Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

elmilitaro · 09-12-2005, 08:22 PM

The hurricane was probably the best aircraft during the Battle of Britain.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-13-2005, 01:01 PM

I disagree. If you go of actuall aircraft ability the Spitfire and Bf-109E with the 109E having the slight edge over the Spitfire at the time.

Gnomey · 09-13-2005, 03:07 PM

Watched a program on the Battle of Britain this morning; while mentioning nothing about the comparitive pros and cons of the aircraft involved, one quote from a Spitfire Test Pilot goes as follows: "The Spitfire could have won the battle without the Hurricane but the Hurricane could not have won the battle without the Spitfire". This apart they did complement each other well the Spitfire's taking on the 109's and the Hurricane's the bombers. Everybody on the program accepted the fact that the British could not have won the battle without RDF (Radar). Could the Hurricane have won the Battle of Britain without the Spitfire? Discuss.

I personally agree with the Test Pilot, the Hurricane needed the Spitfire but the Spitfire didn't neccessarily need the Hurricane.

plan_D · 09-14-2005, 01:33 AM

I think if the Hurricanes replaced all the Spitfires we still would have won. It was the Luftwaffe's change of targets that saved the RAF in the south. The Bf-109E didn't have an easy time with the Hurricane, far from it. And the fights would still take place around the bomber formations leaving the Hurricanes open to attack the bombers while the fighters tried to get them away.

Yes, in my opinion, if the Spitfire squadrons were made up of Hurricanes instead we could have still won. The same applies, in my mind, to the opposite with Spitfires. If Spitfires were all we had, in the same numbers as Hurricanes, we could have won.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 08:25 AM

I agree somewhat. If all the aircraft had been Hurricanes the Germans still would have lost because of the change of targets but with overwelming numbers of 109E's the Hurricanes eventually would have been all but destroyed had the German bombers still attacked the factories and not the cities. If all the aircraft had been Spitfires I think it would have been differently because the German bombers were too vulnerable. In the end though I agree that the British radar is what really saved the day and the German change of targets.

schwarzpanzer · 09-14-2005, 09:08 AM

I'd say it was down to radar and American fuel IMHO.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 09:15 AM

Radar definatly.

schwarzpanzer · 09-14-2005, 09:26 AM

A point people forget here is that the Hurricane was hard, it could take off from bombed airfields and the only way to surely down one was to kill the pilot.

The armaments we have gone into on another thread (ish) the 20mm on the Me109 had a really low RoF compared to the Brownings (which were more than adequate) and would be hard for a novice to use, however the Me had been around since -36, a factor IMHO.

A similar problem was in Russia - novices liked the Hurris 8x.303, experienced (foreign) pilots preferred the Soviet planes armament (similar to Me109).

You could push a Spit (wing loading & fuel), and if you got shot down, so what? - Not so for the 109!

Also if you gave me a choice of fuel 60RON or 87RON, I know which I'd choose!

trackend · 09-14-2005, 09:41 AM

The biggest single factor has to be time over target the British had much more air time available when beating off attacks the 109's operational time over England was very limited before they had to head for home
although numbers looked to be in the Germans favour this was offset by combat time over the UK.
I still like the Spite but also recognise the Hurries as being the backbone of the UK's air defense squadrons.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackend

The biggest single factor has to be time over target the British had much more air time available when beating off attacks the 109's operational time over England was very limited before they had to head for home
although numbers looked to be in the Germans favour this was offset by combat time over the UK.
I still like the Spite but also recognise the Hurries as being the backbone of the UK's air defense squadrons.

That is deffinatly true. The 109's could only protect the bombers for a short time and then they were on there own.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-08-2005, 12:36 PM

Yeah, that is very true, and we all know what happens to a He-111 against a spitfire, or hurricane armed with eight 7.7 mm machine guns, or the various 20mm and 7.7 mm armament mixtures carried.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-08-2005, 12:40 PM

Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.

FLYBOYJ · 10-08-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.

Perhaps as a bomber destroyer, uprating their engines and the installation of wing guns, possible, but I don't know if the effort would of been worth it, I would of opted to just build more Hurricanes....

Gnomey · 10-08-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

Does anyone besides myself think that the british could have better used the boulton paul defiant? If the airframe were lightended somewhat, or then engine uprated, and two wing guns installed, it would have been valuable in the battle of britain. After the escorting fighters went home for lack of fuel, the defiants could have streamed in under the bombers, and that four gun turret could have wreaked havoc on the bottom sides of the He-111s, and Do-17s. Considering how slow the 111 was fully loaded, the defiant would be able to catch it before and after bombs were released. This was just a thought i had when i read about the inetresting boulton paul turret fighter.

Perhaps as a bomber destroyer, uprating their engines and the installation of wing guns, possible, but I don't know if the effort would of been worth it, I would of opted to just build more Hurricanes....

I'd agree FBJ, I'd much rather have more Hurricanes (and Spitfires) than Defiants. It was an interesting concept that failed.

Carpenoctem: I think they could have been better employed by the British, not sure exactly how though (how about not building them?). The Defiants where in a way a bit like the 110 could deal with bombers OK but could not deal with single engined fighters.