RG:
Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.
I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.
The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.
I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.
I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.
Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.
I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.
The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.
I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.
I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.