Best Battle of Britain Aircraft (1 Viewer)

Best Battle of Britain aircraft?


  • Total voters
    273

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If we are going to talk about top turret fighters, I simply can not understand how anyone could possibly forget to place the magnificent Blackburn Roc into contention, let alone putting it right up there where it belongs, on a shelf right next to the Boulten Paul Defiant. On a shelf indeed. Could it be because it didn't really contribute to the BoB?

Ooh I forgot the Blackburn RocK :lol:

The Roc and the Defiant belonged on a shelf right next to the saucepans they collected for scrap aluminium to make Spitfires. The saucepans ended up being turned into new saucepans which is about all the RocK was good for.
 
Thank you Fast, I thought you'd forgotten our baby... :D You'd never see that sort of misfire in the aviation industry of the good ole USA! except perhaps our own little 'cuda' adventure.
 

Attachments

  • Bell Airacuda.jpg
    Bell Airacuda.jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 84
Last edited:
I dont think it is at all possible to separate the efforts of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Both were needed to defeat the Luftwaffe. One may have achieved more shoot downs than the other, but that is not to say the other, less capable type was still not an important element for victory. It is entirely plausible to say that whilst the germans were busy pursuing the lesser performing aircraft, the better aircraft was busy chasing down and shooting down the germans. Without that less capable aircraft, the other, more capable aircraft would have, itself, become a target.

In the end, the british victory came down to numbers. the more fighters it could get in the air, the better chance they stood of suviving. Eliminating hurricane production anytime from 1938 onward would have afected that availability of airframes.

The Germans maintained their 109 and 190 production for similar reasons.
 
Pars. I started off with exactly the same thesis you eloquently describe above: that the Hurricane was, because of its inferior performance relative to the Spitfire and Bf-109 perhaps not as an essential component of the ultimate victory. I assumed that the Spitfire was a necessary accomplice to the victory, no matter how many aircraft the Hurricane downed, simply because the Spit kept the Bf-109's off the back of the Hurricanes. In this belief, I neglected to consider the considerable advantages of a fleet of aircraft whose performance, while not superior was basically competive with that of the Bf-109 and that had in addition, considerable logistical advantages over both more modern aircraft. The Hurricane was easier to fly and a most stable gun platform, more suitable to the limited skills of a cadre of hastily trained and operationally inexperienced pilot replacements who filled the gaps during this extended battle of attrition. I also failed to adequately appreciate the suitability to these same raw recruits of the RAF tactic of employing large rigid formations; what the Luftwaffe pilots dubbed Idiotenreihen translated as rows of idiots. An accurate observation but one that failed to recognize the effectiveness of the tactic for its perpetrators. I also came to understand that 5 Hurricanes could be built for every two Spitfires lost. Thus its losses put less strain on the wartime economy and were easier and more quickly replaced. I came to understand the widely held opinion that the Hurricane was irreplaceable for victory in the BoB but not the Spitfire and the Hawker aircraft was indeed the fighter that won the Battle of Britain. I love the Spitfire and this initialy seemed a bitter pill to swallow, but the Spit had a long and varied career and won many combat laurels to give it the immortality it's beauty and inflight-elegance suggest
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back