BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Ach, "Bigmouth strikes again"

Once more, it is the *Evil Englishmans* *TM* fault. I'm getting 'gang banged' as well.

Good points made by a few (particularity Blackdog, I respect and admire your intelligent input) The truth is that I literally do not have the strength any more. I literally CANNOT BE BOTHERED. Go over tae Pakistan, Good Irishman, don't see a lot of you there.

Yer talking tae a Geordie, Bonny Lad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtJeI4Q9nBE

Peace be with you!

Yes, I come in peace, as me Fatha did before me

[dduff442]

In order to further the cause of understanding between nations I'll acknowledge that it took courage for Britain to refuse the peace (i.e. on German terms) offered by Hitler. The Battle of Britain is one of the headline moments in recent British history and the courage of the airmen and fortitude of the civilians should not be discounted.

The defining trauma of modern Britain was the Somme, however. These battles have different meanings to different people but it's Paschendaele, Ypres, Mons and the Somme that resonate most deeply today for most.

dduff

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by kendo65

...and just when I'd nailed Sternjaeger with my devastating logic ...
Anyone want to get this thing back on track?

Hey, what about me?

As it happens, I had the opportunity to watch James Holland's broadcast again last night.
On a second viewing, I wasn't as impressed as on the first.
I found myself wondering whether the Luftwaffe pilot's diary was genuine, as the paper looked brand new. Not another 'Hitler's Diary' thing, surely?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.

Also, the description of the 109's undoubted firepower was a bit misleading, as he made no distinction between the cannon's duration of fire relative to the m/g's, or the relative hitting power of eight m/g's relative to two once the cannon shells were gone, or how long two m/g's would need to be on target relative to eight in order to deliver the same punch.
I appreciate of course that it only takes one bullet to kill the pilot, or hole the cooling system, but the comparison was regarding firepower.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Hey, what about me?

Ok, we'll 'share the glory'

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

As it happens, I had the opportunity to watch James Holland's broadcast again last night.
On a second viewing, I wasn't as impressed as on the first.
I found myself wondering whether the Luftwaffe pilot's diary was genuine, as the paper looked brand new. Not another 'Hitler's Diary' thing, surely?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.

I have it on tape myself - may well watch it again.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Also, the description of the 109's undoubted firepower was a bit misleading, as he made no distinction between the cannon's duration of fire relative to the m/g's, or the relative hitting power of eight m/g's relative to two once the cannon shells were gone, or how long two m/g's would need to be on target relative to eight in order to deliver the same punch.
I appreciate of course that it only takes one bullet to kill the pilot, or hole the cooling system, but the comparison was regarding firepower.

I'm still slightly of the opinion that the 109 was just ahead in 1940 - for the two reasons of fuel injection and cannon. As you say though there are many factors to take into account in comparing the armament.

Also, I know that the Merlin was fitted out with some device that largely remedied the negative g issue, but not sure if that was done before the end of the battle?

Fortunately whatever slight (technical) edge the 109 may have had it was not of a sufficient degree to be anywhere near decisive - the deciding factors in most situations being pilot skill and the tactical situation. Any reasonably experienced British pilot would maximise the superior turn rate of their aircraft and half roll to dive after 109s.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Also, I know that the Merlin was fitted out with some device that largely remedied the negative g issue, but not sure if that was done before the end of the battle?

'Miss Schillings Orifice' didn't appear until March 1941 as far as I can tell.
Beatrice Schilling was a scientist at Farnborough and designed a modification to the carburettor float amounting to a hole the size of a 'threepenny bit' punched through the float.
Having to invert prior to steep dives was necessary right up to this point.

I don't necessarily disagree about the 'Spit v 109' argument, but like I said previously, it depends on which yardstick you judge them by.
Using the 109's machine guns for sighting deflection shots prior to using the cannon would make a devastating combination. 55 seconds worth would allow for a great deal of sighting for cannon accuracy, assuming that the Spit or Hurri wasn't already beginning to use its tighter turning circle to make any deflection shot more and more difficult.
As a combination of weapons for a bounce attack without being observed....well I find out about this for myself all the time when online.

[kendo65]

The great thing is we're going to get the chance to check it out ourselves in 'x' months.



For optimists x=3
For pessimists x=6
For Tree x=15

sorry Tree

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

'Miss Schillings Orifice' didn't appear until March 1941 as far as I can tell.
Beatrice Schilling was a scientist at Farnborough and designed a modification to the carburettor float amounting to a hole the size of a 'threepenny bit' punched through the float.
Having to invert prior to steep dives was necessary right up to this point.

I don't necessarily disagree about the 'Spit v 109' argument, but like I said previously, it depends on which yardstick you judge them by.
Using the 109's machine guns for sighting deflection shots prior to using the cannon would make a devastating combination. 55 seconds worth would allow for a great deal of sighting for cannon accuracy, assuming that the Spit or Hurri wasn't already beginning to use its tighter turning circle to make any deflection shot more and more difficult.
As a combination of weapons for a bounce attack without being observed....well I find out about this for myself all the time when online.

From listening to a number of WWII fighter pilot interviews, it seems they were very afraid of the planes they DID NOT see. Conversely, they tried to sneak up on unwary opponents. I heard one recently say that the first time he knew, psychologically, that he was in combat was when his wingman was suddenly shot down and he never saw the enemy that did it, even after the fact. The same guy also said that it seemed like half the kills came when the victim never saw the enemy.

If that was the case, and I have no doubt it was, it would seem that maximum fire power at close range was the best thing an attacking fighter pilot could hope for.

With that being the case, I would choose two cannon over 8 .303's for maximum damage in a short period of time. Both were effective, but that would be a preference.

Splitter

cripes, I didnt visit the forum for a few days and look what happens.. it's a shame, it was such an interesting topic, but some bigot had to come in and ruin it..

feel free to PM me to continue the conversation guys.

SJ

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I need to apologise, to all and sundry.

I am truly sorry, I had a few Ales, and I HURT PEOPLE......I'M A D*CK *Parental Advisory video by the way*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvMduWKHNpY

Please forgive me Gentlemen, ach....What Evil have I done??

*Hangs head in shame*

[winny]

It's cool. I was just being over zealous
I decided to delete my earlier posts in this thread.
No hard feelings.

A Geordie drinking? Whatever next?