I would agree because the Tempest's development started later and lessons learned with the Spit were applied to the Tempest.
Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
cheddar cheese
Major General
Also looked better 
Well offcouse once the Hurricane was gone, the Spit was to England as the Bf-109 was to Germany.
cheddar cheese
Major General
However the 109 was backed up by the Fw-190, which I belive was better. Until the Tempest the Brits didnt have another complimentary fighter to the Spitfire.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
but we didn't need one.........
I disagree. The Spit was great but she too was getting outclassed by other fighters. The Fw-190 would give any Spit atleast a run for its money.
The Fw-190 was superior to the Spitfire Mk.V but the Spitfire was always a great base for improvement. Instead of a new fighter Britain could just upgrade the Spitfire.
The Spitfire Mk. VIII and IX (Sticking with just Merlin engined for the moment) could both hang with the Fw-190 in any dogfight.
The Spitfire Mk. VIII and IX (Sticking with just Merlin engined for the moment) could both hang with the Fw-190 in any dogfight.
Oh dont worry no arguments here.
Glider
Major
Can I ask for peoples views on the Tempest as a fighter. It strikes me as being the only UK contender to challange the Spitfire as a fighter.
Speed and firepower were definately up on the Spit, plus diving speed. I always had in my mind that the Tempest was similar to a late P47 with better guns. Unfortunately I don't have the detailed numbers to come to a conclusion.
Any comments suggestions ideas welcome
Speed and firepower were definately up on the Spit, plus diving speed. I always had in my mind that the Tempest was similar to a late P47 with better guns. Unfortunately I don't have the detailed numbers to come to a conclusion.
Any comments suggestions ideas welcome
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
We had the Typhoon as the running partner of the Spit before the Tempest came along, she excelled and taking out the 190s bombing British ports at low level
Sure the Typhoon/Tempest toys were fine assets.
In the previous months to Dday in Normandy, some RAF typhoon squadrons had their fighters fitted with rails under the wings to install non-guided rockets for ground attack missions.
Such gear caused drag and affected the flying capabiities of the Typhoon.
I have no less than a dozen gun camera shots clearly showing Typhoons equipped in such fashion getting pounded and destroyed at low altitude combats by Luftwaffe fighters.
In the previous months to Dday in Normandy, some RAF typhoon squadrons had their fighters fitted with rails under the wings to install non-guided rockets for ground attack missions.
Such gear caused drag and affected the flying capabiities of the Typhoon.
I have no less than a dozen gun camera shots clearly showing Typhoons equipped in such fashion getting pounded and destroyed at low altitude combats by Luftwaffe fighters.
It was soon realised that the Typhoon wasn't a capable fighter. The Typhoon was fast and was an excellent low-level interceptor but that was about it in the fighter role. That is why the Typhoon was relegated to ground-attack where it proved to be an excellent machine.
The Typhoon never contended the Spitfire for the title of front-line fighter.
Udet, do you ever think that you base your arguments too much on gun camera? There's gun camera footage of almost every aircraft in the war being shot to pieces.
I've got a remarkable one of a Fw-190 having it's port side blasted to pieces by a P-47.
The Typhoon never contended the Spitfire for the title of front-line fighter.
Udet, do you ever think that you base your arguments too much on gun camera? There's gun camera footage of almost every aircraft in the war being shot to pieces.
I've got a remarkable one of a Fw-190 having it's port side blasted to pieces by a P-47.
The footage I have is part of an amazing video I have of the P-47, with lots of gun camera footage as well as other stuff. It's 26 MB though. I also have a few newsreels from Germany. Leningrad and Kursk film footage, Halftrack footage, D-Day footage and Ardennes footage. Russia footage and StuG footage. 
Plan_D:
I do agree with you.
I happen to have hours of Luftwaffe guncamera footage, which of course play an influence on my judgement regarding airwarfare over Europe.
I wonder if there are any guys from the USA who have had the chance of watching one sole shot of their beloved Mustangs getting chewed by German interceptors. Most of those i have met have not.
They mostly get to see the same boring over-repetitive stuff of some German interceptors pounding a few B-17s and B24s.
