Thoughts ?

[KG26_Alpha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj...TQoBY2ZjMyNgPO

[5./JG27.Farber]

Seen this before. I think the snippets of comments are based on pilot ability but are cut down and are not complete and must be taken with salt.

The spit and the 109 were very close in performance. Later on it was an arms race.

I think the major point of this documentary is "the luftwaffe dictated the terms" because they were usually higher in the BoB. This is especially interesting for all you radar fans!

The guy presenting the documentary is a c$%^, hes patronising the the RAF guy and going on about the size of shells.... Ive seen the rest of this documentary...

Its two different methods, 8 machnine guns or two cannons and 2 MG's... They both work just you have to implement them differently.

There are allot better documentaries than this but it is interesting...

[Pudfark]

My thoughts are?
If there's nothing to read substantive?
Might as well be entertained

[Skoshi Tiger]

There really wasn't anything that hasn't been said before.

Planes (at this stage) were close in performance - so close that success was more an issue of individual pilot skill than aircraft performance. If you use the stengths of your aircraft and exploit the weeknesses of your opponent you will have an advantage. The Germans always had a height advantage because they were the ones that initiated combat. The British were reacting to their raids and were climbing to meet them.

Spitfire +'s good manuverability and handling
easy to fly

-v'es negative G cutout
no cannons.

109 +'ves - no negative g cuttout
good dive speed

-'ves less manuverable
limited time in combat area

If we look at the cannon issue, The British did not have a mature weapon system developed in time for the Battle of Britain, simple as that. So they stuck with the proven system they had at the time (eight colt/brownings)

Why didn't the British go for a more proven cannon design like the German gun's?

Muzzle velocity. The Hispano Cannon had a initial velocity of about 880m/s compared to the german MG FF at 550-700m/s. The Hispano had a lot flatter trajectory and less time of flight.

Rate of fire. The Hispano at 750rpm fires a lot faster than the German MG FF at 540rpm.

Although the British didn't have a workable cannon for the Battle of Britian they ended up with a more effective 20mm aerial cannon for the rest of the war and after.

Cheers!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

For every 109 pilot that says he could out turn a Spitfire.. There is a Spitfire pilot that says he could out turn a 109.. And vise versa

Which says more about the realitive pilot skill than realitive plane performance

[Outlaw]

No aircraft ever produced has ever out turned any other aircraft ever produced.

Many PILOTS, however, have out turned many other PILOTS.

For example...

When the first MiG-15 was received from a defecting Korean pilot, two test pilots put it to the test against an F-86. They each took a turn flying each aircraft and performed the same scenarios each time. Test pilot A (Chuck Yeager) was all over test pilot B (Some Other Hot %h1I Test Pilot whose name is lost in history because he didn't get his P-51 shot out from under him and, by luck, later get chosen to fly the X-1) regardless of whether he was flying the F-86 or the Mig-15.

In a real combat situation using pilot reports, it's impossible to say that one aircraft's advantage in some measure of performance over another aircraft resulted in victory. There are just too many variables. A tired pilot can't turn as hard as a fresh pilot, especially in a 109 due to the cramped cockpit. Most pilots back then would include the initial roll into the turn as part of the "turn" and due to the aforementioned cramped cockpit 109s at speed had poor roll performance. A glance over the shoulder to check for bandits might delay an attacker's entry into a turn leading the defender to state that he easily out turned the attacker. What he would not realize is that the attacker did not even start to follow for some amount of time. And that's just one of a gazillion reasons an attacker might delay following a defender into a turn (or any other maneuver for that matter).

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that pilot reports from actual combat are useless when it comes to making specific judgements of the opposing aircraft.

In the future, it will be SOFTWARE out turning other pieces of SOFTWARE.

--Outlaw.

PS
I'm just picking on Chuck, he's one of my heroes.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Well Im glad you all agree with me.


Just off the cuff:

Ace of aces, just a though but do you ever go online? You are always on the forum. I was talking to a few guys today and they had never seen you online...

Nothing hostile just an obsevartion.

[ElAurens]

I've flown with him lots of times.

Truth be told I almost never see anyone from the forums when I was flying IL2, and since I've stopped flying CloD for now I don't see any of you.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I've flown with him lots of times.

Truth be told I almost never see anyone from the forums when I was flying IL2, and since I've stopped flying CloD for now I don't see any of you.

Strange, I see lots of people...

[ATAG_Dutch]

James Holland (no relation by the way), hmmmmm.....

Saw the whole documentary twice and also read the book twice.

The book is fine, although he doesn't seem to understand the difference between positive and negative 'G' (in the book that is), and seems to want to uphold the mythical 'David and Goliath' image of the Battle. 'How on earth did we win??'

The documentary was enjoyable on first viewing, but pretty biased on the second in some unusual ways. For instance, the implication was that the 109 (all of them) had 55 seconds of 20mm ammo, because he mixed the mg info with the cannon info. Of course this could be the editor's fault.

55s of 2x7.92mm is the same weight of lead as 15s of .303. But of course if you can only keep your sights on target for 1 or 2 secs this makes a big difference.
The cannon armed 109s had 7s of cannon fire in addition to this and I'm not sure what the wing mgs had in the earlier versions.

Tom Neil's comments had also been suitably edited to make out that the RAF won from a terribly inferior position, 'We had peashooters against these cannons' etc, just before Holland emphasised the 55s of 20mm cannon fire.

Ludicrous.

Doesn't do anyone any favours. Not the layperson, not the historian, not the brave men who did what they did on both sides.

The man's a charlatan. Holland that is.

Queue Sternjaeger.