were twice as likely to be killed flying a Hurricane, than flying a Spitfire.


----------



## redcoat (Dec 7, 2004)

Cheap Labour said:


> The Spitfire had a higher top speed and I'd trust it more in a turning fight than that cow of a fighter the Hurricane.


The Hurricanes main fault was her top speed, in a turning fight, she could take on anybody, including the Spitfire. 


> I'm convinced that these "kills" that we get for posting are based on BoB scores by RAF pilots. Terribly bloated and most unconfirmed.


Well at least they weren't as bad as the Luftwaffe claims during the BoB, they were even worse 


ps, nit-picking time 
The poll lists the Beaufighter. The Beaufighter did not become operational until after the battle


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 7, 2004)

Could a figher fire at a bomber out of the range of its defensive guns during BoB? I mean later I know that later LW used fighters with greater range to take out the rear gunners but did the British had this option during BoB?


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

rebel8303 said:


> Could a figher fire at a bomber out of the range of its defensive guns during BoB? I mean later I know that later LW used fighters with greater range to take out the rear gunners but did the British had this option during BoB?



Theoretically, yes. But in practice, it was common for pilots of all nations to get as close as possible to the target before opening fire, hence the phrase, "Wait 'til you see the whites of thier eyes!" Even against the USAAFs combat boxes, the LW stuck to this. The Mk108 cannon was in fact highly ineffective at anything other than point blank range, requiring the pilot to get in close before firing.


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 7, 2004)

> "Wait 'til you see the whites of thier eyes!"



   
Oh shit this was bad!!! Now I can fully understand how usefull are the machine guns on the bombers...


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 7, 2004)

At least this was not so nesecary when hunting a swordfish. Was it?

They just managed to escape... by flying very low above the sea.

I 've read that once, a swordfish was being hunt down by an italian fighter - I dunno the type - and the back gunner of the swordfish ,in a moment of dispair, threw a flare to the fighter that scared the italian pilot and managed to escape.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 7, 2004)

redcoat said:


> Well at least they weren't as bad as the Luftwaffe claims during the BoB, they were even worse


Incorrect.
I seem to recall the Germans being very meticulous in their claims. Luftwaffe records show their claims being much closer to actual numbers than RAF records. 

Between August 11 and August 24, Fighter Command claimed to have shot down 636 Enemy A/C. A mere 113 of those were seen to crash on land. Fighter Command's explanation was that the remainder had come down in the sea. 

Also note that the armament of German fighters was much better suited to killing aircraft than that of British fighters. The 20mm MG FF cannons carried by the 109 and 110 were capable of delivering catastrophic damage with a single hit, whereas German bombers would return to base with an excess of 500 .303 bullet holes found in them. It's also unrealistic to say that the majority of German bombers were shot down because of dead pilots, regardless of the exposed glass noses, because the majority of RAF attacks came in from the stern or beam.

British aircraft, attacking in vic formation, all hammering away at the same bomber, would all and claim the same kill as theirs - all being in complete honesty. It's just the aggresive and swirling nature of air combat.

To the close of the battle, the German assessment of the RAF being down to 100 fighters was more due to an underestimation of the British ability to construct fighters, and an overestimation of the German bombing damage. 

Had British fighters been armed with the 20mm guns found in later models of Spitfires and Hurricans (especially the 4 20mm of the Hurrican II, what a wallop!) then their number of claims might have been realistic. The reality is that bringing down a sodding great dirty Heinkel with .303 is as much luck as skill.


----------



## johnny (Dec 8, 2004)

1 lousy vote for the Defiant!!!


----------



## johnny (Dec 8, 2004)

Can I vote as many times as I want?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 8, 2004)

johnny said:


> 1 lousy vote for the Defiant!!!



1 more than it deserves, IMO.


----------



## johnny (Dec 8, 2004)

Who's gonna stop me from voting 100 times for it???!!


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 8, 2004)

This plane really looks good! Any pics of it johnny?

Which country are these circles?


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 8, 2004)

They're an alternative style of RAF roundel. No other country was silly enogh to deploy the Defiant!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

> Can I vote as many times as I want?



i've been warned that if i "spam vote" i could get kicked off the site, and there's an art to spam voting, it aint easy.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

If someone would PM me (or another Mod) saying how you spam vote I (we) would be most grateful.


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 8, 2004)

It seems that only with a second acount you can spam vote. And I checked many accounts with 0 posts... But I can't see any reason doing this. (If the defiant get more votes we 'll know who have done this)


----------



## redcoat (Dec 8, 2004)

BombTaxi said:


> They're an alternative style of RAF roundel. No other country was silly enogh to deploy the Defiant!


Apart from the USAAF.



The RAF lent the 8th USAAF Airforce a couple of Defiants as Target-Tugs when they arrived in Britain


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 8, 2004)

redcoat said:


> The RAF lent the 8th USAAF Airforce a couple of Defiants as Target-Tugs when they arrived in Britain



So it finally found a good use, then?


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 8, 2004)

Now I want to change my vote...


----------



## johnny (Dec 9, 2004)

Spam vote!! Me !! Never would.Rebel there r plenty in the gallery.Got mine there .And your all bloody nasty people saying things like that about my Defiants.They were very good night-fighters , terrible day time fighters and good target tugs.( hated saying that last part).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

I like the Defiant! They had some success as dayfighters until the Germans realised they had turrets


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 10, 2004)

Spitfires ruled in the early versions as well and were faster and more maneovurable than the Bf-109. Indeed the only thing the Bf-109 could do better was dive. Therefore I would say the Spitfire as Spitfires outclassed in certain areas the Bf-109 and most other fighters right up until the end of WW2 and indeed survived into the 1960s-1970s in service whereas most of these other aircraft died before or at the end of WW2, figeratively speaking.


----------



## johnny (Dec 10, 2004)

I seem to recall the 264sqn hold the record for kills in 1 day.Think it was 35.not bad for for a turret fighter.Like u say though it didn't last long.If I have to choose a proper day time fighter in Bob it would be the Hurricane.There was more of them in the battle than spitfires and their kill ratio was higher.The spitfire was the glamour fighter and a better fighter than the hurri but the battle would not have been won without the hurricane.


----------



## redcoat (Dec 11, 2004)

johnny said:


> .The spitfire was the glamour fighter and a better fighter than the hurri but the battle would not have been won without the hurricane.


correct 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I agree on all points there, johnny 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

although many pilots wouldn't swap their hurri for a spit................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

It did all that was asked of it. Great Plane.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> It did all that was asked of it. Great Plane.



And sometimes more than that. Catching fire, shedding a wing and blowing up, for instance, is something that probably no pilot ever asked of his Hurricane, and yet....


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2004)

The same could be said for every other fighting aircraft during WWII..... Whats ur point??


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 17, 2004)

i really don't konw y people think that the spit is SUPERIOR to the me-109, i think that the me-109 is just as good as the spit, depending on the pliot, but how is the hurricane better than the 109? even a buffelo(worst fighter in servise in the USAAF) is better than it. another reason i think that u people vote 4 the spit over the 109 is because the allies won the war, and most of u are in the allie countrys anywayz as i said, the 109 also got a armament adventage of having 20MM cannons even on the early visons

i would welcome anybody to make a comment about this.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Everything you say about the 109, I agree with...but I still like the Spit better!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

At the time, the Hurricane was the best. It was older than the Spit and (I think) the 109 as well, so it was a more developed plane. It was stronger then the Spit, similar performance and much easier to maintain. Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire also had a far greater range than that of the Bf-109.

Galland, the Buffalo is nothing compared with the Hurricane. You're underestimating (by a bloody long way) how good the Hurricane was...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2004)

Both the Spit and the bf-109 started out well before the war and in a form of leapfrog were always swapping for the title of the best. That's not bad though both basic airframes "grew" as needed throughout the war a real tribute to their designs, a lot of designs couldn't.


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 18, 2004)

The spit's cockpit was bigger and the pilot got a better veiw of whats going around, the 109's cockpit was smaller and you coulend look back(unlike the spit), The spit's engine wasnt so good, when geting in to a nose dive or flying upside down, oil would have flooded the engine.

But my vote is to the hurri cuz of the unbeliveabul fire power thet he had,


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Good choice.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

> i really don't konw y people think that the spit is SUPERIOR to the me-109



because it was...............



> At the time, the Hurricane was the best



the spitfire was still considdered the better plane...................



> It was older than the Spit and (I think) the 109 as well, so it was a more developed plane



not really, during the BoB both aircraft were in their Mk.I, the spit was the more advanced plane.........


----------



## Maestro (Dec 18, 2004)

The Lanc is right. The Hurricane Mk. I was created in 1937 and the Spitfire Mk. I in 1939 or 1940.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > i really don't konw y people think that the spit is SUPERIOR to the me-109
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How were they still in their first marks?

There were Bf-109A-D models BEFORE the BoB, so while the Spit was about equal in *new word* advancitude, the "Emil" was more developed...



*EDIT*~I just realized you were talking about the Hurri, but my point still stands...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> *new word* advancitude



Here's a new word: "Assitude"  

Ah, God I'm funny!


----------



## redcoat (Dec 18, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> At the time, the Hurricane was the best.


No, both the Bf 109 and Spitfire were better


> It was older than the Spit and (I think) the 109 as well, so it was a more developed plane.


It was in truth, a monoplane development of the Hawker Fury, but it was designed at around the same time as the Spit and 109


> It was stronger then the Spit, similar performance and much easier to maintain.


It was a study aircraft and it could out-turn both the Spit and 109, but it was over 30mph slower than the Spit and 109, and both could out-climb it with ease.
Also the Hurricane had a major flaw in the BOB, the fuel tank located between the engine bulkhead and the cockpit was not self sealing or armoured (it had been assumed that its position gave it protection) and a large number of Hurricanes were lost when this tank was hit, and a number of pilots suffered what was called 'hurricane burns' to the hands and face. Efforts to rectify this fault took place in the BOB, but the majority of aircraft were not altered until after the battle.


> Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire also had a far greater range than that of the Bf-109.


Not true.
All were designed as short range interceptors, and all had a range of less than 500 miles. 


> Galland, the Buffalo is nothing compared with the Hurricane. You're underestimating (by a bloody long way) how good the Hurricane was...


I agree with this point


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Well at least I got something right 

My point was though was that Galland was nt appreciating the effectiveness of the Hurricane so I tried to shed some light on it.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 18, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> i really don't konw y people think that the spit is SUPERIOR to the me-109, i think that the me-109 is just as good as the spit, depending on the pliot, but how is the hurricane better than the 109? even a buffelo(worst fighter in servise in the USAAF) is better than it. another reason i think that u people vote 4 the spit over the 109 is because the allies won the war, and most of u are in the allie countrys anywayz as i said, the 109 also got a armament adventage of having 20MM cannons even on the early visons
> 
> i would welcome anybody to make a comment about this.



I think the original Adolf Galland said it best when Hitler asked him what he needed to beat the British and he answered "A squadron of Spitfires" this is a quite famous quote.

My major problem with the bf-109 it that provisions were never made to give it the fuel to do the job it was asked to do in the BOB. It just wasn't up to the task, the Spit was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

the spit was considdered more manouverable than the hurricance, however both could turn inside the 109.........


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 19, 2004)

> the spit was considdered more manouverable than the hurricance, however both could turn inside the 109.........


did u just say that both the spit nd hurrican can OUTTURN the 109?
No, i admit that the spit can, but the hurricans? they are sitting ducks!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

hurricane pilots siad they could turn inside the 109....................


----------



## redcoat (Dec 19, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> did u just say that both the spit nd hurrican can OUTTURN the 109?
> No, i admit that the spit can, but the hurricans? they are sitting ducks!!


Many a 109 pilot made the same mistake  
The Bf 109 was better in many respects, but not in a turning fight.
With two pilots of the same skill and determination, a Hurricane will always out-turn a 109.
Its to do with wing load ratio, the higher a wing load ratio is, normally, the wider the turning circle. The Bf had the highest wing-loading ratio of the 3, and the Hurricane had the lowest.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Finally! The Beaufighter has got a vote!

The Bolton Paul Defiants were sitting ducks, Adolf, Not the Hurricanes...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

after the first weeks at least, they enjoyed success to start with...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2004)

You lie!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

No really they did  Bf-109 pilots thought they were Hurricanes, crept up behind them, and got shot to shit by the turret. When they found this out though it became a sitting duck.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2004)

Ah, I see. Dirty tricks then.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 20, 2004)

Funny fact about the Spitfire/Hurricane thing...

"I was finally on duty in the RAF, assigned to Tangmere, one of the main bases of the Battle of Britain. At the beginning, I was flying a Hurricane, a wonderful plane, strong as a rock. They said that the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, but it's a legend. [...] Even Germans knew this legend about the Spitfire. The great Peter Townsend told me one day that he got lucky enough to meet, in a hospital, a German pilot he shot down.

"I'm glad to meet the Spitfire pilot who shot me down" said the German pilot.

"No, no. I was piloting a Hurricane !" said Peter.

He got a hard time to convince the German pilot. But this one finally said :

"Right, but if ever you meet one of my friends, tell him that I've been shot down by a Spitfire !"

- James A. Goodson (Flew with the RCAF 416 squadron, then transferred to the USAAF 133 squadron (Eagle squadron) at the end of 1942.)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2004)

Ha! Take _that_ Hurricane fans!


----------



## redcoat (Dec 20, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Ha! Take _that_ Hurricane fans!


Thats no way to talk about what a number of sources claim is the highest scoring Allied aircraft of WW2


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2004)

Touché.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 21, 2004)

I think you mean the highest CLAIMING fighter of the war. Everyone knows the deal with RAF claims.

"So I hopped over the 109s with ease, and shot down the whole foramtion of Heinkels! Must have been 100 of them! One pass of course, old boy."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)




----------



## NightHawk (Dec 21, 2004)

The overwhelming firepower of the hurrican could scrap a hevly armed target with a reletive ease, But with added firepower theres and added recoil wich requires a sturdyer frame, Wich in turn is adding wight, 
in the end it effects preformence.

The hurrican was never made to be a fighter it was a tankbuster so no wounder thet the hurrican was a siting duck for the 109.

The germen pilots feared the spitfire, You never heared "achtung hurrican" it was allways "Achtung! Spitfire",


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 21, 2004)

You're kidding - right? If a country is designing tanks that can be destroyed with a wash of .303 then they need to redesign the thing - or stop making them out of wood.

You know the Hurricane was designed as the RAF's first monoplane fighter? Keyword: Fighter?

It's a shame Hurricane Mk.IIcs weren't around for BoB. I don't think too many Kraut bombers could hold up to 4 20mm.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

> allways "Achtung! Spitfire",



"Achtung! Spitfeur!" If you wanna be totally precise 


It seems to me a lot of people need educating on the effectiveness of the Hurricane...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

They do. The Hurricane shot down more German planes during BoB than the Spitfire. 32 Squadrons of Hurricane to 11 Squadrons of Spitfire. It was a fighter, and certainly not a sitting duck. 

Still...I'd rather be in the Spitfire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

I dont think I would 8)


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

You can stick to the cows and save Britain, while I stick to the rats and save you then.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> You can stick to the cows and save Britain, while I stick to the rats and save you then.



Heh... Nice saying !


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Thank ya...


----------



## redcoat (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> They do. The Hurricane shot down more German planes during BoB than the Spitfire. 32 Squadrons of Hurricane to 11 Squadrons of Spitfire. It was a fighter, and certainly not a sitting duck.
> 
> Still...I'd rather be in the Spitfire.


The claims by RAF fighter type in the BoB was as follows;

Hurricane 1,520
Spitfire 1,188
Blenheim 27
Defiant 22

Total 2,757 

Actual Luftwaffe losses for all causes in the BOB 1,887 

ps, To anyone who thinks Luftwaffe claims were more accurate.

The Luftwaffe fighter arm claimed 3058 aircraft kills in the BoB.

The total losses (to all causes, including accidents) of Fighter Command was 1023 during the BoB


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

What were the Luftwaffe *thinking*


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)

One word: Propaganda


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Yup  Fighter Command didnt even have that many planes


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 23, 2004)

redcoat said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > They do. The Hurricane shot down more German planes during BoB than the Spitfire. 32 Squadrons of Hurricane to 11 Squadrons of Spitfire. It was a fighter, and certainly not a sitting duck.
> ...



