Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by plan_D

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.

Well put.

[MP-Willow]

Ok, so I am shot down. But with this question of fighters I would have thought that some one in the Air cores would have been pushing escort fighters? I know that it was not the majority view, but people must have been talking about it?

[plan_D]

The Luftwaffe considered their Bf-110 capable of escort duty until the Battle of Britain. And then it was too late on the offensive missions over Britain because the RAF had acquired absolute air superiority. On the Eastern Front it was just like the earlier actions, and the Bf-109s had range enough to accompany the bombers on their raids.

In the RAF, the idea of the self-defending bomber formations were still in the mind even in 1940. And by the time the RAF realised that bombers cannot defend themselves, they'd already switched to the night where enemy interception was very rare. It wasn't until the Germans had increased their night interception ability that the RAF needed an escort , and they found one in the Mosquito.

The USAAF were determined to stay in the day , so they were the only nation to really require an escort fighter. That is why they got so many.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap and I dont care what anyone says, without the escort fighters the USAAF bombers never would have survived long eneogh and eventually they too would have gone to night bombing.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hence why all the defensive guns on the american heavies was normally useless, if you're on your own or even in a formation without escort, you are going to get shot down in large numbers, no ammount of guns will save you, nor will the fire of other guns, the fighter has every advantage and can pick and chose when to shot you down.........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree as well, however if I were a bomber guy I would still feel better with the defensive armament that the B-17 and B-24 had compared to other bombers that I will not mention so as not to get into a long and lengthy discussion again. I dont want to have to come to your aid again in that particular thread.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I dont want to have to come to your aid again in that particular thread

when did you come to my aid!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

When syscom was all over you.

Im kidding lanc, calm down.

[Twitch]

The defensive armament of the American heavies certainly was not useless. at least fifty calibers could actually take out an enemy fighter unlike .30s and .303s. No German pilot I've talked to ever discounted the danger of wading in to a bomber box with dozens of guns aimed at him. They didn NOT considerit a piece of cake.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the fact remains that it didn't stop them being shot down in large numbers..............

[loomaluftwaffe]

what about the flak? wasn't it just as useful as the sturmjagers?

[Twitch]

While unescorted heavies were shot down they gave it back pretty well too. Zestroyers were lost in noticable amounts on various intercept missions. The Luftwaffe losses weren't excessive but who wants to be a statistic? You simply can't attack from 6 o'clock and wade into several cross-covering box formations and not emerge unscathed while 150+ .50s are trained on you.

While on the Schweinfurt mission 3 Thunderbolts were lost defending the Big Friends. Fifty-nine B-17s went down over the Reich’s airspace. Six others were destroyed near of over England from ditching or bailouts. Another seventeen were damaged so badly that they would never fly again. Only fifty planes received no damage of the 257 that made it over Germany’s airspace.

The Luftwaffe lost 38 fighters. That's more than 2 squadrons worth of planes! Not unreconcilable but not a pittance either.

[loomaluftwaffe]

wow... how close was the campaign to actually being stopped? when a whole fleet doesn't make it back?

[carpenoctem1689]

Flak wasnt as useful, because there were means of disabling the radars that ranged the flak, the guns often werent concentrated enough (with many notable exceptions, but you couldnt cover all of germany with guns, but you could with planes moving at 100s of miles per hour). Flak, mainly the 88 was a good weapon and certainly could reach up and strike the formations of heavys, but B-17s and B-24s could take alot of damage, and flak is just small bits of metal moving at high-speeds due to an explosive 88mm in this case shell. It would take a direct hit on the aircraft, the death of pilot and co-pilot, or severe flap or engine damage to bring down a bomber of the size of the heavies. Also, in such a large formation, the odds you will hit the same bomber more than once are slim, making repeated near miss bring downs much less likely, they needed fighters and flak coordinated for maximum effectiveness.

[loomaluftwaffe]

what about losses on the German Side?