Best fighter of the Battle of Britain.

[Miggers]

The fact that the Spits were on home turf definitely tilted the odds in their favor. But as someone just said, the Spit was in its infancy while the Bf 109 was halfway through its full potential. As such the 109E may have had a slight edge of the Spit Mk. I back in 1940, an advantage negated by the conditions of battle.

Fast foward to 1944.. the Spit Mk. XIV would wipe the floor with a 109K.

Depends of course,on who was flying the 109K and whether they had the skills or nouce

to use the 109K's performance correctly.

Although I'm a Spit buff,I certainly wouldn't like to have been bounced by a well flown and

accurately gunned 109K in any mark of Spit.

Look at what the likes of Erich Hartmann could do to a Yak 3 with a 109K and using his tactics

to bounce the Yak and put the 109 into it's best firing position.

Personally,I think that the "Which was the best B of B figher"question comes down to basically

the same thing.

Who was flying a particular type at the "snapshot in time" moment of a combat,whether they could

use their particular aircraft's performance to their advantage(tactics)and whether they were a decent shot(gunnery).

There were pilots on both sides who excelled in tactics and gunnery and who practised their "art" both on the ground

(most were superb clay pigeon shooters,Bob Tuck most certainly was)and in the air as often as possible.

Those who were good scored kills and survived,those who weren't were shot down and bailed out at the very best.

Mark

Edited January 17, 2012 by Miggers

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Someone mentioned the magazine that last year did a comparason of fighters in service around the world in 1940. It didn't actually have the Spitfire! It did compare the Hurricane, Bf109E, A6M2, and I think a Hawk 75 and one of the Italian jobs (MC 200 maybe?). Anyway it compared them over a number of factors and concluded that the Bf109E was the best in 1940 with the A6M2 just behind it.

Personally I think there is little to split the Spitfire and Bf109E, I think their relative strengths and weaknesses cancel each other out.

thanks

Mike

[Troy Smith]

a few points to throw in on quick re-read of thread.

the list of top RAF aces has an even spread of Hurricane and Spitfire pilots down the list.

The RAF knew that cannon were better, but were having teething problems with them. 8 x .303 guns that work is better than cannon that don't! The browning was a reliable weapon.

At close range the 8x.303 were lethal, the RAF was notorious for poor gunnery training, not helped by the initial convergence point being 400 yards, later reduced to 250.

The Poles who had combat experience would get much closer, under 100 yds, as they had had to flying the PZL 11 with 4 .303 guns... the Polish units had the highest kills of any RAF unit as a result.

The German Mg-FF cannon had been lightened, and as result had a low muzzle velocity, and was not as dangerous as it could have been.

The British knew what they were doing, the German's didn't.

Ironically, when Leigh-Mallory took over in 1941 the RAF spent a couple of years wasting pilots in the 'Non-Stop Offensive' over France, tying down all of 2 Luftwaffe Jagdschwaders in the process..... while wasting the potential of vast amount of Spitfire squadrons..... bear in mind that in 1942 there were NO Spitfires in the far east and very few in the med, where they might have actually made a difference....

cheers

T

[davidelvy]

Ironically, when Leigh-Mallory took over in 1941 the RAF spent a couple of years wasting pilots in the 'Non-Stop Offensive' over France, tying down all of 2 Luftwaffe Jagdschwaders in the process..... while wasting the potential of vast amount of Spitfire squadrons..... bear in mind that in 1942 there were NO Spitfires in the far east and very few in the med, where they might have actually made a difference....

Unfortunately one of several examples in history where one side adopts the failed tactics of its enemy, arrogantly believing that it will work for them.

At the end of the day the successful pilot will be the one who is able to use his aircraft's advantages and minimise the effect of its shortcomings. The 109 pilot might try to dive onto or away from his enemy. The Hurricane pilot might look for a turning fight where speed would be less important and he would have the advantage in a turn. Working out which was best is hard as it is not simply an arithmetical exercise, adding up the pros and cons. Also, the opinions expressed by the pilots, whilst illuminating, are hardly conclusive. The Germans may have regarded the Hurricane as inferior, but this did not stop Hurricane pilots shooting down 109s.

As a Spitfire fan my vote goes for that beautiful, but deadly aircraft. However, I am ready to acknowledge that in 1940 the availability of the Hurricane was absolutely crucial.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

A few thoughts.

There's an interesting point made in a couple of recent books, that had Hitler just sat back after the fall of France and let Britain stew, the British might just have come to terms with Germany in exchange for having the Empire left alone: The theory being that without any actual direct active threat to the UK, most Brits would problably have just thought, "ah well, that's that over with then, at least we still have the Empire" and regarded Churchill as a bit of loud mouthed warmonger.

But by attacking the UK, Hitler actually roused the British, and enabled Churchill to take on the mantle he now historically wears so well. Personally, from the apathy I see in a lot of my fellow Brits, I can see some possible truth in this theory! But then again Nazi Germany showed itself to be poor at strategic aims on numerous occasions during the war.

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure from what I've read, that the Luftwaffe regarded RAF pilots as far more aggresive than their US counterparts, so perhaps as a nation that old rubric of "he who tweaks the sleeping Lion's tail long enough, eventually gets a bloody big bite" might be rather true.

Fighter wise: I'd say a dead heat 'twixt Spit and BF109; tactical situation, and pilot skill deciding the on-the-day winner. I often wonder how the Hurricane might have faired with an armament of 4 x .50 brownings though? - might have made it an even better bomber "killer' perhaps?

And off to bed...

Cheers

Jonners

[greatgonzo]

The Poles who had combat experience would get much closer, under 100 yds, as they had had to flying the PZL 11 with 4 .303 guns...

Usually only 2. Wing guns were seldom mounted.

[mhaselden]

The Finnish examples were redirected F2A-1's and had the heaviest armament, 4x.50 Brownings (modified from the US version which had 1x.30 and 1x.50 in the cowl and 2x.50 in the wings). The British, Belgian & Dutch examples had the US armament.

Err...that's backwards. The F2A-1s originally had one .30 and one .50 in the nose. They were later up-gunned by adding 2 x 50 cals in the wing. The F2A-2 and all subsequent marks, including the export variants, came "out of the box" with 4x50 cals. One unit in Singapore, 21/453 Sqn, elected to replace the wing guns with .303s to reduce weight and improve aircraft performance.