Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Let's not forget it was an Australian P-39 on the ground, not an RFC one being flown by A. Roy Brown (who had piles at the time - ouch) that shot the Baron down...![]()
Of course, the Spitfire was in combat in the Pacific after Germany was beaten.
The Spitfire played little to no role in the invasion of Poland,
the invasion of Norway
nor did it play any substantial role in the Battle of France either.
It was the Hawker Hurricane which fought and destroyed aircraft of the Luftwaffe in most of these places. Very, very few of the Luftwaffe's losses in aerial combat were due to the guns of the Spitfire up to the French armistice at the end of June 1940.
Not attaking and pissing off the largest economy and well funded country would be a novel idea. Should have stuck with china dutch indies. Or any other nation that was already in conflict in the West.
Wasn't there a movie made about the Seabees on Guadalcanal? Fighting Seabees or something like that? The Americans were the ones with bulldozers.
Did the Hurricane?
Did the Hurricane?
The Spitfire was deliberately held back from the Battle of France.
The Hurricane didn't fight over Poland in 1939 - I never said it did.
RAF Hurricanes were operating out of Norway in 1940.
Which is exactly my point. The Spitfire was deliberately held back to the confines of the UK for the first 2.5-3 years - which kind of reduced its effectiveness, wouldn't you say?
Didn't know that.
In what sort of numbers?
I wasn't saying that was the case. The "Fighting Seabees" was a Hollywood production and might not be quite as factual as Mr. Caidin. Didn't know about the radar. That must have been really annoying. "You lost the airstrip AND our radar?"I know the Americans captured and used at least one Japanese bulldozer. Who knows how well it compared to an American dozer, but I'm sure it was better than nothing. They also captured a state-of-the-art Japanese radar set and an ice-making factory.
46 Sqd anywaysSmall, one squadron for certain, perhaps two?
So why meantion Poland as a campaign that the Spitfire didn't participate in?
How does that make the Spitfire overrated?
Because it was a campaign, among many, were the Spitfire was absent. The fact that some other combat aircraft types were not there either doesn't alter the fact, does it?
The air defence of one's own homeland is an important role for an fighter aircraft sure, but you are not going to win any war unless you take the fight to the enemy.
Do you think the P-51 would have been rated at all if it had only served in the mainland USA?
Your criteria for rating things seems to be based on what the P-51 did. Most Russian aircraft never went more than fifty miles over enemy lines and for most of the war that was still in the Soviet Union.The air defence of one's own homeland is an important role for an fighter aircraft sure, but you are not going to win any war unless you take the fight to the enemy. Do you think the P-51 would have been rated at all if it had only served in the mainland USA?
Sorry, timeout ain't gonna cut it.The P-39 first saw combat in WW1, most notably downing Manfred Von Richthofen. It's still at war today.
Yes, I will put myself in timeout.
Okay that's it, you'll go to the "total perspective vortex".How about the DC-3 / C-47. First production 1936, 1941 military use starts, still in use today by African and South American militaries.
Back to time out.