Hah. Numbers prove it. Hurricanes show down more, but if it were a better aircraft it would have show down at LEAST an even proportion to it's numbers. They should have show down 3 times as many Germans as the Spitfires.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

That's why I voted for the Spitfire as the best, it was a better plane. The Hurricane was still the saviour in the BoB, not the Spitfire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

The Do-17 is giving it a run for its money though...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Yes, I'm certainly impressed it's doing just as good here as it did in the BoB.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

They call it the 'Flying Pencil' they would have been much better sticking pencils in elastic bands and trying to launch them across the channel. 

Hmmm...imagine if one had got across and hit a lookout in the eye. Wouldn't have much help then and the BoB would have been a German victory WITHOUT A DOUBT!


...what? Don't look at me like that, it's true.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

"Oh rats, those Gerry's have shot a pencil right into my tea, unless I want to die of lead poisoning I should make some more!"

*Whilst making tea, lookout gets distracted for a swarm of 100 109's and 350 He-111's, and the BoB is lost*


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

That's exactly how it would have happened...I think that was the early V-rocket...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

i reckon it would have very impressive stats..........


----------



## redcoat (Dec 23, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Do-17 is giving it a run for its money though...


If this was a poll of Luftwaffe bombers in which only Luftwaffe bomber crews had a vote, the Do-17 would win with ease.
The Do-17 was easy to fly, had few vices, and it could take a lot of punishment.
Its vices of low speed and a poor defensive armament was something shared by all the major Luftwaffe bombers in the battle.

The least popular Luftwaffe bomber was in fact the Ju 88 
This was due to the fact that compared with the others, she was difficult to fly, and was still suffering early development problems.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

All in all though, the Ju-88 was a better plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

It certainly turned out to be.

Lutwffe bomber wise I would have said the 111.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

The Ju-88 got the best mission result for the Luftwaffe during the BoB. A bombing raid made up of Ju-88 destroyed 46 R.A.F planes on the ground in one mission. I can't remember which airfield they attacked though..


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 23, 2004)

Kenley? Or was in Bunker Hill?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

I can't remember, I just know it wasn't Biggin Hill.


----------



## redcoat (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Ju-88 got the best mission result for the Luftwaffe during the BoB. A bombing raid made up of Ju-88 destroyed 46 R.A.F planes on the ground in one mission. I can't remember which airfield they attacked though..


It was RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on the 16th August, a non Fighter Command base, the aircraft destroyed were nearly all trainer aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

I never did say Fighter command aircraft. A lot of people died, and 46 aircraft is 46 aicraft no matter what they were.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Agreed planD...


----------



## redcoat (Dec 24, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I never did say Fighter command aircraft.


I never said you did 


> A lot of people died,


No, there were no deaths and only 5 RAF personnel were wounded 


> and 46 aircraft is 46 aircraft no matter what they were.


Correct.
In the attack the 2 Ju 88's approached the airfield with wheels down (as if coming in to land), they then bombed the 2 hangers where the 46 aircraft were stored causing fires which destroyed the stored aircraft.

You seem to think I was arguing with you.  

I wasn't, I was merely giving you info on the attack.

I though you would want to know


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

don't worry Plan_D can get a bit on edge at times.............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 24, 2004)

Well that's the wrong one, 'cos the one I'm talking about quite a few died.


----------



## redcoat (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Well that's the wrong one, 'cos the one I'm talking about quite a few died.


In that case, it can't have destroyed 46 RAF aircraft. 

This was the only raid in the BoB to destroy such a large number of aircraft on the ground.


Merry Xmas


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

Or you've just got the wrong information about how many people died.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Or perhaps YOU got the wrong information on how many people died!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

May-be but I wouldn't say that would I?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

You might do


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

not if he's like me.................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

I'm most likely not you but I still wouldn't say it.


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

the He-111 just got another vote


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

still not sure what i'm gonna vote for..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

If u havent made up ur mind with all that WWII crap in ur brain, u dont deserve to vote.....

Besides, u never vote in polls anyways....


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

i think we should tie him up and feed him jelly and icream until he votes and ban him from posting about not voteing and stuff like that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

i've never actually had jelly and ice cream.....................


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

you see i always know how to torture someone


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2005)

How the hell is jelly and ice-cream torture? I WANT JELLY AND ICE-CREAM!!!


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

oh i though he said he didnt like it  , 

oh well on to the pit of nails , or is that snakes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

what does it taste like??


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

i dont know , ive never tried nails or snakes


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

I'd say chamber of fire...you know they're done when the skin starts to melt off.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2005)

Spitfire hands down


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 3, 2005)

i agree it was a very ugly thing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Spitfire hands down



Hurricane limbs down...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2005)

No. Spitfire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

No. Hurricane. 

If all the planes were hurricanes we would still have won, but I wouldnt be so confident if they were all Spits... 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2005)

Nut.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Why wouldn't you be so confident if they were all Spitfires? They were better aircraft and had the same armament. So, bombers wouldn't be a problem nor would fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Nut.



How many times have you called me that?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2005)

Three so far.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Oh...I thought it was more


----------



## DerRotenTeufel (Feb 27, 2005)

The Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft in the BoB. 

The Spitfire is probably the prettiest airplane ever.

But taking Fighter v Fighter combat losses the Bf109E comes out the clear winner. 

219 Spitfires v 180 Bf109s
272 Hurricanes v 153 Bf109s

So the 109 is the best. Plus its the most purposeful looking killing machine in aviation history  

Dave


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

the 109 isn't the best because it shot down more, oh no, it had shockingly little fuel, and what those figures don't show is the number of bombers both planes took out (although the hurricane moreso), the hurricane was the best as it shot down around 80% of all planes shot down by all british defences (including AA fire)..................


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

If Fighter Command was all Spits, we could have lost simply because of the comparitive difficulty in producing a Spit to a Hurricane. Also, not as many Spits would make it back with the amaount of damage that Hurricanes could take


----------



## DerRotenTeufel (Mar 6, 2005)

Yes the 109 had 'shockingly little fuel' and it still shot down more of its primary target . The reason the 109 shot down fewer bombers in the BoB was because there wasn't that many RAF bombers around to shoot at, was there. 
The Jagdfliegers primary task was shoot down fighters. This they did with gusto. And when Bomber Command did decide to pay a visit, the 109 also whipped them - Battle of the Bight?
So what constitutes the best aircraft then in your mind? 

Most Technologically Advanced?
Hurricane - Still used dope linen.
109 - Leading edge slats, Direct Fuel Injection, SuperCharger etc

Racyist Colour Schemes?
Hurricane/Spit - Brown Green
109 - As many colors as possible preferably on the same plane  

Individual Highest Scoring Pilot?
RAF/PAF Jozef Frantiszek - 17 (Hurricane) 
Luftwaffe Helmut Wick - 56 (109) all but 4 of them fighters.

Or something else????


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

In some ways I agree, the 109 did well in Freie Jagd covering the retreat of the bombers and in general escort duties but once they were told to stick with the bombers, all it's advantages were lost


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

The Hurri gets my vote...it was tough, and the tighter grouping of guns in the wing allowed it to hit harder than the Spit with the same armament. And it wasnt bad looking either...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Could soak up the damage aswell, not like the flimsy Spitfire


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 6, 2005)

Hey!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

I like the Spit aswell, I'm just pointing out one of it's weaknesses


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 6, 2005)

It's impolite to point!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

okay okay, I'm mentioning one of it's weaknesses then


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 6, 2005)

Another smart ass.  Good stuff!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

i haven't actually voted yet but i'm assuming the hurricane's wining?? and yes i know i can check without voted, i just can't be bothered.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

Supermarine Spitfire 
48% [ 188 ] 
Hawker Hurricane 
16% [ 65 ] 
Bolton-Paul Defiant 
1% [ 4 ] 
Bristol Beaufighter 
1% [ 5 ] 
Messerschmitt Bf-109 
19% [ 74 ] 
Messerschmitt Me-110 
3% [ 15 ] 
Heinkel He-111 
2% [ 11 ] 
Dornier Do-17 
0% [ 3 ] 
Junkers Ju-87 Stuka 
2% [ 11 ] 
Junkers Ju-88 
2% [ 11 ] 

Total Votes : 387 





Fraid not lanc  Even the Emil is beating it


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

more people have voted for the Stuka than the Do-17, why?


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 7, 2005)

I think the spitfire was the best British fighter. It had excellent fire power and manuverability.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> more people have voted for the Stuka than the Do-17, why?



Probably because its more famous.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2005)

BountyHunter15 said:


> I think the spitfire was the best British fighter. It had excellent fire power and manuverability.



The Spit Is 8 mgs were spread along the wing, whereas the Hurris were grouped tightly, making the Hurri the more destructive weapon. There were some cannon armed Spits (IB's) trialled around the BoB, but the early marks of Hispano cannon were highly prone to jamming and unpopular with pilots.

While the Spit was more maneuverable than the Hurri, the Hurri was no slouch, and in any case, the 109 had the better of both because it's direct-injection engine allowed it to pull negative-g maneuvers which caused the carb-fed Merlin to cut out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2005)

buth both the hurricane and spit could turn inside the -109..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes but the problem was that the 109 pilots knew that so they got up-sun, dived on the Spits and Hurricanes and kept on diving, confident in the fact that the lack of fuel injection meant that they would be well away before the planes they were firing at could follow


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2005)

...to which the 109 responded by inverting, opening the throttle and ramming the stick foward. The Merlin would cut out if an RAF fighter tried to follow. Not much use at low alts, I admit, but then a lot of the dogfighting during the BoB was pretty high up


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 9, 2005)

I like the 109 the best, however, a careful review of the facts shows the Spitfire as the better performer. Btw the Hurri could out-turn the Spit, especially at low altitudes, the 109 being left behind by both. For an interesting analysis see:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E: A Performance COmparison


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

man the hurricane should be running away with this one, perhaps it's time for the return of spam voting??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

No. Not allowed.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

The Spitfire had a turning advantage and the Bf-109 had a climb and dive advantage or was it the other way around. Anyway, I like the Spitfire and as proof of how good it was it stayed in service until the 1960s-1970s sometimes up until the 1980s. The Bf-109 airframe was approaching its limits at the end of WW2. Bf-110s were large vulnerable aircraft that were difficult to successfully use as fighters as they lacked manevorability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

all good points.......


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

I vote 4 the spit! One of the best fighters in the war. There is no contest. By the way why is the ju87 on the list.
It was so bad that it was withdrawn from the BoB. 
There should only be votes for He111, Me 109, Spit, Hurricane and maybe Me 110.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

I feel that the Bf109 should come above the hurricane because like the spit is to us Brits the Bf109 was there best thing at the time and something school boys could admire.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 7, 2005)

Paul-Boulton Defiant!  

- I can't believe you actually put it on there!  

I think Me109 or Hurricane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

During the BoB the task presented to the RAF was to keep the Luftwaffe out of British skies, mainly the bombers. As history shows this was achieved and the main instrument that accomplished this was the Hurricane....

I always felt the Hurricane was under-rated in terms as the BoB as many like to remember the Spit to -109 match up, but it was the Hurricane, knocking down Luftwaffe bombers that really saved the day!!!!


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 7, 2005)

As overall effectiveness: Hurricane

As best performance plane : Bf 109E

The comparison must be 109E vs Spit MkI and II
I LOVE the Spit, and I believe that the 'pure' MkI is one of the most beautiful planes ever designed but:
- the MkI was suffering the engine cut-off (famous carb issue)
- Armament was inferior to 109E
-109 was better in climb and dive, far superior in dive if we consider the Spit problems
- 109 was beating the Spit until was allowed to fly above the bombers and use the boom-and-zoom tactic, was in trouble when stupid Goering forced the 109 to fly close escort, moving the combat in the 'dogfight' area where the Spit could use her better rate of roll and 109 could not use her best attitudes: but this can't be blamed on the aircraft.
- Main problem of the 109 was the limited range and so the short time that she could afford in combat, but once again this is more an headquarter issue: they believed that the 110 could do the job, so did not develop an aux tank for the 109 until 1941


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

For me it depends on what you are looking at. I went for the 109. I feel the Bf-109E was the the best aircraft in the air at the time of the BoB. The Spitfire however was so close that as others say it really is hard to tell between the two. I still went with the 109 because it is my favorite aircraft of WW2.

Now though if you want to go with Historical reasons, then I would say the Hurricane is the best of the BoB. Yes the Spitfire was superior but the Hurricane was more numerical than the Spitfire and it did most of the work stopping the Luftwaffe Bombers while the Spitfires fought the 109's and 110's. Therefore in that case I would go with the Hurricane.

Still though as I stated, out of love for my Bf-109 I voted for her of course.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

The armament issues of the Spitfire are not even worth mentioning. The fact that there were eight .303cal made enough lead flying at the enemy to bring him down. 

I chose the Spitfire. The Bf-109E and Spitfire Mk.I were an even match but I love the Spitfire!

For historical reasons, the Hurricane saved Britain by numbers but the Spitfire could have done the same in greater numbers. And the Spitfire shot the fighters down. 

The Spitfire was a fly swatter and the Hurricane killed the cows.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

I agree with your statement about the Hurricane and Spitfire.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 8, 2005)

PlanD, I have to disagree with one of your statement
If we want to technically compare aircrafts the armament issue IS worth mentioning, like any other asset or performance: does not matter that the 8x7.7 could down foes, the fact is that the 109E with the 2x20mm was better armed.
And the fact that the Macchi 202 could shot down some B17 with only 2x12.7 does not change the fact that the 202 was severely undergunned.

Using your same logic we could say it's not worth mentioning that the Spit had a better turn, even the Me109 could effectively turn and change direction!

Then, if you believe that the Spit had small edge on the 109 and I believe the 109 had a small edge on the Spit, this is perfectly fine!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

The 109 and the Spit at the time were pretty much equal (echoeing what others have already said).


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

The Bf-109E had little edge over the Spitfire in the armament issue when dueling one another. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

The advantages of each aircraft though pretty much equalled each other out.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

I couldn't agree more, Adler. With all the aircraft technical details taken into account, the only significant that either aircraft would ever have over the other would be the pilot sat in it's seat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

Agreed completely. If you think about it the Spit and Hurricane were a perfect ballance for one another. The Spits held off the fighters while the Hurricanes hit the Bombers. They worked togehter really well with the help of a thing called Radar. Have to hand it to them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed completely. If you think about it the Spit and Hurricane were a perfect ballance for one another. The Spits held off the fighters while the Hurricanes hit the Bombers. They worked togehter really well with the help of a thing called Radar. Have to hand it to them.



And thus my comment about the Hurricane - 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes and you probably put it better than I did.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2005)

If I can suggest another plus to the Hurricane compared to the Spitfire, it is that it was more easily repaired and it had a much higher sortie rate than the Spitfire. 
We would have been is serious trouble without the Hurricane. As getting planes in the air that could fight effectively, was almost more important than performance. There is no doubt that the 109 was better than the Hurricane, but it wasn't a sitting duck either and the highest scoring squadron was a Hurricane squadron. 
I am sure that many a German pilot couldn't make the most of his advantage due to the lack of fuel, which was a significant factor in the battle. 
Another factor is the ease of which it could be flown by the rookie pilot, very much a factor in the BOB and here again the Hurricane would be the best.
With all this in mind and considering that the point of the thread is which was the best plane in the BOB, then my vote is for the Hurricane.

If it was which is the better fighter 109, Spitfire and Hurricane then it wouldn't be. For the BOB however it was its


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2005)

crowning moment.
Please excuse the finger trouble


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

It had a higher sortie rate than the Spitfire because there were more Hurricanes. I agree with you though on all that you said.


----------



## trackend (Sep 10, 2005)

Ill reserve comment guys I'm of to Duxford tomorrow for the 65th BOB 
comemoration a guy at work has a disabled lady freind who wants to go so i'm the taxi for a day.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2005)

Der Alder. Its my understanding that it had a higher sortie rate per aircraft as it was easier to repair. This is in addition to there being more Hurricanes in the fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2005)

trackend said:


> Ill reserve comment guys I'm of to Duxford tomorrow for the 65th BOB
> comemoration a guy at work has a disabled lady freind who wants to go so i'm the taxi for a day.



You sweetie you! Get some good photos!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2005)

I once read that captured -109 pilots during the BoB would be insulted to lean that they got hacked by a Hurricane.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 10, 2005)

I remember reading that somewhere too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

I am sure that it was easier to maintain also but I think the leading factor would be the number of Hurricanes.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2005)

FJ your right, it was very difficult to find a German Pilot who admitted to being shot down by a Hurricane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ your right, it was very difficult to find a German Pilot who admitted to being shot down by a Hurricane.


