Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted ! (1 Viewer)

KraziKanuK · Feb 17, 2005

Hurricane squadrons

Biggin Hill - 32, 501
North Weald - 56, 151, 85
Kenley - 615, 111, 1 Can.
Tangmere - 43, 601, 145
Debden - 17, 85
Northolt - 1, 257, 303
Filton - 87, 213
Middle Wallop - 238
Duxford - 310
Coltishall - 242
Digby - 46
Wittering - 229
Usworth - 607, 79
Turnhouse - 253, 605
Dyce - 263
Wick -3, 232, 504,
Aldergrove - 245

So it looks like plan_d is incorrect, again.

plan_D · Feb 17, 2005

I just said I'll go with 15 because that person has just provided a good source that states 15. Still, three people said numbers other than 19. But every history book says it was 19...Soren moron...

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

Plan_D how about you stop your obviously childish behavior and name-calling, and then actually start backing up your own statements and arguements ?

There were exactly 19 Spitfire squadrons, and 32 Hurricane squadrons

I dont know where you got 11 or 15 from, or where you've seen two people come with different numbers ? KraziKanuk's numbers are the same as mine

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

plan_D said:
I just said I'll go with 15 because that person has just provided a good source that states 15.

Where ?! Please inform us all about who stated that !

plan_D · Feb 17, 2005

My lord he just told me to back up my own statements and arguments, that's rich coming from you. The only one on this whole site that talks about stuff, without a single source.

You make me laugh, you really do. I could be wrong, and you right and I'd still laugh at you because you're such a moron.

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

plan_D said:
My lord he just told me to back up my own statements and arguments, that's rich coming from you. The only one on this whole site that talks about stuff, without a single source.

You make me laugh, you really do. I could be wrong, and you right and I'd still laugh at you because you're such a moron.

Again you totally try to dodge my request !

And also you can call me a moron all you like, but think about what your getting out of it !!

cheddar cheese · Feb 17, 2005

Actually pD, he isnt the only one who doesnt provide sources, the lanc doesnt

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

I do provide sources they just choose to overlook them, thats all.

cheddar cheese · Feb 17, 2005

Not in this thread you havent

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

cheddar cheese said:
Not in this thread you havent

Oh well thats easy, go read almost any book about BoB.

But you asked, so here is one of the books where i got it from: 'Brtish Warplanes of World War II'

Do you want the authors name also ?

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

There are also numerous sites who show the squadrons of 1940.

This one for example:

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/Menus/squadrons.html

Btw Cheddar Cheese even the site you quoted actually has 19 Spit squadrons !

cheddar cheese · Feb 17, 2005

There, wasnt so hard was it? Now why wouldnt you give the sources like that to pD?... :wink

Soren · Feb 17, 2005

He is very rude, thats why.

cheddar cheese · Feb 17, 2005

Makes sense.

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2005

The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.

As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

=S=

Lunatic

Napier Sabre · Feb 19, 2005

Thing that always struck me as odd was the way in which nobody addressed the fact that in the early Marks (primarily I and II) one bullet in the glycol tank under the nose, could bring the plane down. Seems it wasn't that big a problem, still seems like tempting fate to me.

Soren · Feb 19, 2005

The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.

I absolutely agree

As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The cannons would run out quickly yes, but not the cowl mounted 7.9mm Machine guns ! Infact the German pilot could hold his finger on the trigger much longer than a Spitfire pilot

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 19, 2005

if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............

cheddar cheese · Feb 19, 2005

Definately not....

redcoat · Feb 19, 2005

plan_D said:
According to you every history book states 19, yet two other people have said otherwise not including me.
I'll go with 15, as it says each squadron. You're a moron, Soren...it's so beautiful that it rolls off the tongue.

If you were alone in a room "plan D" you would pick an argument with yourself

Spitfire Squadrons in Fighter Commands order of battle July 1st 1940.
Nos,64, 610, 65, 74, 54, 92, 234, 609, 19, 66, 266, 611, 222, 616, 41, 72, 152, 603, 602.

19 Squadrons in total

source, Stephen Bungay 'the Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain'.

Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted ! (1 Viewer)

Banned

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Major General

1st Lieutenant

Major General

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Major General

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Major General

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads