Battle of Britain

[MickM2]

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Which was better Spitfire or 109? Hurricanes can also be considered but not 110s. This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance. Which one was best?

[RangerJoe]

It depends upon what you mean by best.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition.

Good luck. [:D]

If you do settle it, maybe you can move on to settle the eternal Yamato class vs Iowa class debate.

[MickM2]

Best in its widest terms.

[RangerJoe]

At what point in the development?

[MickM2]

Battle of Britain. And I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. Britain was on its knees and the crux between us falling I believe was the Spitfire but if on a 1 on 1 the 109 was better then I will change my opinion.

[RangerJoe]

Are you referring to a twisting dogfight on a horizontal plane or a vertical one with the dive?

[MickM2]

Maybe I should have asked this question a few gears ago when the veterans were still alive.

[RangerJoe]

Well, if the Hurricane or Spitfire tried to dive after a Bf109, the 109 would get away since the Merlin engine would die until a different carb was installed. But in a twisting, turning dogfight on a horizontal plane, the Spitfire could out turn a 109 but that also depended upon the pilot. For some reason, Douglas Bader was able to turn very tight without the G-forces pulling the blood to his legs. The Hurricane developed into other aircraft but it was a more stable gun platform and easier to fly.

But then again, it also depended upon the propeller.

[MickM2]

Wow it gets complicated for my small brain.

[MickM2]

A quarter of the pilots were from overseas. And they all contributed so there are probably many other factors to the final battle than the Spitfire.

[RangerJoe]

If you want to know what may have been the difference between the RAF winning or losing the Battle of Britain, here is "Bloody Foreigners" on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptijNcDanVw

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MickM2

..... so there are probably many other factors to the final battle than the Spitfire.

warspite1

The performance of the Spitfire and Hurricane vs the Bf-109 were of course important to the final outcome of the battle, but yes, there were a great many factors that went into the ultimate result.

But if you want, as stated, a comparison between the Spitfire I and the Bf-109-E1/4 to know which was the better aircraft then you are best off doing just that. Don't bring the wider battle into it (as indeed you suggested at the outset).

[MickM2]

Yay well done the Poles. Dziekuje ci.

[RangerJoe]

The next time you hoist a pint, say "Na zdrowie" and remember them.

But they were also flying Hurricanes. They shot down a lot more 109s than they lost. The difference was their training.

There is also a movie "Hurricane" about them.

There is also a movie about a "sergeant Wojtek" in the Polish Army. He enjoyed his wine and beer. He was excellent on guard duty as well. He was NOT Polish. After the war, he was a hit with the children in one Scottish village. But then, well, you could kinda, sorta, say that he went to jail.

[MrsWargamer]

I think the deciding detail was they let up on the airfields.

The Spitfire was great, didn't need to worry about range. The 109 was great, but it had to worry about range. Not easy to dogfight when you have no fuel.
The spitfire just had to intercept and shoot shit down. The 109 had to protect the bombers. Mission requirements impact how you fight. If they had not switched to London, I dare say it wouldn't have mattered very soon how great the spitfire was.

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Which was better Spitfire or 109? Hurricanes can also be considered but not 110s. This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance. Which one was best?

Spitfire.

The Few won.

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The next time you hoist a pint, say "Na zdrowie" and remember them.

But they were also flying Hurricanes. They shot down a lot more 109s than they lost. The difference was their training.

There is also a movie "Hurricane" about them.

There is also a movie about a "sergeant Wojtek" in the Polish Army. He enjoyed his wine and beer. He was excellent on guard duty as well. He was NOT Polish. After the war, he was a hit with the children in one Scottish village. But then, well, you could kinda, sorta, say that he went to jail.

^

Also this.

Hurricanes outnumbered Spits.

The Battle of Britain was won by pilots not planes.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Which was better Spitfire or 109? Hurricanes can also be considered but not 110s. This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance. Which one was best?

Spitfire.

The Few won.

The Spitfire and the Hurricane.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The next time you hoist a pint, say "Na zdrowie" and remember them.

But they were also flying Hurricanes. They shot down a lot more 109s than they lost. The difference was their training.

There is also a movie "Hurricane" about them.

There is also a movie about a "sergeant Wojtek" in the Polish Army. He enjoyed his wine and beer. He was excellent on guard duty as well. He was NOT Polish. After the war, he was a hit with the children in one Scottish village. But then, well, you could kinda, sorta, say that he went to jail.

^

Also this.

Hurricanes outnumbered Spits.

The Battle of Britain was won by pilots not planes.

It was more than just the pilots. The air crew, the ground support, the command echelon, the production people, and others. But it was a combination of the right people and the right equipment.