Thanks Steve. What a terrifying experience. A rear gunner my Dad knew told him their crew kept a very low profile. He 'followed a few round' with his turret but thankfully never had to open fire.
If you compare the number of armament changes the 109 and the Spitfire went through which design looks more fiddled with?
Whatever their respective performance I'm illogically siding with the 109 for that reason. In the same way I prefer the insane He 177 over the dependable Lanc. She makes...
Wryness aside not sure how my statement that the Luftwaffe inflicted terrible losses on the RAF suggests I don't think the Luftwaffe also suffered losses. How high was the casualty rate on both sides from accidents alone - 10%?
Didn't bomber command suffer those attrition rates per raid...
The FW 190's forward visability always seems a little more restricted than on Allied fighters. Was this ever seen as a problem? Also did firing through the turbulence of the propeller arc affect the accuracy at all?
Thank you.
Have to say I quite like the warts - the Germans seemed to fiddle with their designs more than the Allies, trying to extract every last ounce(gram) of performance out of their machines. For me it makes for more interesting reading.
That's understandable in the early marks. But...
Surely the crucial survival factor was length of time spent over enemy territory. Defensive armament actually contributed to Bomber Command's loss rates because the heavy turrets and extra crew just slowed down the bombers.
Not sure why the prewar belief that a bomber's defensive guns would...
Grew up believing the Spitfire was best so I've naturally gone the other way since:
Beautiful lines spoiled by the chunky radiator intakes under the wings (compare with the sleek 109's).
Expensive wing design - were there any performance benefits when most other fighters were nonelliptical...