Battle of Britain: the real story (4 Viewers)

[Mitch]

Looks like an interesting documentary on BBC2 tonight about the BOB and looking at it from the german side. Don't have much info on what the 'real' story could be especially, from the german stand point but, should be of interest
Mitch

 

[uksubs]

Looks like an interesting documentary on BBC2 tonight about the BOB and looking at it from the german side. Don't have much info on what the 'real' story could be especially, from the german stand point but, should be of interest
Mitch

Thanks for the intell Mitch

 

[Martin Tabony]

I've just watched it, some very interesting opinions.

Martin

 

[Mitch]

I think this show for me, showed what both Rob and I have been saying for a while that we were far stronger and prepared than we probably even knew at the time.

Interesting to hear another pilot saying the Me109 was a better aircraft something my grandfather said about it many times especially in ralation to firepower and the engine. But, it was also the case that our pilots overcame these issues (not deficiencies IMO) For me, the spit is the very best aircraft of WWII.

Quite a good Doc
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

...Interesting to hear another pilot saying the Me109 was a better aircraft something my grandfather said about it many times especially in ralation to firepower and the engine. But, it was also the case that our pilots overcame these issues (not deficiencies IMO) For me, the spit is the very best aircraft of WWII.
....

Maybe we will get it here eventually but one thing is for sure; the 109E was NOT better overall than the Mark I/II Spitfire. Just as is the case for many opposing fighters, it had some advantages in certain areas and altitudes and disadvantages in others. The Mark I/II was faster both in level flight and climb, had lighter and more effective controls, was a more stable gun platform and had a more powerful and reliable engine. The 109E was faster into and in the dive and was more powerfully armed than the Mark I/II A models but this difference was corrected in the last third of the BoB with the twin cannon armed B models. In early encounters, the 109E exploited its decided advantage in being able to push over into a dive with negative G while the Merlin powered Spitfire engine would stutter and temporarily lose power with negative G. This was corrected near the end of the BoB but Spitfire pilots quickly learned to offset this by rolling to pull into the dive. The two were nearly equal in roll rate. The Spitfires prime advantage was in its vastly superior turning rate and stability in turns. The 109E used auto extending slats to increase its turn rate but they caused a violent vibration when extended which made accurate firing virtually impossible in tight turns.

It is funny that they found a Spitfire pilot that thought the 109E was superior; most did not but not all pilots were equally skilled. There are numberous accounts by aces on both sides that confirm the differences the testing numbers reveal. For those interested, this link has a nice summary of test and combat reported comparisons of the two.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

 

[Mitch]

Spitfrnd...

The pilots that said that were veteran pilots but, the firepower of the ME109 was an issue to many pilots especially the damage that was and could be inflicted in a short burst and, the actual amount of ammunition they had as compared to the spit. Speaking from what I was told by pilots if we had had cannon at the go we would have shot down many more aircraft than was done. As I said, the points raised were easily overcome by our pilots but, they were real issues to the pilots that flew in the battle this programme just highlighted them.
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Spitfrnd...

The pilots that said that were veteran pilots but, the firepower of the ME109 was an issue to many pilots especially the damage that was and could be inflicted in a short burst and, the actual amount of ammunition they had as compared to the spit. Speaking from what I was told by pilots if we had had cannon at the go we would have shot down many more aircraft than was done. As I said, the points raised were easily overcome by our pilots but, they were real issues to the pilots that flew in the battle this programme just highlighted them.
Mitch

Well what some veteran pilots say now may be quite different than more contemporaneous observations; which is another reason to read the accounts in that link, as well as the many books written on the battle. No doubt that making the B model cannon upgrade earlier would have increased RAF kill ratios, especially against bombers. The cannons were available and had been installed on Spits prior to the BoB but their reliability was poor and the B model squadron that had them argued for their removal and re-installation of the replaced 4 .303 machine guns in frustration with their initial performance. Ironically, this Hispano 20mm cannon went on to become one of the best fighter armaments of the war and helped make the Mark V through Mark XIV the deadly fighters they were.

As to ammunition, the comparison is more complicated. The 109E carried enough ammo for about 60 seconds of machine gun firing and 5-7 seconds of cannon versus 20 seconds for the Mark I/IIA but the Spitfire had around three times the rate of fire at 160 rps versus about 50 rps. Also the 109E cannon and machine guns were mounted such that it was near impossible to line them up together (as was possible in the later Spitfire mixed armaments). These factors and the wider spread of the wing mounted Spitfire guns gave it a greater probability of scoring hits from a firing pass and near the same to a greater weight of fire for most of their relative shorter firing period.

 

[Mitch]

Spitfrnd...

I don't know what the point is when I commented on the pilots from the battle commenting on the two planes and my grandfathers recollections of fighting against the germans during the battle of britain and the whole war and, contemporanious accounts and books written on the subject.

