Battle of Britain

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yes, agreed.

[stevemk1a]

Here's a link to a Royal Air Force Museum video that compares the two aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY9DAD0BGPM

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 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.

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

[Simulacra53]

The best fighter during the “Battle of Britain“ was the channel, with the RN being a close second.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

The best fighter during the “Battle of Britain“ was the channel, with the RN being a close second.

warspite1

What does that mean?

[rico21]

"The French forget, from generation to generation, what implacable enemies we can be."[8|]
Edward Spears on the eve of the French surrender in June 1940.[:(]
These poor Nazis had no chance![:D]

[ezzler]

There has not been a definitive winner between the two, as there is no winner.
Both aircraft were their nation's front line fighter in 1940.
And both aircraft were still in their nation's front line fighter pool in 1945.

Are there any other single engine fighter planes that can claim that distinction?

[Pvt_Grunt]

Also, the model becomes a factor

Spitfire came in 24 variations, the most common being Mark V (369 mph) and Mark IX.(404 mph) Wikipedia During the Battle of Britain mostly Mark I was used.

Similarly the Me 109 had many variants and improvements over its' 6 years of production.

[Zorch]

Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain.

Please define what you mean by best.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: IslandInland



^

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.

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit that some felt they should have at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe



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.

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

That is true. It is mentioned at the end of the show:

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe



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.

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit that some felt they should have at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

warspite1

As said, four books, two films and numerous documentaries - and not to forget Hugh Dowding's own thoughts on the subject that he had no trouble in making public - and the Poles have never been sidelined, downplayed or marginalised in any of them.

Was there pressure brought on by the Soviets not to include the Poles in the victory parade at the end of the war? It would appear so, and sadly that pressure was successful at the time. But that seems to confuse two separate issues.


By the way, I do love those that like to portray the British (French and Americans) and their treatment of Poland at the end of the war as some gross betrayal. I mean they NEVER bother to actually come up with an alternative as to what should have happened. They just throw mud in the usual holier-than-thou style but don't trouble to actually understand the situation and come up with what they think should have been done. The British (French and Americans) did NOT hand over Poland to the Communists. In case it escaped anyone's attention, Stalin was already in occupation having beaten the Red Army.

And what were the Western Allies to do? Go to war against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the world's most bloody conflict? And with a country they were Allied to? How many British, French and American troops would have been up for that in 1945?

Short of threatening Moscow with nuclear destruction, there was NOTHING the Western Allies could do to save Poland.

[Orm]

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?

This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

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?

This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo."

warspite1

Sorry but having a best fighter of 1940 competition without the Bf-110, is like going deer hunting without an accordion.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit that some felt they should have at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

warspite1

As said, four books, two films and numerous documentaries - and not to forget Hugh Dowding's own thoughts on the subject that he had no trouble in making public - and the Poles have never been sidelined, downplayed or marginalised in any of them.

Was there pressure brought on by the Soviets not to include the Poles in the victory parade at the end of the war? It would appear so, and sadly that pressure was successful at the time. But that seems to confuse two separate issues.


By the way, I do love those that like to portray the British (French and Americans) and their treatment of Poland at the end of the war as some gross betrayal. I mean they NEVER bother to actually come up with an alternative as to what should have happened. They just throw mud in the usual holier-than-thou style but don't trouble to actually understand the situation and come up with what they think should have been done. The British (French and Americans) did NOT hand over Poland to the Communists. In case it escaped anyone's attention, Stalin was already in occupation having beaten the Red Army.

And what were the Western Allies to do? Go to war against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the world's most bloody conflict? And with a country they were Allied to? How many British, French and American troops would have been up for that in 1945?

Short of threatening Moscow with nuclear destruction, there was NOTHING the Western Allies could do to save Poland.

Some of those Americans troops in Europe (and not just Patton) felt that they should have kept going because they figured that there would be a war with the Soviet Union anyway. There was not much that could for Poland have been done since the troops were stopped from going farther Eastward. Plus the local Polish Army had been knocked about in the Warsaw uprising when the Soviets did not advance. If the Americans would have taken Berlin and beyond up to the Polish border, something could have been done. Of course, the Americans may not have gone that far. Then again, that is speculation. If war would have broken out, think of Japanese T-34/85s . . .

[Orm]

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

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?

This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo."

warspite1

Sorry but having a best fighter of 1940 competition without the Bf-110, is like going deer hunting without an accordion.

Let's see... twin engine multirole aircraft. Wouldn't Bf 110 compete with Beaufighter?

[Orm]

The Polish question is very interesting. Could we, please, have a separate thread for that discussion?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

How about the man who was born in Canton, China? He who attacked about 30 German aircraft and shot down 6 of them - according to the 20 B-17G crews whom he was protecting. He was flying a P-51B and he was the only fighter pilot there. He protected the bombers - even when he ran out of ammunition. But on 11 January, he shot down a FW-190A3, probably some Me109s and other aircraft including Me-110s. His plane was named "Ding Hao!"

He started out in the US Navy flying as a Navy Seaman Second Class. He refused a commission, left the service and went to China. After that, he later joined the air force. Prior to joining the US Army, he had shot down 6 Japanese aircraft. On 5 June 1944, he was presented with the Medal of Honor, the only fighter pilot in the 8th Air Force to receive one.