BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain
 

Hi All,

Just finished watching this fine programme - for me definitely the pick of the bunch of the BBC's BOB season.

Provocative and very well informed. As someone who knows his way around the standard story of the battle pretty well there was enough here to really keep me engrossed and a few nuggets that were genuinely new to me.

Better quality of archive footage than usual as well - some great aerial footage of 109s especially.

He also made a pretty convincing argument [starting at ~34mins] that the 109 was the best fighter in 1940 - and yes I have heard ALL the arguments before.

Viewable on BBC iPlayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...he_Real_Story/
though I believe unfortunately not accessible for non-UK residents :(

Highly recommended.

Yes, surprisingly the British pilot and the commentator conclude that the Bf109e was the better fighter. British pilot argumented that 109 was superior due to the fuel injection engine and it's dominance during dogfight, it could always outdive the British fighters.

Other argument was the time of fire is 3x times more for the 109. Shown was the small .303 bullet, which was called pea shooter in comparison with the canon shells from the 109.

No arguments/surprises at all just facts.

Both sides had political agendas and had to convince their citizens that they had superior machinery and men than their enemy.

If you happen to believe the propaganda your country is telling you then you will have a false uninformed opinion, the thing I find surprising is that 70 years later this seems to still be the case.

IMHO

Absolutely true.
Until this programme was broadcast there were only a privileged few, in the UK particularly, who knew the real story, free of jingoist propaganda.
Most of these people will have read 'The Most Dangerous Enemy', and not just once.
It was highly gratifying to see a programme that told the story in an objective light for a change.
The Germans had the equipment, the numbers and the pilot's personal drive, but had the worst kind of amateurish leadership, and an inadequate manufacturing and training capacity. They also made strategic and tactical mistakes.
The British had the most efficient and effective airborne defence system in the world, led by professional soldiers, who knew the value of staff rotation as opposed to 'The Warrior Ethic', and had a manufacturing and training capacity to ensure continuity.
It wasn't simply about whether the Spitfire was better than the 109, or simply whether German pilots were 'superior' to RAF pilots, but about the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect.
Hugh Dowding and Keith Park should be as lauded in the UK as Nelson and Drake.
It's a shame that politics dictated otherwise; and to those in the know, this will remain a continued embarrassment.
A very, very good broadcast.

Does it really come as a surprise to you guys? The Spitfire winning the Battle of Britain is propaganda chowder, professional historians know that the Me109 was an overall superior fighter. The Battle of Britain was lost only because of the white dressed fat ba$tard (no, not Elvis..).

as for the show it was very good, but I though Holland was be a bit rude when he kept on interrupting the other guests..

Oh, sorry, maybe it was all about the aeroplanes after all.
So why did they lose again?

Surley it was about all these things? To different degrees certainly, but all contributed. And loads of other little factors that just tipped the balance in the UK's favour, tactics, fatigue, morale, quality of pilots.

One thing really came across in the programe and that was just how scared some of the Germans were at the sight of Spitfires, so psychology comes into it too..

I agree about the 109's being superior at that time, just look at what happened in '41-'42 when the Brits had to fight over German territory.

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

Yes, you're quite right in all the above except maybe the tactics and the 109 bit.
If you re-read my first post, it says 'the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect', which encompasses all of your points.
Tactics-wise, the RAF initially utilised tight 'Vic' formations as opposed to the German's 'schwarm', which led to a lot of early RAF losses when 'bounced'. They also had guns harmonised at an ineffective distance. They soon learned to alter both.
Whether the 109 was a better fighter? Well Tom Neil, who has been quoted, was a Hurricane pilot during the battle, and presumably was comparing the 109 to the Hurri, but this wasn't made clear in the programme.
Sure, the 109 had fuel injection and cannon, and the machine guns (not the cannon) carried 55 seconds of ammo, but there were only two of them. This is the same rate of fire as the 8 Brownings on the British planes.
It's well documented that the Hurri could out-turn the 109, and the Spit was more agile and could also out-turn it.
So the superiority of any of these fighters depends entirely on which yardstick you measure them by.
Certainly plenty of 109's were shot down by Hurricanes, so......