The two last night in the doc and the many I spoke to as I grew up gave many accounts and, some in your post I have met so, when they say to me they were fearful of german cannon and, would have liked them I will take that as quite an indictment on the firepower issue. Especially, as these were the guys flying day in day out and facing the planes that were attacking my country
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Spitfrnd...

I don't know what the point is when I commented on the pilots from the battle commenting on the two planes and my grandfathers recollections of fighting against the germans during the battle of britain and the whole war and, contemporanious accounts and books written on the subject.

The two last night in the doc and the many I spoke to as I grew up gave many accounts and, some in your post I have met so, when they say to me they were fearful of german cannon and, would have liked them I will take that as quite an indictment on the firepower issue. Especially, as these were the guys flying day in day out and facing the planes that were attacking my country
Mitch

I don't understand what point you do not get Mitch. You reported some observations about the relative characteristics of two BoB fighters and I have merely provided some alternative information. You may chose to ignore it or not but some may find it interesting. As the later Marks proved, a properly functioning cannon can be an effective anti fighter weapon, even though the USAF never accepted that. The cannons used in the 109E had the deficiencies I noted and relatively speaking for the reasons I noted, were not a significant advantage.

I have made a rather extensive study of the BoB and WWII fighters so I am simply sharing my knowledge for those that have an interest in learning. It is indeed true that a 20mm cannon was fearful when it hit something but fortunately for the RAF, for the 109E against a Spitfire Mark I/II that was not too often except where the 109E had the advantage of surprise and then most any armament would have been likely decisive.

FWIW, I have also flight sim modeled and fought both these aircraft extensively and there is little doubt to me that the Spitfire had the decisive advantage, again for the reasons noted in the reports I cited. Yes you can score kills with fewer shots with a 109E but it is much harder to make those hits than it is with a Mark I Spitfire.

 

[Mitch]

Spitfrnd...

I was commenting only about what RAF pilots had said in the documentary that in their opinion the ME109 was a better aircraft than their own. I did state that my grandfather flew them and was shot at by a 109 (on a number of occasions) and have the pics of damage to his tail and rear fusilage from a 20mm.

I was somewhat confused at the what veterans say now to contemporanious notes part of your post.

I did not state the spit was not better than the 109 IMO and as you have studied the battle rather in depth and had the opportunity to speak with many airmen. I think the I can choose to ignore comment was rather unecessary its rather like shooting the messenger
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Spitfrnd...

I was commenting only about what RAF pilots had said in the documentary that in their opinion the ME109 was a better aircraft than their own. I did state that my grandfather flew them and was shot at by a 109 (on a number of occasions) and have the pics of damage to his tail and rear fusilage from a 20mm.

I was somewhat confused at the what veterans say now to contemporanious notes part of your post.

I did not state the spit was not better than the 109 IMO and as you have studied the battle rather in depth and had the opportunity to speak with many airmen. I think the I can choose to ignore comment was rather unecessary its rather like shooting the messenger
Mitch

I quite understand that you were reporting comments from those pilots and I was simply providing some alternative facts and comments from others. The reference to what veterans say now simply reflects the reality that memory changes with time. Even my own flying impressions are less precise than they were 1, 5 or even 10 years afterward. As to shooting the messager, your comments suggested you didn't even see the point of my posts, much less give them much relative credence so my observation that you were free to disregard as you like was simply responsive.

 

[Martin Tabony]

I hope they show this programme is shown in the US it was much more indepth than just the British veterans point of view. They also spoke to German veterans, who also thought the 109 was a better plane. Although there was some interesting accounts from the house that the German pilots were held. Every room was bugged and every word they said was reported. One interesting comment I thought was the pilot who said that the 109 was a better machine IF it had the right pilot!
If what was said last night are true, I couldn't believe how disorganised and over confident the Luftwaffe was in comparison to the RAF. Under estimating how many aircraft Britain had, because they weren't sure how many there was to each squadron!

Martin

 

[Mitch]

Spitfrnd...
I think this shows how hard it is sometimes for one to make a point across the internet and forums etc like this. My post was benign and cannot see how you came to that conclusion but, you have. It was not in my mind to belittle the input but, to put over what was said by pilots during the doc and, the fact that they were ones who have given accounts from the Battle through to today.
Mitch

I quite understand that you were reporting comments from those pilots and I was simply providing some alternative facts and comments from others. The reference to what veterans say now simply reflects the reality that memory changes with time. Even my own flying impressions are less precise than they were 1, 5 or even 10 years afterward. As to shooting the messager, your comments suggested you didn't even see the point of my posts, much less give them much relative credence so my observation that you were free to disregard as you like was simply responsive.

 

[Mitch]

Martin...

This over confidence was reported in many places and, they actually believed what they stated. If you recall the 'one that got a way' they portrya the 'bugging incident'. which, was reported when von werra got back to germany.

