Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted !

[Soren]

There are also numerous sites who show the squadrons of 1940.

This one for example:

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co....squadrons.html

Btw Cheddar Cheese even the site you quoted actually has 19 Spit squadrons !

[cheddar cheese]

There, wasnt so hard was it? Now why wouldnt you give the sources like that to pD?... :wink

[Soren]

He is very rude, thats why.

[cheddar cheese]

Makes sense.

The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.

As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

=S=

Lunatic

[Napier Sabre]

Thing that always struck me as odd was the way in which nobody addressed the fact that in the early Marks (primarily I and II) one bullet in the glycol tank under the nose, could bring the plane down. Seems it wasn't that big a problem, still seems like tempting fate to me.

[Soren]

The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.

I absolutely agree

As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The cannons would run out quickly yes, but not the cowl mounted 7.9mm Machine guns ! Infact the German pilot could hold his finger on the trigger much longer than a Spitfire pilot

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............

[cheddar cheese]

Definately not....

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by plan_D

According to you every history book states 19, yet two other people have said otherwise not including me.
I'll go with 15, as it says each squadron. You're a moron, Soren...it's so beautiful that it rolls off the tongue.

If you were alone in a room "plan D" you would pick an argument with yourself

Spitfire Squadrons in Fighter Commands order of battle July 1st 1940.
Nos,64, 610, 65, 74, 54, 92, 234, 609, 19, 66, 266, 611, 222, 616, 41, 72, 152, 603, 602.

19 Squadrons in total

source, Stephen Bungay 'the Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain'.

[Udet]

RG:

Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.

I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.

The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.

I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.

I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.

[KraziKanuK]

The 109s were doing OK in BOB until they were ordered to fly close escort to the bombers.

Udet, not all RAF fighters squadrons were engaged in BOB. Only 11 Group squadrons were really engaged with some support from squadrons from 10 and 12 Groups bordering 11 Group. 13 Group was too far north.

LW bomber losses were high enough to force the LW to abandon daylight attacks and go to night attacks. The USSAF never abandoned daylight attacks.

A link worth looking at, http://www.altus.af.mil/History/historycombat.htm

Ignore the claims.

Originally Posted by Napier Sabre

Thing that always struck me as odd was the way in which nobody addressed the fact that in the early Marks (primarily I and II) one bullet in the glycol tank under the nose, could bring the plane down. Seems it wasn't that big a problem, still seems like tempting fate to me.

The same thing was true of the 109 and most other liquid cooled designs. A single hit to the coolant system could bring the plane down within 5 minutes or less. Later 109's were able to shut off one radiator side if it was hit to retain engine function (at reduced power limits), and later P-51's had semi-self sealing cooling system elements (of limited value).

This is why, in general, I think radial designs were superior to liquid cooled designs.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by Soren

The cannons would run out quickly yes, but not the cowl mounted 7.9mm Machine guns ! Infact the German pilot could hold his finger on the trigger much longer than a Spitfire pilot

Sure, but that was only two 7.9 mm guns - pretty weak firepower. And the Spitfires could land, rearm and refuel, and be back in the fight quickly, the 109's had to go all the way back to France. An escort fighter needs a larger ammo supply than an interceptor.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............

Ideal? Certainly not. They weren't "ideal" for fighter combat against WWII class opponents either. But, eight .303's were sufficent to destroy German bombers, which were not that resiliant, even if the were not "ideal".

=S=

Lunatic