 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

I would have said I ran out of fuel!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 12, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)




----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 12, 2005)

The hurricane was probably the best aircraft during the Battle of Britain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

I disagree. If you go of actuall aircraft ability the Spitfire and Bf-109E with the 109E having the slight edge over the Spitfire at the time.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2005)

Watched a program on the Battle of Britain this morning; while mentioning nothing about the comparitive pros and cons of the aircraft involved, one quote from a Spitfire Test Pilot goes as follows: "The Spitfire could have won the battle without the Hurricane but the Hurricane could not have won the battle without the Spitfire". This apart they did complement each other well the Spitfire's taking on the 109's and the Hurricane's the bombers. Everybody on the program accepted the fact that the British could not have won the battle without RDF (Radar). Could the Hurricane have won the Battle of Britain without the Spitfire? Discuss.

I personally agree with the Test Pilot, the Hurricane needed the Spitfire but the Spitfire didn't neccessarily need the Hurricane.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

I think if the Hurricanes replaced all the Spitfires we still would have won. It was the Luftwaffe's change of targets that saved the RAF in the south. The Bf-109E didn't have an easy time with the Hurricane, far from it. And the fights would still take place around the bomber formations leaving the Hurricanes open to attack the bombers while the fighters tried to get them away. 

Yes, in my opinion, if the Spitfire squadrons were made up of Hurricanes instead we could have still won. The same applies, in my mind, to the opposite with Spitfires. If Spitfires were all we had, in the same numbers as Hurricanes, we could have won.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

I agree somewhat. If all the aircraft had been Hurricanes the Germans still would have lost because of the change of targets but with overwelming numbers of 109E's the Hurricanes eventually would have been all but destroyed had the German bombers still attacked the factories and not the cities. If all the aircraft had been Spitfires I think it would have been differently because the German bombers were too vulnerable. In the end though I agree that the British radar is what really saved the day and the German change of targets.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

I'd say it was down to radar and American fuel IMHO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Radar definatly.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

A point people forget here is that the Hurricane was hard, it could take off from bombed airfields and the only way to surely down one was to kill the pilot.

The armaments we have gone into on another thread (ish) the 20mm on the Me109 had a really low RoF compared to the Brownings (which were more than adequate) and would be hard for a novice to use, however the Me had been around since -36, a factor IMHO.

A similar problem was in Russia - novices liked the Hurris 8x.303, experienced (foreign) pilots preferred the Soviet planes armament (similar to Me109).

You could push a Spit (wing loading fuel), and if you got shot down, so what? - Not so for the 109!

Also if you gave me a choice of fuel 60RON or 87RON, I know which I'd choose!


----------



## trackend (Sep 14, 2005)

The biggest single factor has to be time over target the British had much more air time available when beating off attacks the 109's operational time over England was very limited before they had to head for home
although numbers looked to be in the Germans favour this was offset by combat time over the UK.
I still like the Spite but also recognise the Hurries as being the backbone of the UK's air defense squadrons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

trackend said:


> The biggest single factor has to be time over target the British had much more air time available when beating off attacks the 109's operational time over England was very limited before they had to head for home
> although numbers looked to be in the Germans favour this was offset by combat time over the UK.
> I still like the Spite but also recognise the Hurries as being the backbone of the UK's air defense squadrons.



That is deffinatly true. The 109's could only protect the bombers for a short time and then they were on there own.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

Yeah, that is very true, and we all know what happens to a He-111 against a spitfire, or hurricane armed with eight 7.7 mm machine guns, or the various 20mm and 7.7 mm armament mixtures carried.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.



Perhaps as a bomber destroyer, uprating their engines and the installation of wing guns, possible, but I don't know if the effort would of been worth it, I would of opted to just build more Hurricanes....


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> carpenoctem1689 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.
> ...


I'd agree FBJ, I'd much rather have more Hurricanes (and Spitfires) than Defiants. It was an interesting concept that failed.

Carpenoctem: I think they could have been better employed by the British, not sure exactly how though (how about not building them?). The Defiants where in a way a bit like the 110 could deal with bombers OK but could not deal with single engined fighters.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

I know it couldnt deal with a single engined fighter to save its life, and i wouldnt have built them either. But considering they had them laying around, and things were looking very bleak for a while, it would have been an idea id consider in defence of my country. desperate times require effective use of what you have.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 9, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> I know it couldnt deal with a single engined fighter to save its life, and i wouldnt have built them either. But considering they had them laying around, and things were looking very bleak for a while, it would have been an idea id consider in defence of my country. desperate times require effective use of what you have.


That it does but even if the Defaint had been used effectively would have done that much damage? I'm not so sure.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

It'd have done no more damage than the Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Defiant had limited tactical value, if any at all. The Spitfires and Hurricanes were much more potent weapons against the bombers, and they could handle the opposition fighters. The Defiant achieved success early from German pilots mistaking them for Hurricanes and only realising their mistake when the rear end of the 'Hurricane' was shooting back at them. 

No, the Defiant had no where to go. It was the right thing to do to remove it from daylight operations as it did have success at night.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

I agree with pD that it was best to remove the Defiants but it may have been an interesting night fighter program or something had it been modified and developed for that role.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 17, 2005)

The MkII Defiant was used as a nightfighter, and as for uprating the engine- it had a Merlin!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Cool did not know that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

And a pretty good nightfighter too, was it not?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

Wasn't bad, I read a book about a British Pilot who flew them at night then Hurricanes (at night) before ending up flying the nightfighter Beaufighter. Interesting read.


----------



## book1182 (Oct 29, 2005)

I think the plane that made the biggest difference was the Hurrican but that doesn't mean it was the best. The Me-109 gave a good account for itself early on in Poland and France but when it meet the Spitfire it finally meet it's match. So wouldn't that then make the Spitfire the BEST fighter. The only problem I have is the early British fighters had 8x30cal guns. Those just didn't seem powerful enough to bring down bombers. If they would have had the 50cal. or 20mm cannons then I think the German bombers would have been worse off than they were.

If I could give out a second award it would go to the JU-88. It had good speed and I think in a shallow dive back to France, if not out run stay ahead of the Hurricans and Spitfires. It also had a good bomb load for a German bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Agreed, but didnt the early Ju-88's have a lot of problems?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Most early planes do. I dont believe the Ju-88 had anymore problems than most planes do.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 10, 2005)

Great topic CC !

- I'm 12 pages late, but clicked for the Spitfire, especially it's 'morale' value, 'Spitfire Fund' etc.

I guess an awful lot has been written about the BoB, but between 10th July and 31 October 1940, the Luftwaffe lost 1,733 aircraft of all types, against 915 RAF machines shot down...The tragedy for both sides was the loss of so many experienced airmen, which were irreplacable in the long term....But in 1940, the mightiest aerial army the world had ever seen was broken by a thousand men who did not want war, but having it thrust on them, willingly gave of themselves to end it.......I know alot of the victory belongs to the Hurricane too, but the Spitfire led a rallying call right through the British Empire, and there's been nothing like it since...

I do agree with Carpenoctem about the Defiant, I believe more could've been done with it....especially when the Griffon came along.....And like Gnomey mentioned, I've read that book too, years ago.....
4x Brownings in a turret was alotta versatile, concentrated firepower then.....


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 11, 2005)

The Ju-88A1 actually had some quite strict manouever and dive limitations, mostly as a result of a rash of minor problems (and some serious ones) that had been overlooked in the rush to get the plane into military service. The upshot was that A1 operations were somewhat restricted during the BofB period.

The solution lay in the Ju-88A4 but the lack of Jumo 211J engines delayed its inception. Instead, an interim type, the Ju-88A5, was introduced into service.

The A5 had longer span wings, which were singificantly structurally strengthened. Larger, metal skinned alierons were fitted. Adjustments were made to the bomb bay, armour, defensive armament, instrumentation and other detail changes. The end result was that the A5 suffered none of the handeling problems of the A1 and A2.


----------



## Aggie08 (Dec 30, 2005)

I say stuka- very good for the brits when flying unescorted!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

That is one way to put it.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 26, 2006)

I would pick the Hurricaine or the Baughfighter. Both were available in the numbers needed with good pilots.

The Me-110 might have been the best German plane, but I realy like the He-111, if it would have only got better engines and armor, why it was never realy improved on I wounder about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

The Bf-110 better than the the Bf-109E during the BoB? It was not better than a Bf-109 at anypoint except for maybe the B, C, D models of the Bf-109.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 30, 2006)

Ok so maybe I am streching it over the 109E, but that plane did not have the legs, if they could have given her more rang, and kept the guns and aginity. But the me 109E was untill the K my favorite type.

I say the 110 because it could stay with the bombers longer, not that it could protect any better, the Hurricaines could get around them and take alot of lead while they were downing he-111s and Do-17s.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

I would say it has to be a draw between the 109 and Spitfire. Now at the time everyone knew that the 109 was a great great fighter (best in the world at the time) but not everyone knew how good the Spitfire was until its real first big debut in BoB (it had only saw very limited action up until then). So I say a draw between 109 and Spitfire but the Spitfire gets alittle bit of a honorable mention b/c it was not really a proven fighter up until then. After BoB everyone knew the Spitfire was the real deal then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

The 109 was never really intended to have a long range, just like the Spitfire. It was meant for the short ranges required for the mainland Europe. Now having said that I do believe that they shoudl have designed it to have a greater range.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

Strictly with the benefit of hindsight; the Bf-109 should have had a longer range. But the Luftwaffe, nor the OKW, knew that a strategic bomber campaign would be needed with escort. Even in Britain, America and Russia the idea of the "bomber will always get through" ran rampant. 

On top of that, the Luftwaffe was never a strategic air force. It was a combat and tactical air force, it would even be stretching it to say that it was operational. They aimed more for battlefield destruction, which required aircraft capable of support close to the front line. The Bf-109 was perfect for this job. 

The Spitfire was a purely defensive fighter, just like the English Electric Lightning.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 4, 2006)

So, Plan_D what we need is a new fighter, the Spitfire, was ever changing and did get some longer legs in the end. The bf 109 was not a fortunite and the program stalled, with so meny feild kits and armor that it did not have a chance, until the 109k.

the bbf 209 was a good start. It is sad as much as I love the bombers they realy did need an escort, but leadership thought they could hold the line.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

The only reason the Bf-109 never received longer range was because by 1943 the need for range had pratically vanished. In the West, the Luftwaffe was turning on the defensive to hold up the Allied air forces in which a capable interceptor was needed. In the East, the tactical and combat minds of the Luftwaffe were very much still high in the minds of the thinkers. The Luftwaffe was always a tactical air force. 

The Spitfire did, near the end, achieve greater ranges. But that was largely due to the changing situation of the war and the adaptation of the Spitfire to those changes was required. Had the Spitfire and Bf-109 been in the opposing air forces (109 in RAF, Spitfire in Luftwaffe) it would be an exact reverse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

I agree and I think you pretty much summed it up there pD.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 11, 2006)

well now what if the RAF had the 109, would things have been different? Could it have been used for anything? Or could they have found a way to develop it for range, as that ever elusive bomber escort they needed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

MP-Willow said:


> well now what if the RAF had the 109, would things have been different? Could it have been used for anything? Or could they have found a way to develop it for range, as that ever elusive bomber escort they needed?


RAF with 109s?!? Ha - When Goering asked Galland what he needs to defeat the RAF his reply was "A squadron of Spitfires."


----------



## plan_D (Feb 12, 2006)

If the RAF had Bf-109s then their development would have shadowed the REAL development of Spitfires, the range would have been increased. But it would have nowhere near been along the lines to make the Bf-109 an escort fighter. 

It's simple, a planes development in wartime follows the needs of the war you're waging. The British needed interceptors at the start, so interceptors they had. When the war dragged on their beloved Spitfire needed extra range - so extra range it got. 

Germany began the war with nearby enemies, allowing the air force to follow the ground combat. The fighters could move from airfield to airfield on the advance. This meant the Bf-109s didn't need range. When the Battle of Britain began it was quickly realised the long-range escort fighters (Bf-110s) were poor, and needed their own escort fighters. But by the time the need was realised, it was too late and Germany needed interceptors to hold off the increasing bomber offensive from the RAF and USAAF. So, the Bf-109 never needed an extent in range. 

Would it have been different with the Germans in Spitfires and RAF in Bf-109s? No.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 17, 2006)

Plan_D, I can agree with that, I wanted to ask the question, just to know what people would think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

I can agree with pd as well.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 7, 2006)

Ok, I gess I am just a beleaver in a long reach.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

plan_D said:


> If the RAF had Bf-109s then their development would have shadowed the REAL development of Spitfires, the range would have been increased. But it would have nowhere near been along the lines to make the Bf-109 an escort fighter.
> 
> It's simple, a planes development in wartime follows the needs of the war you're waging. The British needed interceptors at the start, so interceptors they had. When the war dragged on their beloved Spitfire needed extra range - so extra range it got.
> 
> ...



Well put.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 17, 2006)

Ok, so I am shot down. But with this question of fighters I would have thought that some one in the Air cores would have been pushing escort fighters? I know that it was not the majority view, but people must have been talking about it?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 26, 2006)

The Luftwaffe considered their Bf-110 capable of escort duty until the Battle of Britain. And then it was too late on the offensive missions over Britain because the RAF had acquired absolute air superiority. On the Eastern Front it was just like the earlier actions, and the Bf-109s had range enough to accompany the bombers on their raids. 

In the RAF, the idea of the self-defending bomber formations were still in the mind even in 1940. And by the time the RAF realised that bombers cannot defend themselves, they'd already switched to the night where enemy interception was very rare. It wasn't until the Germans had increased their night interception ability that the RAF needed an escort , and they found one in the Mosquito. 

The USAAF were determined to stay in the day , so they were the only nation to really require an escort fighter. That is why they got so many.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

Yeap and I dont care what anyone says, without the escort fighters the USAAF bombers never would have survived long eneogh and eventually they too would have gone to night bombing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2006)

hence why all the defensive guns on the american heavies was normally useless, if you're on your own or even in a formation without escort, you are going to get shot down in large numbers, no ammount of guns will save you, nor will the fire of other guns, the fighter has every advantage and can pick and chose when to shot you down.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree as well, however if I were a bomber guy I would still feel better with the defensive armament that the B-17 and B-24 had compared to other bombers that I will not mention so as not to get into a long and lengthy discussion again. I dont want to have to come to your aid again in that particular thread.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> I dont want to have to come to your aid again in that particular thread



when did you come to my aid!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

When syscom was all over you.

Im kidding lanc, calm down.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 28, 2006)

The defensive armament of the American heavies certainly was not useless. at least fifty calibers could actually take out an enemy fighter unlike .30s and .303s. No German pilot I've talked to ever discounted the danger of wading in to a bomber box with dozens of guns aimed at him. They didn NOT considerit a piece of cake.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2006)

the fact remains that it didn't stop them being shot down in large numbers..............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 29, 2006)

what about the flak? wasn't it just as useful as the sturmjagers?


----------



## Twitch (Mar 30, 2006)

While unescorted heavies were shot down they gave it back pretty well too. Zestroyers were lost in noticable amounts on various intercept missions. The Luftwaffe losses weren't excessive but who wants to be a statistic? You simply can't attack from 6 o'clock and wade into several cross-covering box formations and not emerge unscathed while 150+ .50s are trained on you.

While on the Schweinfurt mission 3 Thunderbolts were lost defending the Big Friends. Fifty-nine B-17s went down over the Reich’s airspace. Six others were destroyed near of over England from ditching or bailouts. Another seventeen were damaged so badly that they would never fly again. Only fifty planes received no damage of the 257 that made it over Germany’s airspace.

The Luftwaffe lost 38 fighters. That's more than 2 squadrons worth of planes! Not unreconcilable but not a pittance either.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

wow... how close was the campaign to actually being stopped? when a whole fleet doesn't make it back?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 31, 2006)

Flak wasnt as useful, because there were means of disabling the radars that ranged the flak, the guns often werent concentrated enough (with many notable exceptions, but you couldnt cover all of germany with guns, but you could with planes moving at 100s of miles per hour). Flak, mainly the 88 was a good weapon and certainly could reach up and strike the formations of heavys, but B-17s and B-24s could take alot of damage, and flak is just small bits of metal moving at high-speeds due to an explosive 88mm in this case shell. It would take a direct hit on the aircraft, the death of pilot and co-pilot, or severe flap or engine damage to bring down a bomber of the size of the heavies. Also, in such a large formation, the odds you will hit the same bomber more than once are slim, making repeated near miss bring downs much less likely, they needed fighters and flak coordinated for maximum effectiveness.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

what about losses on the German Side?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2006)

> The Luftwaffe lost 38 fighters



out of interest are they american or german figures?


