Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

P-40K-5 said:

besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.

Click to expand...

While the Hurricane did do a lot more of the work, there were a lot more of them, the BoB would have been much closer if you replace Spitfires with Hurricanes 1 for 1. Spitfires suffered fewer losses per 100 or 1000 sorties and Spitfires shot down more more German Planes per 100 or 1000 sorties.
While fewer in number they were more effective than the Hurricane and when you are short of experienced pilots, putting them in a more effective plane that gave them a better chance of survival is the smart move.

Yep, denying the Spit did not have a significant effect on the battle is just as wrong as saying the defeat of the Germans was the result of the 109s limitations. And, I dont agree that you can put down the defeat of the german air force to one man, or deny that the efforts of the allies was not having an effect.

The pressure the RAF was being placed under in the earlier part of the campaign was serious, it may have forced partial withdrawals from some of the more exposed fields, but I dispute strongly that the germans ever came close to victory using one strategy. Their targetting of airfields was a better bet than city busting, but it would have required a much more targetted rsposnse and far better recon than was actually done. too many raids, too many random targets, too many missed opportunities.

Trying to blame Goring solely for what was obviously a systemic failure in the organization is just as erroneous as all the other "single reasons" offered for defeat. it was a reason, even a big reason (like the man) but it was not the only reason. if he were the only reason, the germans would have found ways to compensate for that problem. they didnt, because the problems were generic to the organization itself

In the same light trying to attribute Allied victory to one reason, or one man, or one piece of kit is just as wrong, but the flip side of the coin. The reasons for allied victory ar complex, systemic and the result of the success of the organization as a whole.

There is no magic bullet in this debate

Part of the problem on the German side was overconfidence in their intelligence assessments. They believed RAF Fighter Command was on its last legs without strong evidence to support that assertion. The fallacy of their analysis became clear when they sent unescorted bombers from Norway to attack vital targets in Scotland and suffered horrendous losses when engaged by RAF fighters that, according to German statistics, didn't exist.

I believe the Brits who are responsable for winning BoB are Ellington, Freeman and Newell they are the ones that got the RDF up and running and ordered the the Spit and the Hurricane the other guys like Dowding etc had the tools thanks to these folks

P-40K-5 said:

the BoB was lost for England, if the FAT MAN would have continued the bombing of RAF radar installations. I read somewhere that the RAF could only hold for a couple more weeks.
then for some reason, the FAT MAN decided to stop sending fighters to England.

besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.

Click to expand...

The Battle of Britain becomes more difficult for the British if the Luftwaffe continues to bomb the radar station and, more particularly, RAF fighter fields. Whether it means a German victory is another question entirely - just a single 11 Group fighter field was shut down during the airfield bombing campaign.

The RAF was certainly never a couple of weeks from defeat during the Battle of Britain. This is one of those myths that have grown up around the Battle. Some elements of Fighter Command believed that another two weeks of Luftwaffe attacks on fighter fields COULD (not would) force the retirement of some 11 Group squadrons from the most exposed airfields to more defensible positions, possibly north of the Thames. This still leaves .

Withdrawing some of 11 Group does not represent the defeat of the RAF though. 10 Group and 12 Group were relatively unaffected by the attacks on airfields. Apart form the pilot losses, the major problem with 11 Group dispersing to satellite fields was spare parts and servicing. Notably, Park and Dowding refused to canvas withdrawing 11 Group squadrons northward, despite the pressure of the attacks.

In 1940, the Luftwaffe only had the slimmest chance of defeating Fighter Command to its satisfaction (ie air supremacy to allow an seaborne invasion), through a combination of its own mistakes and the British pilot/aircraft replacement rates. Through July and August, RAF fighter and pilot strength increased. It was only in the late August to early September period that rates of attrition at Fighter Command, particularly for pilots, exceeded rates of replacement.

At the rate of loss between 24-August and 07-September, Fighter Command would have lost around 50% of its pilot strength in 10 weeks and only replaced around 20-30% of these losses. Weakened, yes, but not defeated.

However, on the other side of the Channel, things were even worse, a point that is often ignored. The late August/early September period was proportionally more costly for the Luftwaffe than the RAF. By mid September, Luftwaffe 109E and 110 fighter strengths were lower than in July - a reversal of the RAF position, where Hurricane and Spitfire fighter strength increased.

In terms of the battle of attrition, switching to bombing London was proportionally less costly for the Luftwaffe than it was for the RAF. While it provided relief for RAF pilots, the exchange rate was worse for the RAF in mid September to October than it had been in July and August.

Hurricane versus Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.

It is true that the Spitfire had a better sortie kill/loss ratio than the Hurricane, but one of the reason may be seen in the deployment of Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons on July 08:

10 Group: 2 Hurricane, 2 Spitfire
11 Group: 12 Hurricane, 6 Spitfire
12 Group: 5 Hurricane, 5 Spitfire
13 Group: 3 Hurricane, 7 Spitfire

another 8 Hurricane squadrons were forming up.

