Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.
The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.
Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.
Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.
Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.
The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.
Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.
Splitter
|