The rest is pretty much about the same images of Fw190s and Bf109s getting pounded by their gallant heroes. I can say i know the shots by heart.
Happened to be in Saratov, Russia, two years ago for the city´s victory day parade (May 9th) where by a mere coincidence made contact with a man who sold me the stuff -the cheapest deal of my life-.
I do agree with you the Typhoon failed as a fighter. The Bf 109 and the Fw 190 proved extremely nasty experiences to many Typhoon pilots.
Sure it was fast and capable as ground attacker though.
Plan, the guncamera footage, while of course not being the ultimate element to come up with conclusions, plays a vital role.
I have shots of the sturdy P-47s vaporizing in huge fireballs. Mustangs having their pilots getting extirpated out of the cockpit by the German guns in quite a violent and disturbing fashion. A shot of a stricken Spitfire whose pilot opens the cockpit to bale out -you see the head and partial torso of the British guy emerging right out the cockpit-, a short burst of the German pilot hindered his attempt. Shturmovik rear gunners having a horrible end at the hands of German interceptors -some of them turned into human torches attempting a doomed bale out-. The USA baptized "Fork tailed devil" getting bounced: the pilot receiving the German burst right overhead.
Just to name some.
I do agree with you.
I happen to have hours of Luftwaffe guncamera footage, which of course play an influence on my judgement regarding airwarfare over Europe.
I wonder if there are any guys from the USA who have had the chance of watching one sole shot of their beloved Mustangs getting chewed by German interceptors. Most of those i have met have not.
They mostly get to see the same boring over-repetitive stuff of some German interceptors pounding a few B-17s and B24s.
The rest is pretty much about the same images of Fw190s and Bf109s getting pounded by their gallant heroes. I can say i know the shots by heart.
Happened to be in Saratov, Russia, two years ago for the city´s victory day parade (May 9th) where by a mere coincidence made contact with a man who sold me the stuff -the cheapest deal of my life-.
I do agree with you the Typhoon failed as a fighter. The Bf 109 and the Fw 190 proved extremely nasty experiences to many Typhoon pilots.
Sure it was fast and capable as ground attacker though.
Plan, the guncamera footage, while of course not being the ultimate element to come up with conclusions, plays a vital role.
I have shots of the sturdy P-47s vaporizing in huge fireballs. Mustangs having their pilots getting extirpated out of the cockpit by the German guns in quite a violent and disturbing fashion. A shot of a stricken Spitfire whose pilot opens the cockpit to bale out -you see the head and partial torso of the British guy emerging right out the cockpit-, a short burst of the German pilot hindered his attempt. Shturmovik rear gunners having a horrible end at the hands of German interceptors -some of them turned into human torches attempting a doomed bale out-. The USA baptized "Fork tailed devil" getting bounced: the pilot receiving the German burst right overhead.
Just to name some.
Of course it should provide some influence. I have seen camera footage of many Allied fighters as well as Axis fighters being brought down by their opponent.
It's awful to watch some and the odd realisation comes to mind that in that plane is a dying or dead man.
It's awful to watch some and the odd realisation comes to mind that in that plane is a dying or dead man.
A
Anonymous
Guest
plan_D said:The footage I have is part of an amazing video I have of the P-47, with lots of gun camera footage as well as other stuff. It's 26 MB though. I also have a few newsreels from Germany. Leningrad and Kursk film footage, Halftrack footage, D-Day footage and Ardennes footage. Russia footage and StuG footage.
Didn't I post that here long ago? 8)
Yep... I did!
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1113&highlight=p47
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
The Tempest was a good low level fighter/attack plane. The Spitfire was not.
The two complimented each other very well, the Tempest able to take the fight from about 18,000 feet down to the deck, and the Spitfire being able to take it from 15K up to 35K.
What the British (and German) fighters lacked was range.
=S=
Lunatic
The two complimented each other very well, the Tempest able to take the fight from about 18,000 feet down to the deck, and the Spitfire being able to take it from 15K up to 35K.
What the British (and German) fighters lacked was range.
=S=
Lunatic