11 Group bore the brunt of the battle, and fighters there were more likely to be bounced than anywhere else, so naturally this skews the loss rate suffered in favour of the Spitfire, while 10 and 12 Group Spitfires were more likely ( as it seems to me) be be able to get the bounce on Luftwaffe fighters. IIRC, the Hurricane squadrons had a higher availability throughout the battle and could be more easily and quickly repaired. Now I am not saying that the kill/loss ratio would reverse completely if 12 Spit squadrons were based in 11 Group, but I do think they would have evened up. It is also probable that the Hurricanes were deliberately placed in 11 Group because their production numbers were much higher than the Spit and so they could endure a higher loss rate.

Churchills quote: "this was their finest hour", ended up being pretty accurate as far as the Hurricane was concerned. There was really not much room for further developement of the Hurri, it was replaced as quickly as possible in front line fighter units by the better performing and 'upgradeable' Spitfire. The Hurri probably does deserve a bit more credit than the Spitfire for winning the Battle, and it did soldier on in other theaters and roles, but it's finest hour was pretty much over.

P-40K-5 said:

the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.

Click to expand...

Not so. Heroes and heroism are not always a rational fact based selection. People really don't get the emotional attachment of the British to the Spitfire (I've said it before). The Spitfire was elected as the hero of the BoB by the people of these islands,with a bit of help from the propaganda people at various ministries and the BBC. Spitfire funds were set up all over the country,not Hurricane funds. South Pacific islands raised money for Spitfires,not Hurricanes. You can certainly argue that the Hurricane has been overlooked,even got a bit of a bum deal,in all this but that's the way it was.
Cheers
Steve

claidemore said:

Churchills quote: "this was their finest hour"

Click to expand...

With respect you have taken 'finest hour' out of context. Here's more of the famous speech.

...However matters may go in France or with the French Government or with another French Government, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.
What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.
But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

Our 'finest hour' included everyone in the British Isles, her Empire and her Commonwealth.

Cheers
John

I think the real heros were the boys in the seat and the thousands who helped them do the job.

The poor hurricane did have its thunder stolen a bit but in a straight fight it wasnt a match for a 109 in most conditions. I dont know why they didnt put thinner wings on the hurricane or isnt it a simple job?

Mustang nut said:

I dont know why they didnt put thinner wings on the hurricane or isnt it a simple job?

Click to expand...

Sadly not so easy. The Hurricane was at the end of a long line of metal and wood framed,fabric covered (originally including the wings) aircraft. The Spitfire was one of the first of a new generation of all metal,stress skinned,monocoque aircraft. Despite superficial similarities we're talking chalk and cheese.

The Spitfire was more of a symbol of the sort of resistance referred to in Churchill's speech. I think it's fair to say that people rather than machines may be heroes or heroines.

Cheers
Steve

stona said:

The Spitfire was more of a symbol of the sort of resistance referred to in Churchill's speech. I think it's fair to say that people rather than machines may be heroes or heroines.

Click to expand...

Steve, This area is my next post in the 'Spitfire-my journey thread'. Its a complicated area to unravel but, there is something about the sound of a Merlin that will grab most peoples attention. Last year in the Plymouth Airshow there was an early Mustang performing, I watched it and overheard several comments to the tune 'its not a Spitfire'...
I'm not sure how old you are but if you in your mid 50's then you will have had a youth diet of Spitfire analogies ..Dan Dare was the lantern jawed clean cut British ( Spitfire) pilot fighting the devilish Mekons ( Germans) and ( naturally) winning.
So, the Spitfire and all she means to us lives on.
Cheers
John

stona said:

Sadly not so easy. The Hurricane was at the end of a long line of metal and wood framed,fabric covered (originally including the wings) aircraft. The Spitfire was one of the first of a new generation of all metal,stress skinned,monocoque aircraft. Despite superficial similarities we're talking chalk and cheese.

Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

I agree Steve but from the time it first flew until 1940 they had time to address it. Sydney Camm was sort of obsessed with thick wings it was a drawback on the Typhoon.

Looking at the layout not the construction of a hurricane, radiator and tanks etc it was closer to a P51 mustang than a spitfire.

