Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008 From: Sweden Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
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 ).
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008 From: Sweden Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015 From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part. Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).” ― Julia Child
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
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).
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008 From: Sweden Status: offline
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.
Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008 From: Sweden Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
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.
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.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
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.
My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition.
Good luck.
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.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
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.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
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.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
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".
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.
Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015 From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part. Status: offline
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.
_____________________________
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).” ― Julia Child