trackend said:
That is deffinatly true. The 109's could only protect the bombers for a short time and then they were on there own.
Best Battle of Britain Aircraft
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is deffinatly true. The 109's could only protect the bombers for a short time and then they were on there own.
carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 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
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
carpenoctem1689 said:
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....
I'd agree FBJ, I'd much rather have more Hurricanes (and Spitfires) than Defiants. It was an interesting concept that failed.FLYBOYJ said:
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
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 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.
That it does but even if the Defaint had been used effectively would have done that much damage? I'm not so sure.carpenoctem1689 said:
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.
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.
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
Master Sergeant
The MkII Defiant was used as a nightfighter, and as for uprating the engine- it had a Merlin!
Cool did not know that.
- Thread starter
- #232
cheddar cheese
Major General
And a pretty good nightfighter too, was it not?
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
Airman
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #235
cheddar cheese
Major General
Agreed, but didnt the early Ju-88's have a lot of problems?
Most early planes do. I dont believe the Ju-88 had anymore problems than most planes do.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
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.....
- 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.....
Attachments
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
That is one way to put it.
