RE: Battle of Britain

RE: Battle of Britain (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 4:53:42 PM)
The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly.

Orm -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 4:58:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified. 1.5 Bf 110 1.4 Spitfire 1.4 Bf 109 1.2 Hurricane warspite1 But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills. I suspect that there are. But I am equally sure that there are lots of German bombers included in the figures for the British fighters. And the figures claimed are stated as for Battle of Britain. BTW. Are the British raids on German soil included as part of the Battle of Britain.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly. warspite1 Yes but the OP asked what was the best fighter? Under that criteria does the Bf-110 beat the Spitfire and Bf-109 because it was a very good fighter-bomber? Yes it does if those ratios are correct but..... I just don't understand those ratios in the context of the Bf-110's reputation and operational history.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified. 1.5 Bf 110 1.4 Spitfire 1.4 Bf 109 1.2 Hurricane warspite1 But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills. I suspect that there are. But I am equally sure that there are lots of German bombers included in the figures for the British fighters. And the figures claimed are stated as for Battle of Britain. warspite1 Yes and if that is the case and we remove the bombers for all aircraft, we get to just the fighter vs fighter number (the air superiority number) - and unless the Bf-110 kills reduce by more, then I am at a total loss to understand (which is not difficult I know [&:]).

Orm -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified. 1.5 Bf 110 1.4 Spitfire 1.4 Bf 109 1.2 Hurricane warspite1 But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills. It goes against most of what I read as well. But I have a very nice, new, book about the Battle of Britain where the author, who seems very knowledgeable, claim that the Bf 110 was a lot better than its reputation.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified. 1.5 Bf 110 1.4 Spitfire 1.4 Bf 109 1.2 Hurricane warspite1 But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills. It goes against most of what I read as well. But I have a very nice, new, book about the Battle of Britain where the author, who seems very knowledgeable, claim that the Bf 110 was a lot better than its reputation. warspite1 That the Bf-110 was probably better than its reputation I have no problem believing (presumably your book will mention Epro210). But the words and figures differ here and I'd love to know why.

RangerJoe -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:09:49 PM)
The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:11:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better. warspite1 But that is the battle. As the OP said, he didn't want other factors to muddy the waters - but simply which was best; the Spitfire or the Bf-109 (and I assume that he meant as an air superiority fighter).

Orm -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:16:11 PM)
The problem here, I think, is that the Bf 110 is a completely different beast when it is allowed as a high escort, than when it is used as a close escort. And, as we all know, the German fighters were forced into a close escort role by HG so that their bomber pilots would feel safer when they actually saw the escort. No matter that the British, and Polish, and any other nationality on the British side, pilots also saw the escorts and got first strike. Why on earth should one give away the first strike capability to an enemy fighter eludes me. The experience of Joachim Jabs during the Battle of Britain seems relevant. Although he is better than his fellow pilots in that he continues having success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Jabs#Battle_of_Britain

RangerJoe -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:17:24 PM)
The British won, hence their fighters are the best.

Orm -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:20:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better. I would claim that the British won because the battle took place on their turf. If the roles had been reversed and fought mainly on German turf, then I would claim that the German side would win. No way that either side could afford to lose almost every pilot whose plane was lost. The RAF pilots were very often back in a new plane shortly, while the Luftwaffe pilots soon had a long vacation in a camp paid by British tax payers.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The British won, hence their fighters are the best. warspite1 Well yes, if you discount tactics, radar, organisation, repair, the channel, leadership etc etc etc.

Orm -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The British won, hence their fighters are the best. With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war. No offence to the French, or their war effort, intended.

warspite1 -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 5:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better. I would claim that the British won because the battle took place on their turf. If the roles had been reversed and fought mainly on German turf, then I would claim that the German side would win. No way that either side could afford to lose almost every pilot whose plane was lost. The RAF pilots were very often back in a new plane shortly, while the Luftwaffe pilots soon had a long vacation in a camp paid by British tax payers. warspite1 This sadly was proved later in the war when the British fighters were ordered over the channel... with predictable results.