----------



## bigZ (Jan 18, 2007)

Hi. First post and hopefully not my last.

Voted the Hurricane not because its my favorite but it is the plane that did more than any other to win the BOB, plus us Brits always love an underdog.

The 109 would have made a better showing if the NAZI's had maybe forced the cosmetic industry to cease the production of ladies makeup and made them concentrate on drop tanks as used in the the Spanish Civil War instead. Still even if they had this we could always fall back on strategic depth as shown later in France by the Germans.

Regarding a previous post regarding the use of Flak. Acording to my sources German flak required an average of 16,000 shells to knock down 1 B-17. Also toward the end of the war 1.25 million men were being used to man the guns in the Reich. Can't help thinking all that manpower and materials could have been better used elsewhere. Although visiable flak is a better morale booster than unseen effective nightfighters ask any Lanc pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2007)

While I agree that it took a lot of FLAK to bring down bombers I dont think it was 16,000 shells for one bomber.

The only way to tell would be to find out how many were fired throughout the whole war, which we will never ever know.

In 1944 FLAK accounted for 3501 USAAF aircraft shot down. On March 24, 1944 72 British Bombers were lost over Berlin, 50 of them were shot down by FLAK.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

i agree that Flak was vital, even in the BoB............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

FLAK was more deadly and caused more problems than people think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

makes for a great scene in Downfall too  "Using das flak as artilery"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

Even thought that is a German movie, I still have not seen it. I really would like to.


----------



## bigZ (Jan 22, 2007)

My source for the 16000 rounds to 1 bomber down was taken form the 'Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe' by Eagle editions.

Heres another source confirming the figure.

Pre-Nike (Anti Aircraft Guns)

German author Werner Muller in his book "The Heavy Flak Guns" said,"Based on average monthly ammunition consumption in 1944, it took 16,000 rounds of 88mm gunfire to bring down one four engine bomber."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Even thought that is a German movie, I still have not seen it. I really would like to.



it's a phenominal film you'll really enjoy it..........


----------



## Ajax (Mar 20, 2007)

The Spitfire did alot to keep the spirits up of the brits on the ground, but stats-wise I should really vote for somthing else...

How could I betray the spitfire though? It's like an aussie opting for somthing fried instead of a BBQ...


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2007)

If I had to chose the best I would go for the Ju88. 
The Spit and 109 were equally good and who lived and who died, depended on the tactical position and/or the skill of the pilot.

The Ju88 was however in a class of its own when it came to bombing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

Ajax said:


> The Spitfire did alot to keep the spirits up of the brits on the ground, but stats-wise I should really vote for somthing else...
> 
> How could I betray the spitfire though? It's like an aussie opting for somthing fried instead of a BBQ...



You do realize that the Hurricane was more of a "Hero" in the BoB than the Spitfire right?


----------



## mkloby (Mar 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize that the Hurricane was more of a "Hero" in the BoB than the Spitfire right?



I've said before - the Hurricane was a war winner for the UK. Right plane, right place, right time, even though it may have been outclassed by the spit.


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

The Bf-109 takes the prize IMO because of the fact that it was the fastest aircraft during BoB, and because it did remarkably well considering the circumstances under which it had to fight.

Fast, maneuverable and equipped with fuel injection the 109 is the best fighter of that period. Not by much though.


----------



## Bernhart (Mar 21, 2007)

hurricane gets my vote, was easier to fly, more forgiving of a bad pilot( not that that would help in a dog fight) could take alot of damage and still make it home.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

To me the best was actually the Bf-109E. I think it was the best overall fighter of the BoB however my vote does go to the Hurricane because of what she did for the British in the BoB.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 22, 2007)

No Westland Whirland in the line up? Not the best but should do better than the Stuka with 15 votes??????


----------



## Ajax (Mar 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize that the Hurricane was more of a "Hero" in the BoB than the Spitfire right?



From what I know from people _in_ britain, the spitfire was the idealised hero. To civilians, mind, not aviation experts such as yourself.


----------



## Heinz (Apr 23, 2007)

I went for the Spitfire, Im original i know!

I do have a soft spot for the He111, I love the design of it.


----------



## Plane Freak (Jul 10, 2007)

If u voted for a German Plane and u have a german name u r a ****ing NAZI!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2007)

Plane Freak said:


> If u voted for a German Plane and u have a german name u r a ****ing NAZI!


Ladies and gentleman, notice the stupidity of some who attempt to come this board and also note the "lifespan" of this idiot. If you're too freaking immature or stupid (or both) to come on this board, stick to X box and stay away from the Internet.


----------



## trackend (Jul 11, 2007)

That was a informative post by Plane Freak or should I say Plain Freak
so lets all remember if you like German aircraft of any sort or you have a German name or you have relitives who are German you are now classed as an Nazi according to this interlectual giant.
I have a Nazi banner my dad liberated from the headquaters in Middleburg I suppose that must make him (and me for owning it) a Nazi sympathiser at least.
There are some odd people around isnt there Joe?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 11, 2007)

Equally disturbing, is that his profile reveals that he likes to shoot "things". The mind boggles at what "things" are.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 11, 2007)

The Hurricane...a war plane...could be patched up and flown again and far more novice friendly.

I remember reading one RAF pilots view on the Stuka was he loved it...said it would burst into flames after a good burst 

This wasn't the air war the Bf 109 Emil was designed for...far too short ranged...I would still go for the Spitfire Mk I or II...but then I am biased.

This battle was about the Bf 110, the strategic fighter that never was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2007)

And you a piece of ****!

Sorry Basket that was not meant for you. That was for the ******* plane freak who said that if you had a German name and voted for a German aircraft you were a NAZI.


----------



## outremerknight (Jul 11, 2007)

On 12-06 cheddar cheese 
Konfused with a 'K' wrote:
'Hurricane took out more planes'
With out a doubt they did, facts speak clearly, but, there were more of them to do so! About the same ratio of Hurris to Spits in service/fighting as the ratio of 'kills'. So over all, Hurri to Spit kill ratio was 1:1.
Also as good as the 109 was, it was a poor dog fighter, having a wing loading approx 25% greater than the Spit. Thus it couldn't turn as tight at height and tended to make attacks in the zoom climb, losing height where it became vulnerable to the Spit Hurri.
A BoB fighter pilot I still talk to, tells me in his squadron, (610) they used to let the 109s come down to them and just before the 109s could open fire the Spits broke right and left in tight turns, ending up behind the 109 who then couldn't shake them off except by putting the nose down into a power dive, which we all know, neither the Spits nor Hurris could do.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you a piece of ****!



Jeez! All I said is I liked the Hurricane! 

Some people:BIG:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

Sorry like I said in the pm to you, that was not meant for you but for that ******* up there.


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2007)

I think both you and the rest of us have every right to be pissed big time at Plain Freakazoid Adler I hate people who accelerate their mouth before putting their brains in gear.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

Dont worry about it anymore. He was shot down by Erich.


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2007)

In flames I trust


----------



## Heinz (Jul 13, 2007)

what the???????

was that aimed at me. 

Either way they are banned which is the main thing!


----------



## Negative Creep (Aug 6, 2007)

The RAF weren't aiming to shoot down fighters, they were after the bombers. 109's on the other hand only had to worry about facing fighters, so that's why you get the discrepancy


----------



## timshatz (Aug 6, 2007)

I think the spit had a higher ratio of kills than the hurricane and better survivability stats. I like the Hurricane. Wide track landing gear, sloped nose (so you can actually see what's ahead of you) and famously docile handling. 

But I voted for the Spit. I'd rather fly a crap airplane that gives me a good or better chance of survival than a docile airplane I like with a lesser chance of coming home. And the Spit wasn't crap by any standards.


----------



## T4.H (Aug 7, 2007)

I believe, the Bf 109 was the best fighter.
And the German fighter pilots were the better pilots.

But they did not use the fighter on the right way and the Bf 109 was not the right fighter to protect the bombers (to short range, they had to cover the bombers etc.).


----------



## renrich (Aug 26, 2007)

To me, it is hard to choose the best BOB AC but if you go by results the Hurricane shot down more German bombers. The BOB was about LW bombing targets in England and the RAF trying to stop them. Of course there were a lot more Hurricanes than Spits so it was natural that the RAF tried to concentrate the Hurricane, lacking in performance, against the bombers while the Spits took on the escort fighters. The Hurricane lacked the performance to have an even chance against the 109. The Spit and 109 were pretty equal where usually Lady Luck or pilot skill determined the winner. Overall I believe the LW pilots were more experienced. The RAF was putting up very low time pilots in some cases and they had to be lucky to survive long enough to become proficient. Overall if you choose the best ac it is a draw between the Spit and 109, which actually were very similar.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 26, 2007)

Well as usual in the war someone in the lead had to take a certain decision and stop the bombing of RAF airfields and radars...Hitler was the best leader and general the Allies had...


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

I've never actually understood why there's so much question about the best fighter to take part in the Battle of Britain... when it's so dead obvious.

It's the Bf 109 _F_.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I've never actually understood why there's so much question about the best fighter to take part in the Battle of Britain... when it's so dead obvious.
> 
> It's the Bf 109 _F_.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 30, 2007)

The Spitfire is, truly, a "great" plane, as is the Hurricane; but I love German engineering (I even have a Porsche!), so it's hard for me to not vote for the -109 (which I did).


----------



## planeman45 (Sep 10, 2007)

Battle of Britain....Hurricane has my vote...although I knew Spitfire would come out on top.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2007)

It allways does. I agree with you though on the Hurricane.


----------



## Instal (Oct 17, 2007)

So, when the Spit wins a poll like this do you guys think people are voting with thier hearts and not minds?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2007)

Even though it has to be the Spitfire... I voted (out of sympathy) for the He 111, by far the best bomber of the BoB: the Ju 88 had more losses than the He 111 even though there were twice as many He 111s. Even the Do 17 did better than the Ju 88.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm still with the Hurricane.......


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm still with the Hurricane.......



Agreed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2007)

Allways Hurricane and allways will be...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

Why?
Of course the Hurricane was the one that 'won' the BoB as there were twice as many as Spitfires. But I don't know if that can qualify for 'best'. I don't think anyone can argue that the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Spitfire. Or ...? 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2007)

No one ever said the Hurricane was the better fighter. It is not asking for the best Fighter of the Battle of Britian but rather asking the best Battle of Britian Aircraft. The Hurricane bore the brunt of the Battle of Britian and therefore we think the Hurricane was the best Battle of Britian aircraft.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Oct 24, 2007)

If the question is about performance, it's a tossup between the Spitfire and Me-109. If the question is about relative importance, it's a tossup among those two and the Hurricane. Hitler wanted to conquer and occupy Britain, but to do that he had to eliminate the Royal Air Force. Although the Luftwaffe's bombers were the planes dropping the bombs, they were sitting ducks for RAF fighters, so what the Battle of Britain amounted to at its essence was duel between the RAF's and Luftwaffe's fighters (i.e., the whole Battle was decided by fighters, not by bombers), a duel which the Luftwaffe failed to win. That is, the RAF and Britain "won" the Battle for the simple reason that Fighter Command remained a fighting force till the Luftwaffe gave up its attempt to knock out the RAF, switched to night bombing of cities, and permanently postponed its invasion (Operation Sealion). While the Spitfire and Me-109 were roughly equal to each other, the Hurricane was just a notch below, i.e. Hurricanes with competent pilots were capable of contending with Me-109s when necessary.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 24, 2007)

It's also a question of tactics.. what do u want to wipe out first, enemy bombers or fighters?

Yes the Hurricane's shot down alot of planes but they were mostly bombers while the spits tangled with fighters.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2007)

You should always aim for the bombers, they're the planes that will be causing damage. Yes, the fighters carried the bombers to their targets but the fact remains - the bombers will destroy more aircraft than fighters, if they get through.

Bombers do all the work; bombing airfields, factories, marshall yards, distribution plants - the bombers destroy aircraft before they're made, before they're painted, before they're delivered and before they've taken off. 

Always go for the bombers, and always go for the bombers that are heading for their target - not away. The Hurricane/Spitifire combination was great, it would have been a lot better if the Hurricane had its 4 x 20 mm in the BoB - but we can't have everything!


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 25, 2007)

109 for me


----------



## Cdat88 (Oct 25, 2007)

Spitfire for me. Though plan D has a point about the Hurricane being the workhorse bomber hunter. The glamor of the Spit is in the dogfight.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 26, 2007)

I seem to remember that several sources claim that the story that Hurricanes went for the bombers and Spits for the fighters is a myth. Bombers were always first priority as far as I recall, also for the Spitfires.
Furthermore, quite some BF109's have been shot down by Hurricanes.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Oct 29, 2007)

Marcel said:


> I seem to remember that several sources claim that the story that Hurricanes went for the bombers and Spits for the fighters is a myth. Bombers were always first priority as far as I recall, also for the Spitfires.
> Furthermore, quite some BF109's have been shot down by Hurricanes.



RAF brass did vector Hurricanes to bombers and Spitfires to fighters when possible, because of the slight difference in performance between the Hurricane and the Spitfire Me-109. However, of course it was impossible to keep up such a separation of duties during the confusion of the battle, especially since all single seat German fighters during the BoB were Me-109s, while practically 2/3rds of single seat British fighters were Hurricanes; with those numbers, there weren't enough Spitfires to go around, and it was impossible to prevent Hurricane vs. Me-109 encounters. Fortunately for Britain, Fighter Command's "other" fighter apart from the Spitfire was the Hurricane and NOT the Boulton Paul Defiant, Bristol Blenheim, or Gloster Gladiator.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 3, 2007)

I wonder what would've happened if the Beaufighter was available a few months earlier? With a Spitfire escort they could've torn into bomber streams almost at will


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 8, 2007)

As mentioned before, the Bristol Beaufughter was not involved during the Battle of Britain. The first five Beaufighter IFs were handed over to the R.A.F. on July 27, 1940. These were followed on August 3rd by a further five.

No.25 and 29 Squadrons each received a single Beaufighter on September 2, 1940. No.29 Squadron becoming operational with the type on September 17, 1940 with No.25 Squadron following on October 10th.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 13, 2007)

It's funny, if there were no such thing as a German bombers able to fly to Britain, would enemy fighters have made much of an air impact in BOB agains't Allied fighters and targets?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> I wonder what would've happened if the Beaufighter was available a few months earlier? With a Spitfire escort they could've torn into bomber streams almost at will



Yes and I wonder how the Boulton-Paul Defiant can outvote the Beaufighter! ( 6 for the Beau vs. 7 for the Defiant)


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> As mentioned before, the Bristol Beaufughter was not involved during the Battle of Britain. The first five Beaufighter IFs were handed over to the R.A.F. on July 27, 1940. These were followed on August 3rd by a further five.
> 
> No.25 and 29 Squadrons each received a single Beaufighter on September 2, 1940. No.29 Squadron becoming operational with the type on September 17, 1940 with No.25 Squadron following on October 10th.


Do you have any data on their combat from the fall/winter of '40-'41? Were they involved in any combat with Me 109's?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 13, 2007)

Hi Negative,

>I wonder what would've happened if the Beaufighter was available a few months earlier? With a Spitfire escort they could've torn into bomber streams almost at will

I wonder how the Bf 110 would be rated had it flown for the RAF ... powerful cannon armament, useful loiter time to avoid the need for a last-minute scramble like the Spitfire and the Hurricane, it with an escort, it could have torn into bomber streams almost at will  And with the Luftwaffe Me 109s seriously limited in combat time, disengaging from them after the attack on the bombers wouldn't be all that difficult ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Hakenkreuz (Nov 25, 2007)

The Bf 109E was only marginally superior to the Hurricane, and the Spitfire wasfully its equal,if not its superior incertain key areas. The 109 had a higher speed at high altitude, better dive speed, and a fuel injected engine giving the 109 ability to perform neg-G manoeuvres without the engine cutting out. The Spitfire was faster at medium heights and slightly more manoeuvrable,although it could not simply dive away from an opponent, as the 109 could. The 109 had heavier armament. The 109 was easier to handle than the Spitfire thus making it better beginers aircraft and more kills. Thats why i vote for the 109. PS i`m also a Brit.


----------



## milford maniac (Dec 19, 2007)

The Hurricane gets my vote every time; it was the work horse of Fighter Command. It did what it says on the tin, not elegant like the spitfire, but it did destroy more Luftwaffe aircraft, which was the whole point of the battle.


