Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by rebel8303

Am I the only one who thinks that dogfights are more difficult than bombers without escort?

Thats very true, but I would argue that attacking a formation of bombers, while thier escort is attempting to catch you, and with a large amount of flak flying around, is just as difficult as a dogfight. This is the situation that faced many British pilots (in both type of aircraft) during the BoB.

[cheddar cheese]

Since when did British fighter pilots encounter flak during the BoB?

[BombTaxi]

Since it was shooting at the bombers they were trying to intercept. The LW had the same problems over Germany in 44/45. Flak gunners aimed a big box of fire at the bombers, and the fighters ran the risk of catching some if they werent careful. There was, of course, no way to make sure that the flak gunners stopped firing for each fighter pass.

[cheddar cheese]

Oh right

[Cheap Labour]

To which there was a forever ongoing battle, with the Flak gunners saying they were more effective and that the fighters needed to stay away in flak zones, then the pilots saying that THEY were more effective and then flak needed to stop whenever fighters were around. "just look at how many more we shoot down than you flak-types!" to which the flak gunners would say "yes, but look how many people and planes you're losing, stretching the resources of the fatherland" blah blah blah blah.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

yes perhaps the fact that the hurricane shot down 65% of all aircraft shot down during the entire battle (including ground defences) will turn a few votes towards the hurricane...............

Yes the Hurricane was a good gun platform, however if you wanted to survive the battle the Spitfire was the better choice.

You were twice as likely to be killed flying a Hurricane, than flying a Spitfire.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by Cheap Labour

The Spitfire had a higher top speed and I'd trust it more in a turning fight than that cow of a fighter the Hurricane.

The Hurricanes main fault was her top speed, in a turning fight, she could take on anybody, including the Spitfire.

I'm convinced that these "kills" that we get for posting are based on BoB scores by RAF pilots. Terribly bloated and most unconfirmed.

Well at least they weren't as bad as the Luftwaffe claims during the BoB, they were even worse


ps, nit-picking time
The poll lists the Beaufighter. The Beaufighter did not become operational until after the battle

[rebel8303]

Could a figher fire at a bomber out of the range of its defensive guns during BoB? I mean later I know that later LW used fighters with greater range to take out the rear gunners but did the British had this option during BoB?

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by rebel8303

Could a figher fire at a bomber out of the range of its defensive guns during BoB? I mean later I know that later LW used fighters with greater range to take out the rear gunners but did the British had this option during BoB?

Theoretically, yes. But in practice, it was common for pilots of all nations to get as close as possible to the target before opening fire, hence the phrase, "Wait 'til you see the whites of thier eyes!" Even against the USAAFs combat boxes, the LW stuck to this. The Mk108 cannon was in fact highly ineffective at anything other than point blank range, requiring the pilot to get in close before firing.

[rebel8303]

"Wait 'til you see the whites of thier eyes!"

Oh **** this was bad!!! Now I can fully understand how usefull are the machine guns on the bombers...

[rebel8303]

At least this was not so nesecary when hunting a swordfish. Was it?

They just managed to escape... by flying very low above the sea.

I 've read that once, a swordfish was being hunt down by an italian fighter - I dunno the type - and the back gunner of the swordfish ,in a moment of dispair, threw a flare to the fighter that scared the italian pilot and managed to escape.

[Cheap Labour]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Well at least they weren't as bad as the Luftwaffe claims during the BoB, they were even worse

Incorrect.
I seem to recall the Germans being very meticulous in their claims. Luftwaffe records show their claims being much closer to actual numbers than RAF records.

Between August 11 and August 24, Fighter Command claimed to have shot down 636 Enemy A/C. A mere 113 of those were seen to crash on land. Fighter Command's explanation was that the remainder had come down in the sea.

Also note that the armament of German fighters was much better suited to killing aircraft than that of British fighters. The 20mm MG FF cannons carried by the 109 and 110 were capable of delivering catastrophic damage with a single hit, whereas German bombers would return to base with an excess of 500 .303 bullet holes found in them. It's also unrealistic to say that the majority of German bombers were shot down because of dead pilots, regardless of the exposed glass noses, because the majority of RAF attacks came in from the stern or beam.

British aircraft, attacking in vic formation, all hammering away at the same bomber, would all and claim the same kill as theirs - all being in complete honesty. It's just the aggresive and swirling nature of air combat.

To the close of the battle, the German assessment of the RAF being down to 100 fighters was more due to an underestimation of the British ability to construct fighters, and an overestimation of the German bombing damage.

Had British fighters been armed with the 20mm guns found in later models of Spitfires and Hurricans (especially the 4 20mm of the Hurrican II, what a wallop!) then their number of claims might have been realistic. The reality is that bringing down a sodding great dirty Heinkel with .303 is as much luck as skill.

[johnny]

1 lousy vote for the Defiant!!!

[johnny]

Can I vote as many times as I want?

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by johnny

1 lousy vote for the Defiant!!!

1 more than it deserves, IMO.