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:15:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: MickM2 My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Good luck. [:D] If you do settle it, maybe you can move on to settle the eternal Yamato class vs Iowa class debate. Agreed. I don't have a 'dog in this fight', so I'd like to offer that: 1. The Tiger was a superior tank to the Sherman 2. The Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk. And therefore the British derived no honour [sic] from her sinking. Same with the Graf Spee.

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain. Please define what you mean by best. Best pilots in that or any other gorsh-danged air force in the whole wide world. And with the ladies.

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Who?

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: MickM2 My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Which was better Spitfire or 109? Hurricanes can also be considered but not 110s. This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance. Which one was best? This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo." warspite1 Sorry but having a best fighter of 1940 competition without the Bf-110, is like going deer hunting without an accordion. [:D]

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:24:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: MickM2 My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Good luck. [:D] If you do settle it, maybe you can move on to settle the eternal Yamato class vs Iowa class debate. Agreed. I don't have a 'dog in this fight', so I'd like to offer that: 1. The Tiger was a superior tank to the Sherman 2. The Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk. And therefore the British derived no honour [sic] from her sinking. Same with the Graf Spee. You left out who won the Battle of Jutland!

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:25:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain. Please define what you mean by best. Best pilots in that or any other gorsh-danged air force in the whole wide world. And with the ladies. Damn straight!

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. Nah. Sorry. That doesn't cut it. No more so than saying that the Soviets made (and really liked) use of the P-39 for ground attack and therefore it should have been in the discussion of the best fighters for use in SoPac. Above 10,000 feet-commonly required for use in SoPac-that thing was a dog. Below 10,000 feet (commonly used on the Eastern Front) for ground attack, it had its charms. Different front and different uses must be part of the discussion. If the discussion involves the best fighter in the Battle of Britain-as the fighter was used in the Battle of Britain-then the record of that airframe in that configuration and usage and employment is how it should be considered. Not some hypothetical spreadsheet about how it coulda/woulda/shoulda been used more effectively. The Bf-110 in the Battle of Britain was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots.

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:34:21 PM)
What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods? No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s.

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods? No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s. To make it fair John III should give the Allies F-8 Sabres and B-47s. [8D]

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch F-8 Sabres Dood. [sm=dizzy.gif][sm=sad-1361.gif][sm=nono.gif]

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war. No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together.

Chickenboy -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 10:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly. To be fair, the Allies in the Pacific Theater had few good dog-fighters. By very definition, the Allied techniques specifically precluded a manuevering fight with Oscars and Zeroes, as that was a losing strategy. The Allies did have a number of great fighters (including later models of the P-38) that performed very well in the A2A arena. "Best fighter" does not = "Best (manuevering) dog-fighter".

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 11:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Orm With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war. No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together. Vichy was an expansion franchise that folded. They weren't playing in the Premier League.

Zorch -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/25/2020 11:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch F-8 Sabres Dood. [sm=dizzy.gif][sm=sad-1361.gif][sm=nono.gif] Be honest - you just wanted to use that smiley.

RangerJoe -> RE: Battle of Britain (7/26/2020 12:31:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Orm The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. Nah. Sorry. That doesn't cut it. No more so than saying that the Soviets made (and really liked) use of the P-39 for ground attack and therefore it should have been in the discussion of the best fighters for use in SoPac. Above 10,000 feet-commonly required for use in SoPac-that thing was a dog. Below 10,000 feet (commonly used on the Eastern Front) for ground attack, it had its charms. Different front and different uses must be part of the discussion. If the discussion involves the best fighter in the Battle of Britain-as the fighter was used in the Battle of Britain-then the record of that airframe in that configuration and usage and employment is how it should be considered. Not some hypothetical spreadsheet about how it coulda/woulda/shoulda been used more effectively. The Bf-110 in the Battle of Britain was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots. I don't think that the Soviets used it for ground attack but as a regular fighter. At least from what I read.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.140625