----------



## Heinz (Dec 20, 2007)

For sure, the hurricane was my pick too. Though I consider it as elegent as the spitfire because the Hurricane has very clean lines in my opion.


----------



## Hobilar (Dec 20, 2007)

freebird said:


> Do you have any data on their combat from the fall/winter of '40-'41? Were they involved in any combat with Me 109's?



The first of twenty Beaufighter confirmed kills was achieved by Flt. Lt. John Cunningham of No.604 Squadron on the night of 19-20 November 1940. As a radar equipped night fighter it is extremely unlikely that it would have encountered a short range Day-fighter such as a Bf.109E.


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 20, 2007)

I WENT WITH THE "SPITFIRE" BUT THE JUNKER-88 WASN'T TO BAD EITHER 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2007)

And you really felt like that had to be in CAPS?


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Feb 21, 2008)

cheddar cheese said:


> Which aircraft do you think was the best during the Battle of Britain?
> 
> I have a feeling the Hurricane and Spitfire will run away with this but it will still be interesting to see.



Whether by design or lucky accident, the Hurricane and Spitfire complemented each other very well in the Battle as a sort of "high-low" mix, with the Hurricane being strong on numbers but a little short on performance, and the Spitfire the opposite. Sydney Camm, the Hurricane's designer, said he could have gotten better performance from the Hurricane by tweaking it a bit, but realized that the RAF needed numbers; according to Richard J. Overy's book _The Air War, 1939-45_, in 1939 the RAF could produce 2.5 Hurricanes using the same number of man-hours it took to produce 1 Spitfire. For a variety of reasons, RAF's Fighter Command began sending Hurricanes after bombers and Spitfires after fighters when possible, but the Hurricane proved itself able to combat the Me-109 when necessary, which was fortunate, considering the relative number of Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Me-109s participating in the Battle.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 27, 2008)

The main advantage of the Hurricane was that it was 2.5x as easy to produce. Would you rather have 5 Hurricanes or 2 Spitfires?


It could turn tighter than either the Spit or 109, and had better instantaneous tern rate. Sustained turn would probably be no better than the other's though, due to worse power loading and higher drag. But, importantly, the Hurricane would be abble to stay out of the 109's guns in a turn.


For survivabillity the Hurricane would be better as long as the nose tank had self sealing. W/out it that could be a very bad situation, and a hit there could splash gas back into the cockpit and with a fire would be a very unpleasant way to die. (and if you made it out with burns you'd be in a hell of alot of pain for quite a while recovering) This spot would be particularly volnerable to bomber fire.

It had a reputation of being a tough a/c that could take considerable damage to take down.

The Hurricane was much more forgiving than the Spit and much easier for a novice to fly.



If a 109 got into a turning fight with a Hurricane and both pilots knew what they were doing, the Hurricane would win or the 109 would either break off or change tactics. (though there weren't many offensive options left) The 109 would easily be able to break off in a dive, even with a realitively short one. It just wouldn't be a good idea to turnfight with the Hurricane, that was it's main performance advantage in a fight in this arena.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 28, 2008)

The Hurricane had a few other advantages over the Spit besides being easier to produce. Some of this has probably been covered in earlier posts. 

The eight brownings were placed in two close grouped sections of four guns, so you had two streams of bullets that were grouped closer together than in the Spitfire which had its guns spread out along the length of its wing. it also carried more ammo than the Spitfire. 2800 vs 2400.

The wing was stiffer, and the plane was more stable longitudinally, allowing more accurate shooting. 

It had a slightly lower stall speed, (72mph) allowing it a smaller turn radius. 

It had a better angle of view over the nose than the Spitfire. 

Now for the disadvantages:

According to the manual for the Hurricane 1 with two blade prop, the max dive speed was only 380 mph, and that is pretty darn slow. With the constant speed props in use during BoB it would be higher, how much I don't know. Suffice it to say, it dived slower than a Spit, and much slower than a 109. 

Top speed was also slower, 30-40 mph depending on altitude. (More powerful engines brought about greater gains in speed for a Spit than a Hurricane, one of the reasons the Spit was chosen for continued developement and the Hurri was not.) 

Ceiling was lower, it struggled to engage 109s at high alt. 

I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the roll rate on the Hurricane was a bit poorer than the Spitfires. It's handling is described as 'gentlemanly'. It had more wing area, so all things being equal, roll rate would be slower. 

Hurricanes shot down more planes during BoB than Spifires, but their kill ratio was lower, another reason the Spit was chosen as the main RAF fighter after BoB. 

If we look at the number in the poll, we see that 47% of us think the advantages of the Spit outweight the advantages of the Hurricane, or the Me109. 

Claidemore


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 29, 2008)

I knew that about the Hurricane. Except for the dive speed. Adding the all metal wing also should have increased max dive. I remember reading tat ~450 was the redline dive speed for the Hurricane Mk.II, though some pilots reported 500+ mph. (though these were probably due to air compressing in the pilot tube)


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 29, 2008)

I say the He-111 it was a great medium bomber. My second choice was the Hawker Hurricane


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 29, 2008)

Like I have said before, its hard not too pick for the best because some people Pick there favorite aircraft no matter what , the hurricane and spit were great fighters , but it clearly shows in all the info from the time and test aircraft the ME-109 was a better preformer in every way but in time over target, and this is because they had farther too fly , and because they had nuckel heads in Berlin who forgot what a fighers rule was , too be a hunter , you can come up with a thousand reasons why or why not the me 109 was not a better fighter then the huricane or spitfire , but read the data on those planes and the me _109 was a better aircraft in all ways , and the ju -88 was also very good in its rule , also something too ponder on rainy nights, the ju-87 stunka sunk more shipping then any other plane in the world , and thats a fact ,


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2008)

AFAIK the Ju87 didn't sink many ships after about July 1940, while the Beaufighter went on in the anti-ship strike role till the end of the war in ETO, MTO, CBI and PTO. If I get time I'll try to look up the figures on tonnage but I'd be willing to bet the Beaus sank a lot more ships than the Stuka. 

The 109 enjoyed several advantages over the Hurricane, but against the Spitfire it was a pretty close match. 
109 was initially faster in a dive than a Spit, and faster at some altitudes, while the Spitfires had superior speed at other altitudes. (RAF was using 100 octane fuel by the time BoB got going.) One of the problems with evaluating performance stats on Spitfire Mk1s is that the numbers listed are usually from earlier dates for 87 octane fuel and 2 speed props. Practically all the BoB Spits were using 100 octane and constant speed props, giving it much better performance. 
The Spitfire had a lower stall speed than the 109, turning radius was smaller and the leading edge slats of the Emil which brought it's turn capabilities closer to those of the Spit, were troublesome to say the least. 
The 109 had a better roll rate at higher speeds, but heavier elevators. 
The 109 had 20mm cannon, albeit not very good ones, and I would say that was an advantage over the 8 Browning mg in either RAF fighter. By the end of BoB they were trying out two Hispano cannon in the Spits and that eventually became the standard armament for that plane. 
The Spitfire was much easier for low-time pilots to fly, the 109 being a much more demanding machine that needed _experten _to get max performance from. Attrition to pilots was a major factor during BoB, and some Spit pilots had as little as 10 hours in Spitfires before going operational. 
Range was a problem for both Spitfire and 109, causing problems for the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940 and problems for the RAF till drop tanks became common. 
It's largely a matter of preference as to which of those two fighters a person choses as best. Like I pointed out earlier, +47 % think it's the Spit.


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 29, 2008)

about the ju-87, i still think that it will come out ahead on the tonnage part, but every plane has its flaws and advantages , also i heard the same thing about spits being very hard too fly, so i guess like always take stuff with a grain of salt,, but me ill take the me 109- its really a toss up who had the better plane , too bad the fw 190 didnt get there on time , wonder what the raf would have done then , and also the fuel injection system was far superior too the spits carbarators , and thats a fact .


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2008)

Yeah, the fuel injection was an advantage, though IMO it's overstated, since it involves application of negative G, something which pilots don't like to do very often. The usual escape maneuver by 109 pilots was a half roll and dive, rather than 'bunting'. 

I was a little hasty thinking Stukas didn't sink much shipping after July 1940, reading up on it I see they did a lot of damage in the Meditteranean as well. Haven't seen any figures for tonnage though. 

For the Beaufighter, Wiki gives them 150,000 tons for the North Coates Strike wing, Coastal Command.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 29, 2008)

Compared to the Hurricane the Spit was a tricky a/c to fly. Dangerous snap stalls meant that only experienced pilots could safely fly it to its limit.

The 109's slats gave it docile stalling characteristics (along with good turning performance), but as mentioned there were some problems with these. If not maintained the Emil's slats were prone to jamming in high G turns, which could lead to a dangerous spin. (if 1 jammed and 1 extended) These early slats also tended to extend somewhat violently in turns, which jostled the plane a bit and made a 'bang' which scared some inexperienced pilots.

A well maintained 109E should be able to turn inside a Spit at low to medium speeds with maneuvering flaps out. (at high speeds the elevator became heavy as mentioned, which limited high speed turn ability)


The Ju 87 was good for certain roles, and probably better than most of the medium bombers in the anti shipping role in the 'channel war' (early BoB). It was missused at other times in the BoB though. As far as land based target bombing it was realy a tactical a/c that worked best in cooperation with the army. It did not do well w/out air superiorety. (they probably shouldn't have been brought in until the invasion was to commence)


I don't think the 190 would really have been needed. For escort all they really required for these distances was drop tank equipped 109E's. There'd been testing/trials of 109's with drop tanks since the Spanish civil war. The Bf 109E-7 entered service end of August, 1940 and was capable of carying a tank, but there weren't too many available for the BoB and by then the battle was well under way.


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2008)

I have heard a lot about these dangerous snap stalls in a Spitfire. Does anyone have a link about it in more detail?

Any help appreciated

I should add that I have read the Pilots notes and the warning on High Speed Stalls in no worse than I would expect on almost any aircraft experiencing a high speed stall. The aircraft does give warning and immediate corrective action resolves the problem although the implications are more severe than some should you ignore the warning.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> A well maintained 109E should be able to turn inside a Spit at low to medium speeds with maneuvering flaps out. (at high speeds the elevator became heavy as mentioned, which limited high speed turn ability)



Gotta disagree with you here KK. 

Rechlin trials of 109E vs Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss Hawk state


> Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
> all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.


 That should be all the proof anybody needs, but there's more. 

British trials (RAE Farnborough) show turn radius of 696ft for Spitfire at 12000ft and 885 ft for the 109. 
The Baubeschreibung _official German specications and tolerance on Bf 109E performance_ give a turn radius of 557 ft at SL and 1050 ft at 20,000 ft Plot those two numbers on a graph, stick in the RAE number of 885 and you'll see that they line up very well. 

If we look at the graphs and charts from the RAE trials, we can see that in a 2G turn the Spitfire stalls at about 140mph, while the 109 is stalling in a 2G turn at 155 mph. The Spit is pulling 4G at 200 mph before it stalls, the 109 is doing 225 at 4G when it stalls. 

Turns *without loss of height* show the Spitfire able to pull close to 3 G at 200mph, with a radius of 1000 ft, while the 109E could only pull about 2.3 G at that speed (without losing height) in a radius of about 1275 ft. 

They tried 10 degrees of maneuvering flap on the 109 and found that they made no difference. This agrees with the trials of Mustang III vs Spitfires and Tempests where they found that the combat flaps did not help. (pointed out by drgondog in another thread)

Even if one subscribes to the theory that the experienced RAE test pilots were afraid to push the 109 past deployment of it's slats, that still doesn't prove the 109 could turn tighter that the Spit. At best it would only indicate that it could turn tighter than the indicated number of 885 ft. That figure might be 800 ft? still more than 696 ft.  Of course I don't happen to subscribe to that theory. 

Besides, there is definitive proof in the RAE charts. The assumed value of clMax for the 109E in those trials was [email protected] 1G, even higher than the 1.7 figure often quoted on these forums. The clMax of a 109 without slats deployed is supposedly 1.48. Therefore the British figure has to be for slats deployed. 

The 109 simply had a higher stall speed than the Spitfire, so at a max turn, the 109 was going to stall first, if both planes were flown to the limit.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 31, 2008)

I'm not sure what I was tinking in that post. At best both the Spit I and 109E were close, with the Spit having the edge. (depeding on configuration and condition of each of course) Fuel load would also be somthing to think about as the 109's in the BoB would be running low while the Spits (and Hurricanes) would be nearly full. This would skew the realative turn performance of these a/c. (the 109 being lighter than in a 'fair' comparison)

As mentioned elsewhere the turn advantage moved back and forth durring the development of these a/c. (I don't remember the specifics, but I think one of the 109F series had the best turn of any WWII 109, excluding pre 109E models) In all the 109 and Spitfire were pretty comparable aircraft, more so than possibly any other allies vs. axis match up. I will say this though: of the fighters engaged in the BoB, the 109E was probably the best to perform interceptor duties (with 20mm cannons that were better suited to this than dogfighting). The Spitfire was probably the best all around fighter with a good dogfighting armament for the time and slightly better range.


On the other 2 a/c in the comparison (Curtiss Hawk, and the Hurricane): both of these planes should be able to out turn either the Spit or the 109E.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 31, 2008)

The 109 cannot outturn the Spit.

The Spitfires wing would stall and give plenty of warning. this warning could be used to judge maximum turn. The 109 was very docile at slow speeds with the slats open. 

The biggest weaknesses of the three fighters were these...

109 - not enough range.
Spit- Tricky for novice.
Hurricane - Can't compete mph with the 109.

If the 109 had drop tanks then the BoB could have been very different.

Read a little story...4 German pilots in BoB see 12 Hurricanes lined up below them. They think Xmas has arrived. they prepare to attack when 4 Spitfires get them first. 1 Bf is shot down with pilot killed. They were to busy looking at the prize and missed the real deal. Probably a good moral in that.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 31, 2008)

Yep. And if Britain hadn't have had a decent fighter able to be produced in the numbers needed (ie the Hurricane) they'd have been in alot of trouble as well. 

The Spit was obiously superior in performance to the Hurricane but 2.5x Hurricanes could be built for the same work required for a Spit. And I'd say, in this time period, the Spit wasn't even 2x as good as the Hurricane. (probably ~50% better all around) And the Spitfires would have been too few on their own. (even if you assume other companies added to production) And if it came down to it I think 2 Spitfires would lose aganst 5 Hurricanes in a fight easily, everything else being equal.

Of course they won the battle for a number of other reasons as well: radar network; series of serious errors, poor planning, and false intellegence on Germany's part.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 31, 2008)

The Hurricane was a first rate warplane. As good as anything. 

The Spit and the 109 were superior fighters or interceptors but the Hurricane was the superior flying machine or/and warplane.


----------



## Hop (Mar 31, 2008)

> The Spit was obiously superior in performance to the Hurricane but 2.5x Hurricanes could be built for the same work required for a Spit.



That might have been the case in the 30s, when production of the Spitfire was just starting, but the figures as at January 1940 were 15,200 man hours for the Spitfire, 10,300 for the Hurricane, or just under 1.5 times as much for the Spitfire

That would have reduced later on as the Castle Bromwich factory came on line.

The Hurricane had an advantage early on because it used older technology and came from an established aircraft manufacturer. The Spitfire used new technology and Supermarine was a small firm with little production capacity. But as the war went on the Spitfire became much cheaper to produce. By 1944 Castle Bromwich were producing Spitfires with half the man hours of Supermarine in Southampton.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 1, 2008)

Major advantages of the Hurricane over the Spitfire: (assuming later Mk.I with 3-blade variable-pitch prop with metal wing and self sealing AUX fuse tank)

Easier to build (particularly early on with a 2.5x advantage, later ~1.5x and probably eventually losing this advantage)

Easy to maintain/repair in field

Can take a lot of damage

Better gun platform (closer grouping of guns, more stable in firing, could handle the recoil better, especially if comparing 20mm armaments)

Turns better. (thick wing and lower wing loading)

Better forward view, particularly over the nose.

Docile handling and stall characteristics.

Wide track landing gear for better takeoff and landing.

-----------

Advantages of spitfire:

Faster by ~35 mph

Much better dive acceleration and max dive speed (due to cleaner airframe and better power loading)

Somewhat better acceleration (cleaner airframe and somewhat lighter/better power loading)

somewhat better climb rate

Higher service ceiling

Better all around visibility

slightly longer range and better fuel efficiency

slightly higher cruise speed

slight advantage in roll (depending on speed and altitude)



overall range weapons capacity and roll of these planes should be fairly equal.

