Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

MP-Willow · 01-26-2006, 03:46 PM

I would pick the Hurricaine or the Baughfighter. Both were available in the numbers needed with good pilots.

The Me-110 might have been the best German plane, but I realy like the He-111, if it would have only got better engines and armor, why it was never realy improved on I wounder about.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-28-2006, 08:29 AM

The Bf-110 better than the the Bf-109E during the BoB? It was not better than a Bf-109 at anypoint except for maybe the B, C, D models of the Bf-109.

MP-Willow · 01-30-2006, 09:25 PM

Ok so maybe I am streching it over the 109E, but that plane did not have the legs, if they could have given her more rang, and kept the guns and aginity. But the me 109E was untill the K my favorite type.

I say the 110 because it could stay with the bombers longer, not that it could protect any better, the Hurricaines could get around them and take alot of lead while they were downing he-111s and Do-17s.

Hunter368 · 01-30-2006, 10:41 PM

I would say it has to be a draw between the 109 and Spitfire. Now at the time everyone knew that the 109 was a great great fighter (best in the world at the time) but not everyone knew how good the Spitfire was until its real first big debut in BoB (it had only saw very limited action up until then). So I say a draw between 109 and Spitfire but the Spitfire gets alittle bit of a honorable mention b/c it was not really a proven fighter up until then. After BoB everyone knew the Spitfire was the real deal then.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-04-2006, 05:15 AM

The 109 was never really intended to have a long range, just like the Spitfire. It was meant for the short ranges required for the mainland Europe. Now having said that I do believe that they shoudl have designed it to have a greater range.

plan_D · 02-04-2006, 12:40 PM

Strictly with the benefit of hindsight; the Bf-109 should have had a longer range. But the Luftwaffe, nor the OKW, knew that a strategic bomber campaign would be needed with escort. Even in Britain, America and Russia the idea of the "bomber will always get through" ran rampant.

On top of that, the Luftwaffe was never a strategic air force. It was a combat and tactical air force, it would even be stretching it to say that it was operational. They aimed more for battlefield destruction, which required aircraft capable of support close to the front line. The Bf-109 was perfect for this job.

The Spitfire was a purely defensive fighter, just like the English Electric Lightning.

MP-Willow · 02-04-2006, 03:09 PM

So, Plan_D what we need is a new fighter, the Spitfire, was ever changing and did get some longer legs in the end. The bf 109 was not a fortunite and the program stalled, with so meny feild kits and armor that it did not have a chance, until the 109k.

the bbf 209 was a good start. It is sad as much as I love the bombers they realy did need an escort, but leadership thought they could hold the line.

plan_D · 02-04-2006, 03:22 PM

The only reason the Bf-109 never received longer range was because by 1943 the need for range had pratically vanished. In the West, the Luftwaffe was turning on the defensive to hold up the Allied air forces in which a capable interceptor was needed. In the East, the tactical and combat minds of the Luftwaffe were very much still high in the minds of the thinkers. The Luftwaffe was always a tactical air force.

The Spitfire did, near the end, achieve greater ranges. But that was largely due to the changing situation of the war and the adaptation of the Spitfire to those changes was required. Had the Spitfire and Bf-109 been in the opposing air forces (109 in RAF, Spitfire in Luftwaffe) it would be an exact reverse.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-05-2006, 08:20 AM

I agree and I think you pretty much summed it up there pD.

MP-Willow · 02-11-2006, 06:21 PM

well now what if the RAF had the 109, would things have been different? Could it have been used for anything? Or could they have found a way to develop it for range, as that ever elusive bomber escort they needed?

FLYBOYJ · 02-11-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP-Willow

well now what if the RAF had the 109, would things have been different? Could it have been used for anything? Or could they have found a way to develop it for range, as that ever elusive bomber escort they needed?

RAF with 109s?!? Ha - When Goering asked Galland what he needs to defeat the RAF his reply was "A squadron of Spitfires."

plan_D · 02-12-2006, 02:45 PM

If the RAF had Bf-109s then their development would have shadowed the REAL development of Spitfires, the range would have been increased. But it would have nowhere near been along the lines to make the Bf-109 an escort fighter.

It's simple, a planes development in wartime follows the needs of the war you're waging. The British needed interceptors at the start, so interceptors they had. When the war dragged on their beloved Spitfire needed extra range - so extra range it got.

Germany began the war with nearby enemies, allowing the air force to follow the ground combat. The fighters could move from airfield to airfield on the advance. This meant the Bf-109s didn't need range. When the Battle of Britain began it was quickly realised the long-range escort fighters (Bf-110s) were poor, and needed their own escort fighters. But by the time the need was realised, it was too late and Germany needed interceptors to hold off the increasing bomber offensive from the RAF and USAAF. So, the Bf-109 never needed an extent in range.

Would it have been different with the Germans in Spitfires and RAF in Bf-109s? No.

MP-Willow · 02-17-2006, 08:10 PM

Plan_D, I can agree with that, I wanted to ask the question, just to know what people would think.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-07-2006, 02:46 AM

I can agree with pd as well.

MP-Willow · 03-07-2006, 06:14 PM

Ok, I gess I am just a beleaver in a long reach.