Unfortunately, aerodynamic research was a bit lacking in many countries during the 30s and England was one of them. I don't know of any aircraft company that had it's own wind tunnel in any nation. Wind tunnels (and usually small ones) were at Universities and perhaps at a national research center. Sydney Camm was NOT sort of obsessed with thick wings, that was the type of wing he was told by the "boffins" that would work in his application. They were wrong, Mitchell was told the same thing but He didn't believe them. He had no evidence to back himself up, it was just feeling or intuition. The Spitfire wing was a gamble.
Without good wind tunnel work or lots of test flying it is hard to pinpoint the wing as the source of the drag problem. Was the Hurricane slower than Spitfire "just" because of the wing or did the fatter fuselage contribute? What about the radiator? look at some of the planes that tried different radiator locations and got some rather different results.
The other consideration was the bottom end of the speed range. ALL of these 1930s aircraft had landing speed requirements and field length requirements that would become a joke within months of the war starting. What many designers in the early 30s KNEW was that thin wings as used in WW I Biplanes often had vicious stall characteristics. And stalls lead to spins. Leading edge slats and slots weren't developed for combat maneuverability. or even for short field performance. They were developed to make the stall gentler and to retain aileron control during the stall and make the airplane safer to fly. Many of these designers could remember the hundreds of student pilots killed in WW I while just learning to fly before they ever got to the front lines.

As for just sticking a new wing on the Hurricane, look at the changes from the Typhoon to the Tempest. Like the extra 22 in of fuselage needed to house the fuel that used to be in the wing. Not as bad in in Hurricane (less fuel) but everything connected with the wing would have to be redone. or at least re-evaluated.

The Berlin-Adlershof wind tunnel was built in 1930 and many german aircraft of the era were tested there.



It didn't belong to a particular manufacturer but it was part of a national research institute.


If you massively modified a Hurricane as proposed above you'd virtually end up with a Spitfire anyway,a more advanced airplane already in production. What's the point?

Steve

Shortround6 said:

Unfortunately, aerodynamic research was a bit lacking in many countries during the 30s and England was one of them. I don't know of any aircraft company that had it's own wind tunnel in any nation. Wind tunnels (and usually small ones) were at Universities and perhaps at a national research center. Sydney Camm was NOT sort of obsessed with thick wings, that was the type of wing he was told by the "boffins" that would work in his application. They were wrong, Mitchell was told the same thing but He didn't believe them. He had no evidence to back himself up, it was just feeling or intuition. The Spitfire wing was a gamble.
Without good wind tunnel work or lots of test flying it is hard to pinpoint the wing as the source of the drag problem. Was the Hurricane slower than Spitfire "just" because of the wing or did the fatter fuselage contribute? What about the radiator? look at some of the planes that tried different radiator locations and got some rather different results.
The other consideration was the bottom end of the speed range. ALL of these 1930s aircraft had landing speed requirements and field length requirements that would become a joke within months of the war starting. What many designers in the early 30s KNEW was that thin wings as used in WW I Biplanes often had vicious stall characteristics. And stalls lead to spins. Leading edge slats and slots weren't developed for combat maneuverability. or even for short field performance. They were developed to make the stall gentler and to retain aileron control during the stall and make the airplane safer to fly. Many of these designers could remember the hundreds of student pilots killed in WW I while just learning to fly before they ever got to the front lines.

As for just sticking a new wing on the Hurricane, look at the changes from the Typhoon to the Tempest. Like the extra 22 in of fuselage needed to house the fuel that used to be in the wing. Not as bad in in Hurricane (less fuel) but everything connected with the wing would have to be redone. or at least re-evaluated.

Click to expand...

Also bear in mind the increse in operational speeds and altitudes that evolving tactics forced upon the designers, and that meant understanding the properties of different wing profiles in those conditions, Camms less advanced "thick wing" worked well at lower speed and altitude, giving huge lift (typhoon was cleared for 2x 1000lb bombs remember) which was instrumental in it's success as a fighter bomber, it also proved quite handy on both the hurricane and Typhoon at low level in air combat, it was a foolish Me109 pilot that tried to outfight a Hurricane at low level, later profiles made advances at all altitudes and speeds but at the time Camms wing was a risk free "known"!

The Hurricane was the logical end to 1930's build techniques. It was the epitome of a stable gun platform, robust, easy to repair and it can rest of its noble laurels for a war well fought in many theatres. It did play second fiddle to the Spitfire in the BoB but, that was inevitable.
Bob Stanford Tuck likened it to 'flying a brick' after the Spitfire.
The Spitfire was the first of the new style of fast fighter, revolutionary in so many ways and instantly iconic. But, before I launch off in another round of singing the Spitfires praises, I would say that the Spitfire arrived in the nick of time as the LW had stolen a march on us with the ME109.
The Hurricane Spitfire played a vital role in the BoB and they needed each other to fight as a team, just for one moment in history.
The Hurricane did us proud and I never forget that as you can from from my picture below.
Cheers
John

stona said:

The Berlin-Adlershof wind tunnel was built in 1930 and many german aircraft of the era were tested there.



It didn't belong to a particular manufacturer but it was part of a national research institute.

Steve

Click to expand...

Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?

Shortround6 said:

Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?

Click to expand...

Good point, but given the length of time from when they both flew and war broke out I am surprised nobody investigated. A wing doesnt have to have guns and tanks in to experiment.

Shortround6 said:

Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?

Click to expand...

It would, but there was a better alternative wing.