With experienced pilots in both planes it would be a toss up in a close quarters dogfight, but if the Spitfire played it smart and used speed to the advantage he'd likely win. The spit would also be able to break off at will.

With rookie pilots I'd give it to the Hurricane, due to gentler handling (easier to fly to limits) and better traditional "dogfighting" characteristics. (ie WWI style dogfight)

The Hurricane would also be a better fighter-bomber.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 1, 2008)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> Whether by design or lucky accident, the Hurricane and Spitfire complemented each other very well in the Battle as a sort of "high-low" mix, with the Hurricane being strong on numbers but a little short on performance, and the Spitfire the opposite. Sydney Camm, the Hurricane's designer, said he could have gotten better performance from the Hurricane by tweaking it a bit, but realized that the RAF needed numbers; according to Richard J. Overy's book _The Air War, 1939-45_, in 1939 the RAF could produce 2.5 Hurricanes using the same number of man-hours it took to produce 1 Spitfire. For a variety of reasons, RAF's Fighter Command began sending Hurricanes after bombers and Spitfires after fighters when possible, but the Hurricane proved itself able to combat the Me-109 when necessary, which was fortunate, considering the relative number of Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Me-109s participating in the Battle.



And here's the 2.5x figure.


----------



## Pong (Apr 4, 2008)

I think the Hurricane is the best BoB aircraft though it 
can't keep up with the 109E-4's speed.


----------



## hurricanemk2 (Apr 23, 2008)

In my opinion the good old Hurricane comes out as the best BoB aircraft . It looked good , was forgiving to inexperienced pilots especially in heavy landings , it was an excelent gun platform and could take a lot of punishment . Consider the Hurricanes fabric and dope main fuselage , a 20mm shell would pass straight through without hitting anything important unless it was a lucky shot . Down comes the hurri and after a patch and slap off she goes again the same can't be said of the all metal constructed Spit. or ME109 . These may have out classed the old girl but , for me , she was the aircraft of class .


----------



## slaterat (May 24, 2008)

The Hurricane was the right plane, in the right place , at the right time. It did exactly what it was designed to do, intercept bomber formations. Easy to fly, easy to repair, easy to re arm. Sturdy, well armoured and with 100 octane fuel and a constant speed prop well able to look after itself in fighter vs fighter combat.

Slaterat


----------



## ju87 (May 25, 2008)

The Stuka gets my vote!   

ju87


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2008)

How about you explain why you picked the Ju 87 instead of just posting anything.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

H is for Hurricane, never know to fail


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 27, 2008)




----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 30, 2008)

I'll go with the Hurricane


----------



## starling (Jun 30, 2008)

from a british pilots point of view,i will go for the ju87,why,well i read that the stuka was the easiest to kill.yours,starliing.


----------



## airboiy (Jul 1, 2008)

starling said:


> from a british pilots point of view,i will go for the ju87,why,well i read that the stuka was the easiest to kill.yours,starliing.



Not really...the JU87 was armored like a flying tank. however, it was a slow aircraft until the G variant came. it even had AT guns on it! thus it gets my vote. unless took in a few bullets, you usually got back home safely. plus, who wasnt afraid of a "wailer" on the landing gear?8)


----------



## rochie (Jul 1, 2008)

those AT guns must have been usefull in the BoB ! and i'm not sure it was a flying tank


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2008)

airboiy said:


> Not really...the JU87 was armored like a flying tank. however, it was a slow aircraft until the G variant came. it even had AT guns on it! thus it gets my vote. unless took in a few bullets, you usually got back home safely. plus, who wasnt afraid of a "wailer" on the landing gear?8)



You might want to learn a bit more about the Stuka.

It was not a flying tank.

The G varient was not fast either. It was no faster than the D, and only 8 mph faster than the B.

All aircraft usually got back home safely unless they took a few bullets.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You might want to learn a bit more about the Stuka.
> 
> It was not a flying tank.
> 
> ...



jugs also usually go back home safely even they took a few bullets


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 3, 2008)

but jug wans't that strong
it came down pretty easy when compared with the BF-109


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> but jug wans't that strong
> it came down pretty easy when compared with the BF-109



Are you serious????? The P-47 was one of the most robust and strongest built aircraft of WW2. I suggest some serious remedial WW2 Aviation 101.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 3, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> but jug wans't that strong
> it came down pretty easy when compared with the BF-109



the Bf 109´s was great dogfighters, theres a list of jug killers in luftwaffe, but in general, jugs was really built to receive several punishments and still fliyng.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> but jug wans't that strong
> it came down pretty easy when compared with the BF-109



Not quite. The Bf 109 was a great aircraft but the P-47 was more robust and could probably withstand more punishment.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 4, 2008)

that was not what i ment
i didn't said that the BF was the most resistant plane in the wwii
i was just comparing, saying that the jug didn't had that much armour
I could have compared it with the FW or other
i just ment that it the jug only proved highly effective when unopposed


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

The operative adjective is 'Battle of Britain'. Much as I love the beauty of the Spit and the rock solid stability of the Hurricane, the 109 Emil wins by virtue of being the only cannon armed fighter of that period...the Germans lost the BoB through bad tactics, lousy production rates, and not fighting to a finish.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 8, 2008)

The Germans also lost because their 109 lacked the distance to be able loiter around the battlefield. I think if I remember right, they only had something like a 20 minute window before they had to return home. If they had a fighter that was able to escort the bombers all they way there and back, BoB very well could have ended different. I cannot pick the ME109 for that reason. Although Germany switching from targeting the airfields to targeting civilian targets was the biggest mistake IMO. It gave the RAF some breathing room and time to recover. I think most of hte credit goes to the Hurricane, which If I remember correctly, shot down more enemy craft than the Spitfire.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 8, 2008)

The Hurricane of Spitfire would have been about as bad off in the 109's situation in terms of range. The Bf 109 would have been in a much better situation with drop tank capability. (not produced until the Bf 109E-7)

Being forced into close escort didn't help either. (earlier they'd done fighter sweeps before the bombers came in, but top cover would have been better as well)


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 9, 2008)

Very true Kool Kitty. I guess you have to decide which fighter performed the best given the circumstances and the job it found itself being asked to do.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Hurricane of Spitfire would have been about as bad off in the 109's situation in terms of range. The Bf 109 would have been in a much better situation with drop tank capability. (not produced until the Bf 109E-7).



Exactly. None of the singe engined fighters was suited for long range at that time.


----------



## bigZ (Dec 9, 2008)

Drop tanks for the 109 had been successfully tested in Spain.


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

The LW lost the BOB because they could never have won it. Their air force was not set up to win that type of campaign and Hitler and his generals and admirals except perhaps for Goering were never serious about invading England anyway and did not have the means in the Summer- Fall of 1940 to execute Sea Lion. The first directive to invade England was issued in mid July and all preparations were to be completed by mid August. ABSURD! The Anglo-American invasion of N Africa took over 9 months to prepare. Rightly so, the BOB was made into a great propaganda victory for Britain but the British Isles were never in any great danger. Having said that, the BF was not suited as an escort fighter because of short range and the British fighters held all the advantages of fighting over their own territory.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 9, 2008)

Agree renrich.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> The LW lost the BOB because they could never have won it. Their air force was not set up to win that type of campaign and Hitler and his generals and admirals except perhaps for Goering were never serious about invading England anyway and did not have the means in the Summer- Fall of 1940 to execute Sea Lion. The first directive to invade England was issued in mid July and all preparations were to be completed by mid August. ABSURD! The Anglo-American invasion of N Africa took over 9 months to prepare. Rightly so, the BOB was made into a great propaganda victory for Britain but the British Isles were never in any great danger. Having said that, the BF was not suited as an escort fighter because of short range and the British fighters held all the advantages of fighting over their own territory.



Alas....I must, respectfully and humbly, disagree....

What most people don't realise is that England in 1940 was in an absolutely hopeless shape to resist an invasion. 

Whose opinion? Mine? No, the opinion of, among others, FIELD MARSHAL SIR BERNARD LAW MONTGOMERY. In his postwar writings he wrote that if the Germans had really mounted an attack, and assuming the luck of battle was evenly balanced between the two sides, England would have fallen as a coherent fighting unit within two to three months. 

At the time of the BoB England had -

No modern tanks in any numbers worth speaking of.
NO USEFUL ANTI TANK GUNS
None of the marvellous system of convoy defence, ship repair, and efficient maritime administration that would grow up later in the war
NO MODERN FIELD ARTILLERY!!!! Nearly every single freaking 25 pounder had been lost in France!
A shortage of everything from boots to rifles...
Generals who didn't have a clue how to fight a bloody war (Monty is particulary scathing on this - he should know - he had to fire a dozen or so of them later in the war)
Labour Unions WHO WERE STILL STRIKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOODY WAR  (believe it or not!)

the list goes on and on, but you get the picture......


IMHO if the luftwaffe, instead of bombing London, had bombed the port cities in combination with the U-boat sinkings (Churchill in his memoirs stated that this was the very combination he had nightmares about at the time) and after six months of this, had mounted an invasion, weak, unprepared Britian would have gone down from as little as five good german divisions. 

OK...now let the debate and controversy begin!


----------



## renrich (Dec 10, 2008)

Read JFC Fuller about the "invasion." This debate has been had on this forum before but the determining factor IMO is to look at the intentions of Hitler and his high command. To say seriously that preparations for the invasion were to be completed in one month is nonsense. Blumentritt said that, in July, Hitler told Runstedt that he did not intend to carry out Sealion. The original directive involved 39 divisions, 1722 barges, 471 tugs,1161 motor boats and 155 transports all fitted out and assenbled at the channel ports. In one month?


----------



## Njaco (Dec 10, 2008)

Here is one of the better threads.....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/operation-sea-lion-2795.html


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 10, 2008)

Without air superiority, Germany had any chance at all. History backs that up.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 10, 2008)

And don't forget an invasion fleet would have to face the Royal Navy.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

The point which everyone, including kool kitty, seems to be missing in this - the idea that any possible invasion scenario of Britain in 1940 must fail, no matter what, rests of two assumptions:

(1) That the invasion HAD to be mostly or completely seaborne. 
(2) That the Germans would be following the SAME BoB strategy and tactics in ALL possible scenarios.

As I (and many historians and generals and politicians, including Montgomery and Churchill) have pointed out, there were many other options available to the Luftwaffe and the Army.

What if the Luftwaffe Fighter arm had remained on the defensive in the BoB and stayed patrolling over the invasion ports, and allowed the invasion ports to slowly fill with invasion barges...the RAF would be forced to attck these ports, and with the home field advantage of both fighters and Flak, the Luftwaffe would have slaughtered the RAF bombers and fighters. (This did happen in the BoB on a smaller scale BTW).

And what if, simultaneously, the Luftwaffe had pounded using the once-by-day and many-times-by-night technique the East Coast Port Cities of Liverpool, Hull, etc etc, while the German Navy sent out its U-boats (yes, there were few of them in the BoB period, but against that we have to counterbalance the fact that the convoy system was in its infancy, escorts were scarcer than hen's teeth, the entire Royal Navy carrier force COULD NOT SINK ANY GERMAN SUBMARINE EVEN WITH A DIRECT HIT ON THE PRESSURE HULL (see Roskill, the best authority on the subject) and most of the destroyers were concentrated near the channel to counter an invasion)and this went on for months?

There would have been catastrophic effects on British Armament Production, AND food supplies...and as many doctors can tell you, it is slow, steady starvation that is the greatest breaker of morale. That's how the Germans lost WW I. 

Your comments would be appreciated by me...


----------



## slaterat (Dec 10, 2008)

I agree with Burmese bandit. In the summer of 1940 on land Britain was basically defenseless with its forces in chaos. A combined air/sea invasion by Germany could of been successful. Could the RN stop Sea Lion without air superiority ? maybe, maybe not. What can be said for sure though, is by the summer of 1941 things had completely changed.

Slaterat


----------



## renrich (Dec 11, 2008)

There are all kind of scenarios one can construct about a German invasion of Britain. One can get plausible results if the Germans take enough time and concentrate their strength. One factor which the scenarios should certainly take into account is weather patterns. Remember how important a role weather played in Overlord. The fact remains, however, that Hitler never appeared to be serious about Sealion. Therefore England was never in as serious danger as popular opinion would have it. These facts don't seriously diminish the efort by the British during the BOB. For the first time the LW was shown to be beatable.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2008)

And Hitler would have been to eager to shift to the invasion in the East to invest that kind of time and resources on Britain.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 18, 2008)

The German objective was to remove Britain from the war to allow them to concentrate on Russia. And Hitler was completely serious about this objective and people looking at the BoB as something that Germany was not serious about are forgetting, or unaware of the domestic situation in Britain at the time.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and, while it is true that the Invasion of Britain as envisaged by almost everyone would have been impossible to successfully mount (due mainly to the existance of the Royal Navy) the reality was that Lord Halifax was determined to make peace with Germany right from the fall of France and the ex-king Edward VIII was freindly with Hitler. What is not so well known is that there was a lot of support in Parliament for Halifax's position as most MP's were in agreement that Germany was unbeatable and our position was hopeless, Churchill was feeling very threatened at this time and his rousing speeches were aimed as much at his colleagues as they were at the general populace. 

A German victory in the BoB would have resulted in Germany achieving its aims by them being INVITED into Great Britain with Lord Halifax as PM, Churchill having been overthrown in a bid to prevent the destruction of the British Empire - which Hitler wanted to preserve as a single entity - and the Royal family having fled to Canada to be replaced by the reinstated Edward VIII as monarch.

But before I get rambling on about this in too much detail (if I haven't already) the most important plane of the BoB is impossible to define. The key to success was the Spitfire, Hurricane AND radar. The first two wouldn't have mattered without the latter.

The Bf 109 could not have been the best aircraft of the battle because it was being employed in the wrong job, despite its technical excellence. If Germany had a P-51 to deploy things MAY have been a bit different.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Waynos said:


> The German objective was to remove Britain from the war to allow them to concentrate on Russia. And Hitler was completely serious about this objective and people looking at the BoB as something that Germany was not serious about are forgetting, or unaware of the domestic situation in Britain at the time.
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a cat and, while it is true that the Invasion of Britain as envisaged by almost everyone would have been impossible to successfully mount (due mainly to the existance of the Royal Navy) the reality was that Lord Halifax was determined to make peace with Germany right from the fall of France and the ex-king Edward VIII was freindly with Hitler. What is not so well known is that there was a lot of support in Parliament for Halifax's position as most MP's were in agreement that Germany was unbeatable and our position was hopeless, Churchill was feeling very threatened at this time and his rousing speeches were aimed as much at his colleagues as they were at the general populace.
> 
> ...



Excellent post Waynos. A lot of info there that I had not known before. Very interesting!


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> The point which everyone, including kool kitty, seems to be missing in this - the idea that any possible invasion scenario of Britain in 1940 must fail, no matter what, rests of two assumptions:
> 
> (1) That the invasion HAD to be mostly or completely seaborne.
> (2) That the Germans would be following the SAME BoB strategy and tactics in ALL possible scenarios.
> ...



The serious damage that was done to the German barges was done at night when all the 109's avalable wouldn't be of any help. Daylight attacks would have been expensive and not advisable. What it would have done was allow the RAF to build up its strength. 




> And what if, simultaneously, the Luftwaffe had pounded using the once-by-day and many-times-by-night technique the East Coast Port Cities of Liverpool, Hull, etc etc,


German Bombers didn't have the payload to do this level of damage, and there wasn't enough of them. At the time we probably thought that they did, but it was proven many times during the war that this wasn't the case. 



> while the German Navy sent out its U-boats (yes, there were few of them in the BoB period, but against that we have to counterbalance the fact that the convoy system was in its infancy, escorts were scarcer than hen's teeth, the entire Royal Navy carrier force COULD NOT SINK ANY GERMAN SUBMARINE EVEN WITH A DIRECT HIT ON THE PRESSURE HULL (see Roskill, the best authority on the subject) and most of the destroyers were concentrated near the channel to counter an invasion)and this went on for months?


Destroyers are not the key to A/S warfare so the fact that some of them were on anti invasion duties wouldn't have made much of a difference. Also if you concentrate the U Boats you allow the RN to concentrate their A/S forces. They would tend to balance each other out, plus far more aircraft would be available close to shore.
You don't need to destroy a U Boat to significantly hinder the boats effectiveness. An Avro Anson even an unarmed Anson flying in the area of a convoy is enough to keep it submerged.



