Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

[Nonskimmer]

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]

But at the time the Hurricane was better...

 

[Nonskimmer]

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

 

[JCS]

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

 

[Cheap Labour]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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]

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]

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

 

[BombTaxi]

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]

Oh right 8)

 

[Cheap Labour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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...