|
Post by boxcar on Apr 14, 2013 19:25:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 14, 2013 19:53:16 GMT -5
Watch the clip later.
The Battle of Britain had many advantages for the RAF that the Luftwaffe could not overcome.
A LW pilot bailing out became a POW.
The LW pilots used up a lot of fuel just getting to Britain and they had little time to do what they had to do.
A RAF damaged aircraft could be put down and repaired. The Hawker company established a special (pre-war) repair division that put over 1000 damaged 'Hurricanes' back in the air to fight again. They even began production of an extra 1000 Hurricanes without a RAF order, they knew what was coming.
The RAF could draw on many pilots from "the Empire", and even a small number from a certain ex-colony.
The EATS - 'Empire Air Training Scheme' in both Canada and Australia turned many 1000s of air crew to keep up the supply.
Last, but not least, the RADAR!
The RAF ended the BoB with MORE planes and pilots than on Day 1.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Apr 14, 2013 21:08:42 GMT -5
What is new to me is the fact that, when the Luftwaffe pilots were imprisoned, British intelligence bugged their cells, so their conversations were recorded.
The documentary says that, while the Me 109 was better than the Spitfire, the Germans made the "stupid" error of forcing their fighters to fly next to the bombers. But they had no choice - the RAF were going after the bombers, who were being decimated, and, in the end, the Luftwaffe had to sacrifice their fighters' advantage to protect their other air arms.
It also says the British airfields were never really knocked out, and I'm not so sure about that, though the grass airfields were probably harder to destroy than concrete ones, and Spitfires could, in the end, take off and land even on British roads, assuming they drove on the right side, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 14, 2013 22:25:07 GMT -5
The following is a study of the Spitfire vs. the Messerschmitt ME 109. It also looks at the supply of aircraft and pilots to that of the Germans, which dictated the outcome. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td8bF6Xgb_Y&feature=endscreen------------------------------------- You mentioned the radar. I was surprised to learn that it was a German invention and that the Germans were far ahead of the English in this field. We came in third. It was noted that the Germans had larger caliber rounds than the RAF and I believe a higher rate of fire. I could be wrong here. Also the ME 109 had a much higher dive speed than the Spitfire and used this for evasive maneuvers. The Germans started out with a two to one superiority ratio in aircraft over the RAF, but the their losses were also two to one. That says a lot about pilot training and tactics. Also English production outpaced that of the Germans at a ratio of around two to one. All in all, I found the statistics very interesting. Had that dunder head up North ( I forget his name…Mallery?) not insisted on large aircraft formations and if those assets were utilized, the Battle of Brittan would have been a slaughter for the Germans.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 14, 2013 22:40:38 GMT -5
S>The documentary says that, while the Me 109 was better than the Spitfire, the Germans made the "stupid" error of forcing their fighters to fly next to the bombers. <
We had the same situation in the USAAF. The fighters stayed with the bombers until they had expended half their fuel. They were then relieved by other aircraft (P 38s or P 51s) and then strafed the German airfields on their return leg of the mission.
The English bombed at night without fighter escort. Their losses (bombers) ran 50%.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 15, 2013 14:31:33 GMT -5
I think one of the most important advantages for the 'Spitfire' over the 109 was its turn rate. It could turn well inside the 109 and end up on its tail.
Until the 2x and later 4x 20mm cannons came in (after the BoB) the 'Weight of Shot' was in the 109s favour, but a well aimed 8x .303s could do a lot of damage at short range.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 15, 2013 17:04:14 GMT -5
That’s interesting. In the video clip the German aviator brags that he could easily out maneuver the spits.
I wish the kill ratios were broken down into type of aircraft, then statistics might be able to prove the point of which aircraft was superior.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 15, 2013 17:34:19 GMT -5
A BIG read! www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.htmlThe two models compared should be the Mk.1. Spitfire against the Bf109E. The Spitfire Mk.2.was a relative minor player in the BoB. Apart from turning, the two aircraft were near to equal, though I get the impression that the Spitfire was nicer to fly. Later in the War, from about the Mk.5. on, the Spitfires got better and better, and from the Mk.9 dominated the Bf109. The RAF tactic was to use the Hurricanes against the bombers, and the Spitfires against the 109 escorts.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 15, 2013 22:03:16 GMT -5
Interesting thank you.
Another interesting point. Did you know that the spitfire started out as a sea plane? I recall seeing it with one big pontoon in the center. (or is it centre?)
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 15, 2013 22:28:04 GMT -5
Schneider Cup, 1931. Note two pontoons. www.sarsfield.com/OriginalPages/orig_schneider10.htmlWith two races won on a row, the UK needed a third victory to become the permanent owner of the Schneider Trophy. However, the 1931 races, to be organized again by the U.K. were far from certain since the Italians came the conclusion that their latest Macchi-Castoldi MC.72 racer would not be ready in time. Further, the RAF had withdrawn its financial support because ‘they saw no further need’ for financing these expensive seaplanes. At the last moment, a wealthy British widow, Lady Houston, decided to give sufficient financial support for further improvement of the Supermarine S.6 racer. With a further up-rated engine it was designated as the S.6B. There were no other competitors for the race of this year and that meant it had to be flown alone by the S.6B. Flt. Lt J.N. Boothman made this final flight to secure the trophy for the U.K. when he finished the 7 laps of the 50 km course with an average speed of 547 km/h. (341 mph. Not bad at all for 1931)
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 15, 2013 23:50:47 GMT -5
The 'Spitfire' went on to the Mk24, with the RR Griffon 85 engine, and in some models, contra rotating props, and a top speed of not much short of 500 MpH.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Apr 16, 2013 10:15:05 GMT -5
That was an interesting picture of the S.6 racer, but it was not the spitfire I was talking about. There are very few similarities between the S.6 and the final spitfire, as we know it. According to the text, the S.6 had one Hell of a supped-up engine and they had quite a time matching the chrematistics of the S.6 during WW2.
The picture I remember was a spitfire, painted olive drab, with only one pontoon. (two on the wings)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2013 12:58:42 GMT -5
One problem the Germans had or maybe two , the 109 only had about 20 min. air time over England due to fuel consumption , two their bombers were junk flying green houses very little armament very easy to shoot down . Little known fact it was the hurricane that won the BOB .
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 16, 2013 13:46:54 GMT -5
MS,
The German bombers were only light bombers, I could not even classify them as medium. And yes the Hurricane was the big winner against the bombers, but you could not reverse the two fighter roles as the Hurricane could not match the Bf109.
.....and Harry Hawker was an Australian from my city of Melbourne. He did not live to see Sir Sydney Camm's Hurricane. Sydney Camm went on to design the Hawker 'Typhoon' and 'Tempest' and then the Hawker 'Hunter' followed by major work on the P1127, soon to become the 'Harrier'.
He was a genius.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Apr 16, 2013 14:42:14 GMT -5
|
|