> There would have been catastrophic effects on British Armament Production, AND food supplies...and as many doctors can tell you, it is slow, steady starvation that is the greatest breaker of morale. That's how the Germans lost WW I.
> 
> Your comments would be appreciated by me...



How would the impact be measured, I don't know probably not much more than actually happened. Maybe even less.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Alas....I must, respectfully and humbly, disagree....
> 
> What most people don't realise is that England in 1940 was in an absolutely hopeless shape to resist an invasion.


Also what people don't realise is that Germany were in no condition to launch a landing. The Japanese who inspected the preparations were pretty scathing.



> Whose opinion? Mine? No, the opinion of, among others, FIELD MARSHAL SIR BERNARD LAW MONTGOMERY. In his postwar writings he wrote that if the Germans had really mounted an attack, and assuming the luck of battle was evenly balanced between the two sides, England would have fallen as a coherent fighting unit within two to three months.


Attack with what? Remember Germany had 10 destroyers in total in the Summer of 1940. No one invades anyone with 10 destroyers if and its a big if, they stayed undamaged in the build up.



> At the time of the BoB England had -
> 
> No modern tanks in any numbers worth speaking of.
> NO USEFUL ANTI TANK GUNS


And how many Tanks would the Germans land? Remember Germany had no tank landing craft just some converted barges.



> None of the marvellous system of convoy defence, ship repair, and efficient maritime administration that would grow up later in the war


The Convoys were introduced before Sept 1940 and the Ship repair organisation ie shipyards did exist.



> NO MODERN FIELD ARTILLERY!!!! Nearly every single freaking 25 pounder had been lost in France!


Not quite, all the first 25pd's on the 18pd mounts had been lost but the 25pd was in full production and its probably the only modern piece of equipment that was in decent numbers. In 1940 about 1,100 guns were produced and 4million shells.


> A shortage of everything from boots to rifles...
> Generals who didn't have a clue how to fight a bloody war (Monty is particulary scathing on this - he should know - he had to fire a dozen or so of them later in the war)


As for the Generals, I am not inclined to take to much of what Montgomery says. He was well known for blowing his own trumpet and putting others down even if they didn't deserve it.


> Labour Unions WHO WERE STILL STRIKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOODY WAR  (believe it or not!)


True but this tended to get worse as the war situation improved. Strange but true.



> IMHO if the luftwaffe, instead of bombing London, had bombed the port cities in combination with the U-boat sinkings (Churchill in his memoirs stated that this was the very combination he had nightmares about at the time) and after six months of this, had mounted an invasion, weak, unprepared Britian would have gone down from as little as five good german divisions.
> 
> OK...now let the debate and controversy begin!



Most of the points were covered earlier but the Germans would be very lucky to get anything like 5 divisions across.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 18, 2008)

All of which excellent points made by Glider explain an Invasion of force was never going to succeed, the Royal Navy, which was vastly superior in numbers to the German navy, would have smashed it to bits had it launched, with 40 destroyers to nine (and that was only the Home fleet) the odds were certainly against the Kriegsmarine and the fact that even the bow wave of a destroyer, at full speed, will swamp a river barge, thats before it fires any guns, the very idea of river barges packed with men and marerials being towed, in pairs, by tugs across the treacherous waters of the channel, very slowly, without RN interference putting paid to them is preposterous. But that does not equate to Germany not being serious, as I wrote above. The apparent build up of an invasion force with hundreds of Barges (that were barely seaworthy anyway) was just another prod to Britain in the direction of a 'negotiated peace' ie capitulation. The end result would have been the same had the RAF been smashed.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 18, 2008)

Waynos said:


> ex-king Edward VIII was freindly with Hitler.
> - and the Royal family having fled to Canada to be replaced by the reinstated Edward VIII as monarch.



Wayne, I don't know how accurate "The Windsor Story" is, but you come away with the impression that the man was "pathetic". Would they have really reinstated him? Seems very unlikely according to this book. It also puts a different spin on the 1937 visit to Germany...
_
"-was nothing more reprehensible than a sight-seeing trip, devoid of politics, but ill-organised in its timing and sponsorship._"

But as a couple they made a LOT of bad choices, kinda like the Seinfelds of royalty!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 19, 2008)

Glider: I will later give a longer reply to your post, but first let me point you in the direction of the historian Corelli Barnett's books - in particular, his excellent "The Audit of War" for a detailed study of just how shockingly unprepared Britain was for war.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2008)

Feel free I look forward to it, but I suggest a new thread as this is supposed to be about BOB aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2008)

Some really good posts and most enjoyable. Best BOB AC looks like a draw between Hurricane and Spitfire, not because the 109 wasn't a fine fighter but it was asked to do the impossible while the two British fighters were in their element and designed mission.


----------



## Patrick1974 (Mar 2, 2009)

I have choosen for the SpitFire.Because it is a symbol for the BoB and i think it's the sexiest plane ever build


----------



## Waynos (Mar 2, 2009)

Yes it was. You have to feel sorry for the German pilots. The mental anguish they must have gone through to force themselves to destroy the most beautiful thing in the sky must have been terrible


----------



## dragonandhistail (Mar 2, 2009)

The Hurricane did all the killing that mattered. The Spitfire was sexier and got all the glory.


----------



## SpitfireZPC (Apr 15, 2009)

Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire were as important as each other in my opinion. There were far more Hurricanes than Spitfires during those summer months and they were generally tasked to go for the bombers while the Spitfires tackled the fighters, so both were equally important in their roles. However, I voted for the Spitfire because having spoken with many of the pilots that flew both during this time, the general consensus is that the Spitfire had the edge.


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 15, 2009)

I voted for the Bf 110. It clearly wasn't the best aircraft in the B of B but....hey I like it.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 17, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> I voted for the Bf 110. It clearly wasn't the best aircraft in the B of B but....hey I like it.


I couldn't tell. 

The Me 110 is one of my favorites also. Messerschmitt in general.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 17, 2009)

Hurricane all the way 8) I needn't rehash the excellent arguments made in the Hurris favour, but I will say that it was the backbone of the RAF at the time. 

As for the invasion controversy, there is no way the Germans could have got a panzer brigade ashore, never mind divisions, and without German air superiority the RN would have been free to shatter the invasion force at sea. I haven't read Barnettes 'Audit of War' (although I have read some of his other work), and while his is a very astute historian, I find him incredibly quick to highlight the weaknesses of the British forces while downplaying the strengths.

It is also worth noting that among the surrender proponents was the ambassador of the United States, one Joe Kennedy. Had his advice been followed, the war would have been very different...


----------



## Amsel (Apr 17, 2009)

Those Kennedys'.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 23, 2009)

Supermarine Spitfire.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 7, 2009)

1) Supermarine Spitfire
2) Hawker Hurricane


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

God help me, I love the Spitty and I voted for it but, the only reason I picked it over the -109 is because it took a much more skilled pilot to fly and fight in the -109 effectively. The Spitfire is a dream to fly, especially the earleir models, whereas the -109 has a tendency to 'crab' in the hands of a less skilled pilot. But with experienced pilots, the two warbirds are so closely matched you'd be hard pressed to pick a winner.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2009)

As towards the Hurricane vs Spitfire... isn't it fair to say that the Hurricane was the main reason for British success ... but not so much because of its fighter abilities but more because it was the main British fighter. Also, a reaction towards the usual statement that the Spitfire was the undisputed victor of the BoB. 

To say that the Hurricane was is just as wrong as saying the Spitfire was.

Kris


----------



## vinnye (Jan 2, 2010)

I went with the Spitfire - because it engaged the LW escort fighters and allowed the Hurricanes to attack the bomber formations. I know that this is a generalisation and did not happen during every raid, but I believe it happened farly frequently. This combined with the greater quantity of Hurricanes accounts for it having credit for more kills during the BoB.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2010)

vinnye said:


> I went with the Spitfire - because it engaged the LW escort fighters and allowed the Hurricanes to attack the bomber formations. I know that this is a generalisation and did not happen during every raid, but I believe it happened farly frequently. This combined with the greater quantity of Hurricanes accounts for it having credit for more kills during the BoB.



Whenever I see this "Spit went for fighters so Hurricane could do the bombers" stuff, I politely ask people to back the statement up, or to withdraw it. Sure enough, no one has the facts to back it up...


----------



## Milosh (Jan 17, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Whenever I see this "Spit went for fighters so Hurricane could do the bombers" stuff, I politely ask people to back the statement up, or to withdraw it. Sure enough, no one has the facts to back it up...



One could always look at the claim list for each a/c.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm not saying that Hurricane could more easily destroy a Bf-109 then Spitfire.

I'm pointing out that policy/doctrine _'Let's battle escorts with Spits, so Hurricanes can get bombers'_ was never backed up with facts on this forum (or anywhere AFAIK), so we could positively know it was an official policy/doctrine. 

Of course, my invitation still stands.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 18, 2010)

Hello tomo pauk:



tomo pauk said:


> Whenever I see this "Spit went for fighters so Hurricane could do the bombers" stuff, I politely ask people to back the statement up, or to withdraw it. Sure enough, no one has the facts to back it up...
> 
> I'm pointing out that policy/doctrine 'Let's battle escorts with Spits, so Hurricanes can get bombers' was never backed up with facts on this forum (or anywhere AFAIK), so we could positively know it was an official policy/doctrine.



Please note the following excerpts from instructions written by Air Vice Marshall K. R. Park, Air Officer Commanding, No. 11 Group, Royal Air Force

5 September 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 10.

5. The enemy’s main attack must be met in maximum strength between the coast and our line of Sector aerodromes. Whenever time permits, Squadrons are to be put into battle in pairs. Some Spitfire Squadrons are to be detailed to engage the enemy fighter screen at 20,000 or more feet. The Hurricanes, because of their inferior performance, should normally be put in against the enemy bombers, which are rarely above 16,000 feet by day.​16 September 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 18.

2. The Spitfire Squadrons of Hornchurch and Biggin Hill are, in clear weather, to be detailed in pairs to attack the high fighter screen which is normally between 25,000 and 30,000 feet.

5. If it appears that the first wave of raids are high flying fighters, act as follows:
(i) Detail not less than several pairs of Spitfires to fighter screen;
(ii) Get ample Hurricane Squadrons rendezvoused in pairs in the region of Sector aerodromes.
(iii) Get Northolt and Tangmere Squadrons to Readiness to despatch as wings of three Squadrons to intercept the enemy’s second or third wave, which normally contains bombers.​
4 October 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 24.

4.	Whenever time permits, I wish Group Controllers to get the Readiness Squadrons in company over Sector aerodromes, Spitfires 25,000 feet, Hurricanes 20,000 feet, and wait till they report they are in position before sending them to patrol lines or to intercept raids having a good track in fairly clear weather.​
8 October 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 26.

2.	When a Spitfire Squadron is ordered to Readiness Patrol on the Maidstone Line, its function is to cover the area Biggin Hill-Maidstone-Gravesend, while the other Squadrons are gaining their height, and protect them from the enemy high Fighter Screen. The form of attack which should be adopted on the high enemy fighters is to dive repeatedly on them and climb up again each time to regain height.​17 October 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 30

Engagement of High Fighter Raids

The general plan is to get one of two Spitfire Squadrons to engage enemy fighters from above about mid-Kent, in order to cover other Spitfire and Hurricane Squadrons whilst climbing to operating height at back patrol lines East and South of London.​17 October 1940: Instructions to Controllers No. 31

Engagement of Mass Bomber Attacks on the London Area.

General Plan:

To engage enemy FIGHTER SCREEN with Spitfire Squadrons from Hornchurch and Biggin Hill half-way between London and the coast, and so enable Hurricane Squadrons from North Weald, Kenley and Northolt to attack bomber formations plus close escort before they reach the line of fighter aerodromes East and South of London. The remaining Squadrons around London that cannot be got up in time to intercept the first wave, to provide a rear screen by climbing over the line of aerodromes East and South of London.

2. The Squadrons from Debden and Tangmere (if disengaged), to be despatched and employed in Wings or pairs, so as to form a screen East and South-East of London to intercept third or fourth wave coming inland, also retreating earlier waves.

Spitfire Squadrons:

3.	Assembled at height in pairs on back patrol lines, then detailed to engage high fighter screen at 30,000 feet.

Role: To protect pairs or Wings of Hurricane Squadrons whilst climbing up, also while attacking bombers plus escort. If the high fighter screen withdraws to the coast, a proportion of the Spitfires may be detailed to attack the escorts to incoming bomb raids.

Hurricane Squadrons:

4.	Squadrons at Readiness to be despatched in pairs to back patrol lines covering line of aerodromes. Immediately pairs have reached operating height, detail to bomb raids or to forward patrol lines under Spitfires. Squadrons at Available to be brought to Readiness and assembled in pairs at operating height on back patrol lines covering Sector aerodromes, and detailed to second wave of bomb raids.

5.	Whilst gaining height the latter Squadrons may have to be detailed to split raids by bombers that attempt to attack vital points on the flank of the mass of bombers plus escort.

Hurricane Squadrons from Flank Sectors (Debden, Tangmere, and possibly Northolt):

6.	Despatch in pairs or Wings, according to the clouds, to patrol mid-Kent patrol lines at 20,000 to 25,000 feet to engage

(i)	Third or fourth wave attacks of bombers plus escort;
(ii)	Retreating bomb raids of first and second wave;
(iii)	To protect fighter aerodromes whilst the earlier Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons are refueling.​Reinforcement from other Groups:

7.	Immediately the enemy bombers appear to be more than 150, request two or three Squadrons to cover the Northern approaches to London, or the South-Western Group of vital points near London, as directed in Controllers Instructions No. 7 , dated August 27th 1940.​


----------



## Njaco (Jan 18, 2010)

and from "Bf 109 vs Spitfire" by Tony Homes pg 71...

"Fighter Command (and No. 11 Group in particular) had done its best throughout 1940 to send its 19 Spitfire squadrons up against the Jagdwaffe's eight Jagdgeschwader, leaving units equipped with slower, less capable Hurricanes to engage the bombers. Of course both RAF types wound up 'mixing it' with Bf 109Es on a daily basis, and Spitfire pilots also downed their fair share of bombers. Nevertheless, a large portion of the aircraft claimed destroyed by Spitfire pilots, and aces in particular were Bf 109Es, and the same applied to the Jagdwaffe."


----------



## slaterat (Jan 19, 2010)

I agree with Tomo. It may have been the intent of fighter command to deploy spits against the fighters and Hurricanes against the bombers , but I have never seen it statisically proven that it occurred.I've always been surprised at how many historians and history buffs seem so willing to just accept the assumption that it is true. It would be an interesting topic for a research paper , and one that could yeild some surprising results.

The earliest of the directives posted by Mike is dated Sept 5th and the next one Sept 16 which is later in the battle. By this time in the BoB German fighter escort was operating closer to the bomber formations making contact with German fighters highly likely when intercepting bombers.

Slaterat


----------



## Njaco (Jan 19, 2010)

I don't seem to remember a spectic timeline questioned except for "the BoB'. I think Mike showed that there was at the very least, a concious attempt to have Spits handle escort and Hurris handle bombers. My post from a book was just to bring the point that what may have been orders wasn't alway easily implemented. Spits shot down bombers and Hurris shot down escorts. If definately wasn't Black and White.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 19, 2010)

Agreed, As far as I can tell from reading the posts, the question wasn't whether it actually happened that way, but rather whether it was official policy to do this, I think Mike Williams has answered that point quite specifically. That the lines would become blurred and air combats actually devolved into a kind of free for all is rather obvious, isn't it?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2010)

Thanks for the input, mike et al. I stand corrected


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 19, 2010)

No plan survives contact with the enemy but at least there was a plan. We need to be cautious about German claims/losses about Spits -vs- Hurris since there was an element of "Spitfire Envy" - it was somehow demeaning to be hit by a Hurricane. The RAF had no such issues because there was only one front-line, single-engined German fighter.

The question remains, though, about RAF fighter allocation during the earlier phases of the battle. Assigning Spits to tackle fighters and Hurris to attack bombers only makes sense if the adversary has both fighters and bombers present in the same place. It has has been posited that the German fighters were tasked with closer escort as the battle evolved (and that is reflected in the movie...not that I'm suggesting that's definitive proof). Prior to this period of close escort, I suspect it would be very difficult to assign a particular RAF squadron to defend against a specific threat (ie Luftwaffe fighters or bombers) because the available radar plots were unlikely to have the precision and accuracy to categorize aircraft into "fighters" or "bombers" unless there was sufficient speed differential to make a reasoned judgement. If radar couldn't do it, you're left with signals intercepts (which may have been viable) or simply waiting until the formation entered visual range, by which stage it was too late to call in a squadron equipped with the "right type" of fighter. 