I think many of the german pilots were well prepared from the actions they had taken part in from Spain through europe so, knew how to get the benefit from their aircraft. Supremaly confident or arrogant was very much a trait of the Luftwaffe high command but, as you saw last night this confidence through victory permeated down to the pilots.
Mitch

I hope they show this programme is shown in the US it was much more indepth than just the British veterans point of view. They also spoke to German veterans, who also thought the 109 was a better plane. Although there was some interesting accounts from the house that the German pilots were held. Every room was bugged and every word they said was reported. One interesting comment I thought was the pilot who said that the 109 was a better machine IF it had the right pilot!
If what was said last night are true, I couldn't believe how disorganised and over confident the Luftwaffe was in comparison to the RAF. Under estimating how many aircraft Britain had, because they weren't sure how many there was to each squadron!

Martin

 

[Combat]

Spitfrnd...
I think this shows how hard it is sometimes for one to make a point across the internet and forums etc like this. My post was benign and cannot see how you came to that conclusion but, you have.
Mitch

I've had similar experiences.

 

[Mitch]

coming up to 6 months on here I am learning this all the time
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

I hope they show this programme is shown in the US it was much more indepth than just the British veterans point of view. They also spoke to German veterans, who also thought the 109 was a better plane. Although there was some interesting accounts from the house that the German pilots were held. Every room was bugged and every word they said was reported. One interesting comment I thought was the pilot who said that the 109 was a better machine IF it had the right pilot!
If what was said last night are true, I couldn't believe how disorganised and over confident the Luftwaffe was in comparison to the RAF. Under estimating how many aircraft Britain had, because they weren't sure how many there was to each squadron!

Martin

I very much do hope it is shown here and look forward to seeing it. While I have trouble understanding why any pilot would favor a 109E over a Spitfire, there is no doubt that fighter pilots tend to rank their own aircraft the best, despite good evidence to the contrary. For example, try and find a F16 jock that thinks the F15 is superior, despite the fact that the F15 clearly has the advantage. It is also true that a great pilot can beat a lesser pilot in any reasonably competitive fighter but there is no doubt than the numbers and comparative contemporary and current pilot impressions favor the early Mark Spitfire. As noted, the few advantages of the 109E were easily countered or of very limited practical effect while those of the Spitfire were not. Besides my own research and impressions, I have yet to find a pilot who has flown both favor the 109E.

Interestingly, the next generation 109F was slightly superior to its Mark V adversary. The Mark V was quite a good fighter but trailed the 109F in climb rate, speed and dive and was more nimble and better armed than the 109E. Of course, the later Mark IX and VIII were in another class when compared to the F or any later 109 variant except the very late war K. Even against the K, the Mark IX could hold its own and the contemporary Mark XIV was vastly superior.

 

[Martin Tabony]

I've never been an aircraft buff but I'm always open to information from those that have made a study, thanks.

Martin

 

[Mitch]

Its rather remarkable that as many hurricanes and spitfires where lost in the BOB but, I will accept what the pilots on the documentary stated and from what I have heard from those men who flew in the battle fighting the 109 say. I believe they would know for certain what it was like to be shot up by the inferior 109 and, while it is always interesting to hear from well read individuals empiracle evidence always is the most valid.

I did state before it winds its way out of control that the spit IMO was the best aircraft of WWII not just in the first thread but in others but, again was commenting from the programme and from pilots who actually flew captured 109's.

The two points are still valid they made about firepower and injection systems and, that was the point alluded to when I informed the forum this show was on.
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Its rather remarkable that as many hurricanes and spitfires where lost in the BOB but, I will accept what the pilots on the documentary stated and from what I have heard from those men who flew in the battle fighting the 109 say. I believe they would know for certain what it was like to be shot up by the inferior 109 and, while it is always interesting to hear from well read individuals empiracle evidence always is the most valid.

I did state before it winds its way out of control that the spit IMO was the best aircraft of WWII not just in the first thread but in others but, again was commenting from the programme and from pilots who actually flew captured 109's.

The two points are still valid they made about firepower and injection systems and, that was the point alluded to when I informed the forum this show was on.
Mitch

There is no winding out of control, just a recitation of facts and opinions. As to empirical evidence, the test results, figures and pilot reports I cited are as valid as you can get. Opinions of some pilots remaining alive after so long are interesting as well and certainly reflect their current impressions. However, apart from the issue of memory, it must be remembered that the RAF pilots in the BoB were largely very young, undertrained, outnumbered and grossly overworked and tired. That they were able to continue to beat the German fighters and bombers over their country for so many days running is one of the most remarkable examples of courage and fighting spirit the world has ever seen; right up there with the Spartan 300 IMHO. Frankly, I think they could have done it in the inferior Hurricane alone but there is NO doubt the Spitfire saved countless numbers of their lives and gave them an edge in combat they so desperately needed. There are many levels of valid but the performance and gunnery numbers on the two aircraft do not lie, nor does the result of the battle.