Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think Green was trying to do a good job. Or at least trying not do a bad one.I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!
Was he a "Caiden" type?
Even in the late 50s he was including Italian, Japanese and Russian aircraft in with the American, British and German stuff.
At the expense of plane and pilot survivability not too mention the range given for the A6M was done at very slow speeds over empty ocean or jungles, no A6M is going to escort anything over Europe at 10,000ft and 200mph.And -- those Zeros would certainly have the range title
Spitfires could have had 96G main tank, 25+25G leading edge tanks, 33+33G rear auxiliary and a 100G torpedo DT which would have got it well into Germany and back, trouble is wasn't until the 2 stage 2 speed Merlin appeared that there's was enough power to get it off the ground.I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank.
This may be of (surprising) interest, given that overclaiming on both sides was pretty even...
View attachment 655486
depending on who's history you read the Yak was in limited production in October 1940 but under going service trials.I tried to find a Soviet contender, but to my eye all their fighters in service to October 1940 were at best not competitive and at worse, total rubbish.
The Yak-1 can be considered the best of the worst of the Soviet contribution. The LaGG-1 and MiG-1 were terrible.
I saw that too, and thought it might be a stretch. The only one truly in service by October 1940 is the LaGG-1, which was apparently terrible.depending on who's history you read the Yak was in limited production in October 1940 but under going service trials.
Debatable too. Not the "apparently terrible" partI saw that too, and thought it might be a stretch. The only one truly in service by October 1940 is the LaGG-1, which was apparently terrible.
It's quite remarkable how the Soviets went from rubbish fighters to the very competitive La-5, La-7 and Yak-3 in such short order. I suppose desperation breeds quick action.Debatable too. Not the "apparently terrible" part
The problem with the LaGG-3 was that it was underpowered. The terrible LaGG became the excellent La-5 basically by improving the powerplant with the fitment of the Shvetsov M-82, a relatively straight forward conversion.It's quite remarkable how the Soviet went from rubbish fighters to the very competitive La-5
A Zero certainly could have hung around over Britain and fought all day where the Bf109 could only linger a few minutes before needing to RTB.Zero vs 109 is the perfect example for the question best fighter at what? The 109 would have been useless in the Zero's role and the opposite is also true. The planes were built to a purpose. Their success or failure is based on how close that aligned with the situations they actually faced.
I don't know. I have never asked him. However, I think he would have probably sourced the same information that can now be found in the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series by Simon Parry, published by Red Kite. This series lays no claim to the accuracy of the respective claims; instead it just sets them out for the reader. I would recommend this series of books highly to anyone with an interest in the Battle of Britain.The claims of the Lw and FC during the BoB are least twice as high as the above in other sources; how does Bergström arrive at his claim totals?
Indeed, but the poor chap's only got a few seconds of ammunition before he becomes purely a recon bird.A Zero certainly could have hung around over Britain and fought all day where the Bf109 could only linger a few minutes before needing to RTB.