I offer these thoughts merely as a way of continuing to elicit better understanding. I'm not saying my comments above are correct - they merely reflect a logical position which may not include all necessary factors. This is a fascinating discussion, particularly in light of Mike's post (thank you, Mike).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2010)

Makes sense, buffnut. 

One attacks invaders with whatever is at hand, so if a ground controller 'has' a squadron or two of Spitfires/Hurricanes in a favourable position, he would guide them to the enemy, regardless both of those fighter squadron composition, or composition of enemy. Moreso since it wasn't allways easy, or possible, to say (for the ground controller) if the enemy planes are Ju-88 or Bf-110...


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 19, 2010)

These instructions regarding intercept altitudes make sense but they also would increase the Hurricane's probability of being bounced by the Me109 fighters, which might help explain the Hurricane's greater loss rate.


----------



## Heinz (Jan 22, 2010)

I think the general concensus regarding the spit/hurri roles also stemmed from perhaps the concentration of fire. The hurricane had a better punch with its 8 .303s grouped together rather than spaced out like the spit, these seemingly more affective against bombers?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2010)

would the positioning of the armamament make that much of a difference however? couldnt the point of convergnece for the ermement just be adjust slightly to take this issue into account, if it was an issue?


----------



## Smoke (Jun 19, 2010)

My vote goes to the Hurricane. 

Though I wouldn't change my vote, I have to ask, where's the Westland Whirlwind?


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 19, 2010)

Allies: Hawker Hurricane, got more kills than Spits and Ground Defences combined

Axis: Me 109E "Emil" the only fighter in the battle I believe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2010)

Smoke said:


> My vote goes to the Hurricane.
> 
> Though I wouldn't change my vote, I have to ask, where's the Westland Whirlwind?



Late for the show, more is the pity.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

I chose the 109. I like the DB-601 better than the Merlin. Carburetor vs. fuel injection, but i guess that didn't really matter in the end.


----------



## OY-TAC (Mar 4, 2011)

I wote for the de Havilland Mosquito


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2011)

OY-TAC said:


> I wote for the de Havilland Mosquito


 
Mosquito?

For the Battle of Britain? Check your time line buddy.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 4, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Mosquito?
> 
> For the Battle of Britain? Check your time line buddy.


 
But Chris, the Mosquite is the best a/c of the BoB as none was lost during that battle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2011)

Marcel said:


> But Chris, the Mosquite is the best a/c of the BoB as none was lost during that battle


----------



## woljags (Mar 13, 2011)

considering the Beaufighter was such a fast powerful aircraft with a long career after the war you would have thought it would have made short work of its German counterparts

if they had mounted a few more guns to the front of a defiant it would have faired better


----------



## parsifal (Mar 15, 2011)

why do you think the beau was superior to the Bf110, its nearest equivalent in the german inventory. My opinion is that the me110 was faster, but not quite as heavily armed. I would like to think the beau was more manouverable in the horizontal plane, but Im not certain. I dont know which aircraft was better in the vertical plane, but its likley to be the german a/c. In terms of electronics and comms, i would bet the farm the british aircraft was far superior, but this generally came after the battle.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

Its the Hurricane for me, i really have warm feelings towards that underappreciated workhorse..


----------



## stona (Jun 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> would the positioning of the armamament make that much of a difference however? couldnt the point of convergnece for the ermement just be adjust slightly to take this issue into account, if it was an issue?



No it didn't. Both were using eight .303 machine guns placed outside the propeller arc and both,officially at least,had the same convergence. Most Allied pilots who flew both types regarded the Hurricane as a more stable gun platform. German assessments of the Spitfire reckoned it a very unstable gun platform. This probably did make a difference.
Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2011)

Have to agree with stona on that point. I just watched an interview with a RCAF pilot who said almost the exact same thing, word for word.

Hurricane for me although I'm LW biased.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2011)

woljags said:


> if they had mounted a few more guns to the front of a defiant it would have faired better



I have to disagree; the Defiant would have been even slower, with even worse manoeuvrability and not very much fuel. 

The problem with the Defiant was not anything to do with the aeroplane itself, but how it was used. It was designed as a bomber interceptor for taking on unescorted bombers flying all the way from Germany (note the use of the word "unescorted"). The RAF did not figure the Germans would resurrect the Schliefen Plan in WW2. The real shame about the Defiant was that it was well known before the battle that it was hopeless in the face of single seat adversaries, but nothing was done to remove it from out of a high risk area, such as Park's 11 Group. Surely if it had been permanently based in the north of England and Scotland to attack the bombers flying from Norway escorted by the Bf 110, it would have fared better than it did.

One interesting analysis about the Defiant's brief day fighter career is that the majority of combats the aircraft was involved in where it got shot down in large numbers was when it was faced with larger numbers of enemy fighters. The official figures behind Defiant losses are not all that depressing, in fact, 32 Defiants were lost between mid May and mid August 1940 when it was withdrawn from day fighter duties; and even then this was a knee jerk reaction to six out of nine 141 Sqn Defiants being shot down by a much larger number of Bf 109s. Only two squadrons operated the type in the battle; 264 and 141. 13 RAF night fighter sqns wholly and partially operated the Defiant between mid 1940 and mid 1942.

Oh, and the story of the Defiants being mistaken for Hurricanes - a load of bollocks. This was how the official RAF scribe saw the events of 29 May 1940 when 264 Sqn claimed 37 kills without loss. A slight exaggeration; subsequent research reveals that less than ten of the 22 enemy aircraft lost on that day were attributed to 264. The other thing the RAF account does not reveal was that on that day, it was the Defiants doing the attacking, not the Germans. 

You might have guessed; I voted for the Defiant.


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Oct 23, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Whenever I see this "Spit went for fighters so Hurricane could do the bombers" stuff, I politely ask people to back the statement up, or to withdraw it. Sure enough, no one has the facts to back it up...



My opinion has been the Hurricane went for the bombers because of its guns being grouped more closely together than the Spitfire's, allowing for a more concentrated stream of fire, plus having a fabric/wooden hull meant it could withstand more punishment. The Spit was the more manoeuvrable and faster, so it was better suited to dogfights. 

Difficult choice between the Hurricane and Spitfire. Heart says Spitfire, head says Hurricane. I'll go with the Spitfire because I've always been particularly fond of that aircraft.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Oct 25, 2011)

I love the Hurricane, but as any aviation buff will tell you, in 1940, in overall performance the Spitfire and Me-109 were superior to the Hurricane, although not by much. AT THAT TIME. But then, the Hurricane was higher on the pecking order than any _other_ Luftwaffe aircraft, i.e., if you were a German airman over Britain in any German aircraft except the Me-109, and you encountered either a Spitfire or a Hurricane, you were in trouble. Dilip Sarkar has just published a book titled _How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain_, the very title letting you know the point he's trying to make. I don't agree with all his arguments, but I'll admit I found it interesting that 13 Group, Fighter Command's quietest group, had 8 Hurricane but just 2 Spitfire squadrons, while 10, 11, and 12 Groups had a total of 25 Hurricane and 17 Spitfire squadrons, IOW, Dowding put as many Spitfire squadrons as possible where the heaviest fighting was.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 25, 2011)

Ive always had my doubts that the Hurricane suffered any worse than the Spit when in combat, despi8te its lower performance. to do this properly, would need to know the numbers engaged, and the losses suffered for each type. Perhaps loss rates per sortie would be the best surrogate measure to use. 

On balance, it seems the hurricane was slower, had a lower climb rate, but was similar in dive, superior in turn and equal in firepower. Not much to differentiate in terms of durability, but is perhaps slightly better when landing or taking off.

On the face of it, in 1940, there was not much in it, for any of the three main types


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 26, 2011)

Afaik the Spitfire got best result versus 109 over the France, i think also over the England, but i don't remember data on that. in MTO the Spitfire came late and sure this got best result vs 109.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 21, 2012)

I voted, having fallen for my first love, that high-maintenance, high-fashion model: the Spitfire, but that romance soon lost its luster. Truthfully, it was never in the cards, she was just too fast for me. I then moved on to the pretty, seductive, and somewhat kinky little tart who broke my heart: the Bf-109. I finally settled down to a comfortable, no-drama and fulfilled life with my true love, my humble, always supportive through thick and thin, plain jane: the Hurricane. Puleeeze can't I change my vote? She keeps bringing up the lapse at dinner. I'll get no peace until my vote is changed!


----------



## Readie (Jan 22, 2012)

I have to vote for my life long love. 
The Spitfire is so much more than just a plane to us.
I admire the Hurricane greatly and if I were allowed 2 votes then she'd be my second choice.
Both brilliant aircraft and they saved our bacon in the BoB.
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

Realized I hadn' finished the post this morning. Repost:

I voted, having fallen for my first love, that high-maintenance, high-fashion model: the Spitfire, but that romance soon lost its luster. Truthfully, it was never in the cards, she was just too fast for me. I then moved on to the pretty, seductive, and somewhat kinky (_she always demanded to be on top!_ ) little tart who broke my heart: the Bf-109 . I finally settled down to a comfortable, no-drama and fulfilled life with my true love, my humble, always supportive through thick and thin, plain jane _of the wide forgiving hips: _the Hurricane . Puleeeze can't I change my vote? She keeps bringing up the lapse at dinner. I'll get no peace until my vote is changed!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

Always thought the hurricane was kind of a supernumerary to it all. Never fully appreciated the job she did or her rather subtle qualities that made possible such a huge difference between winning and losing.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 22, 2012)

I agree with you on that.


----------



## Aquarian (Jan 22, 2012)

Hello all.
This thread was an interesting and amusing read. I am unable to compare bombers with fighters, or even fighters with fighters when taking into account the situational circumstances surrounding them in the battle.

Were I to vote for my favorite aircraft, that would be the 109. Purely for personal taste.

Were I to attempt to compare how the battle was affected by all material and circumstances, I would, no must, include Ultra and the wisdom with which it was used by RAF High Command.


----------



## Readie (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Always thought the hurricane was kind of a supernumerary to it all. Never fully appreciated the job she did or her rather subtle qualities that made possible such a huge difference between winning and losing.



The Hurricane should be up there with the Spitfire as the fighter of the moment in 1940.
The Spitfire has an obvious glamour that appeals but, the noble Hurricane did everything it was asked to and more in an unassuming way. Stanford Tuck speaks highly of her in his book.
Both powered by god's own Merlin.

I love to see them both fly.

John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Readie said:


> Stanford Tuck speaks highly of her in his book.
> Both powered by god's own Merlin.
> 
> I love to see them both fly.
> ...



I attended the Virginia Beach Military Aviation Museum's, Warbirds over the Beach Air Show last May. The great thrill for me was the opporunity to see 7 merlins take to the sky in flybys by a Hurricane, a Spitfire, a P-51D aand a Lancaster. The many radials (F4U, FM-2, AD-4, B-17, B-25 and many others) roared while the Merlins just purred. 

Mal


----------



## Readie (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I attended the Virginia Beach Military Aviation Museum's, Warbirds over the Beach Air Show last May. The great thrill for me was the opporunity to see 7 merlins take to the sky in flybys by a Hurricane, a Spitfire, a P-51D aand a Lancaster. The many radials (F4U, FM-2, AD-4, B-17, B-25 and many others) roared while the Merlins just purred.
> 
> Mal



Hi Mal,

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2nlGN6aS8g_

I know exactly what you mean. I love the Merlin sound, it fills the sky.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afdOt1Zvmfc_

John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Sweet!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 24, 2012)

Voted for the Defiant the one and only, the ultimate, the never to be beaten, the top turret fighter of all time 8)


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 25, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Were I to attempt to compare how the battle was affected by all material and circumstances, I would, no must, include Ultra and the wisdom with which it was used by RAF High Command.


That is, in fact, a bit of a myth; Dowding was not included in the list of those permitted to see the Ultra decrypts, until the Battle was virtually over. It was largely down to Park's intuition and masterly use of his resources, backed up by Dowding, which makes their treatment, after the Battle, even more offensive.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Voted for the Defiant the one and only, the ultimate, the never to be beaten, the top turret fighter of all time 8)



Sorry but the Bristol Fighter of WW1 has that title


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 26, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Voted for the Defiant the one and only, the ultimate, the never to be beaten, the top turret fighter of all time 8)



If we are going to talk about top turret fighters, I simply can not understand how anyone could possibly forget to place the magnificent _Blackburn Roc _into contention, let alone putting it right up there where it belongs, on a shelf right next to the Boulten Paul Defiant. On a shelf indeed. Could it be because it didn't really contribute to the BoB?

Apparently the Blackburn company was too embarrased to build the aircraft themselves and so subcontracted construction to Boulten Paul... 

It remains a bit of a mystery to me that the same aviation industry that produced the Spifire, the Hurricane, the Beaufighter, the Mosquito, the Tempest, Typhoon, Sea Fury, Lancaster, Wellington and Sunderland could produce the Roc, Defiant and the Barracuda. I won't include the Skua because strangely enough I feel some affection for that aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 26, 2012)

Glider said:


> Sorry but the Bristol Fighter of WW1 has that title



If you mean 2 seat fighter I will give you that but I said turret fighter. Wouldnt call a Lewis gun on a Scarff ring a turret.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> If we are going to talk about top turret fighters, I simply can not understand how anyone could possibly forget to place the magnificent _Blackburn Roc _into contention, let alone putting it right up there where it belongs, on a shelf right next to the Boulten Paul Defiant. On a shelf indeed. Could it be because it didn't really contribute to the BoB?



Ooh I forgot the Blackburn RocK 

The Roc and the Defiant belonged on a shelf right next to the saucepans they collected for scrap aluminium to make Spitfires. The saucepans ended up being turned into new saucepans which is about all the RocK was good for.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 26, 2012)

Thank you Fast, I thought you'd forgotten our baby...  You'd never see that sort of misfire in the aviation industry of the good ole USA! except perhaps our own little 'cuda' adventure.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2012)

I dont think it is at all possible to separate the efforts of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Both were needed to defeat the Luftwaffe. One may have achieved more shoot downs than the other, but that is not to say the other, less capable type was still not an important element for victory. It is entirely plausible to say that whilst the germans were busy pursuing the lesser performing aircraft, the better aircraft was busy chasing down and shooting down the germans. Without that less capable aircraft, the other, more capable aircraft would have, itself, become a target.

In the end, the british victory came down to numbers. the more fighters it could get in the air, the better chance they stood of suviving. Eliminating hurricane production anytime from 1938 onward would have afected that availability of airframes. 

The Germans maintained their 109 and 190 production for similar reasons.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 29, 2012)

Pars. I started off with exactly the same thesis you eloquently describe above: that the Hurricane was, because of its inferior performance relative to the Spitfire and Bf-109 perhaps not as an essential component of the ultimate victory. I assumed that the Spitfire was a necessary accomplice to the victory, no matter how many aircraft the Hurricane downed, simply because the Spit kept the Bf-109's off the back of the Hurricanes. In this belief, I neglected to consider the considerable advantages of a fleet of aircraft whose performance, while not superior was basically competive with that of the Bf-109 and that had in addition, considerable _*logistical advantages*_ over both more modern aircraft. The Hurricane was easier to fly and a most stable gun platform, more suitable to the limited skills of a cadre of hastily trained and operationally inexperienced pilot replacements who filled the gaps during this extended battle of attrition. I also failed to adequately appreciate the suitability to these same raw recruits of the RAF tactic of employing large rigid formations; what the Luftwaffe pilots dubbed *Idiotenreihen* translated as rows of idiots. An accurate observation but one that failed to recognize the effectiveness of the tactic for its perpetrators. I also came to understand that 5 Hurricanes could be built for every two Spitfires lost. Thus its losses put less strain on the wartime economy and were easier and more quickly replaced. I came to understand the widely held opinion that the Hurricane was irreplaceable for victory in the BoB but not the Spitfire and the Hawker aircraft was indeed the fighter that won the Battle of Britain. I love the Spitfire and this initialy seemed a bitter pill to swallow, but the Spit had a long and varied career and won many combat laurels to give it the immortality it's beauty and inflight-elegance suggest


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2012)

Readie said:


> Hi Mal,
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2nlGN6aS8g_
> 
> ...




Now that is a line for the ages.....

"It fills the sky..."


----------

