BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[KG26_Alpha]

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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

It wasn't about whether the Spitfire was better than the 109, or whether German pilots were 'superior' to RAF pilots, but about the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect.

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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......

[winny]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

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......

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by winny

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!! I've amended it accordingly. Thanks.
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!!
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

I agree with you that in it's simplest form it was a battle of supply and demand and leadership, but then most are! As for the 109 vs Spit thing. I love the whole debate, it's like post match analysis and is a good way to spend some time (as long as it's civil) and like you said it ebbed and flowed as WW2 progressed and it kept it interesting right up till the end.