Thoughts ?

[Sven]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Yes I know, I'm a terribly dense person. I also forgot to mention that the synchronising gear on the cowl mounted guns of the 109 reduced the rate of fire to quite a bit less than the Brownings, thus reducing the weight of lead delivered per second even further. I have a feeling they also had a lower muzzle velocity, but not sure about that one. Sorry for being such a thicko.

The Dowding spread was soon chucked out of the window, but has no relevance to Holland's blatant exaggeration of the 109's firepower.

I say again, 55 seconds of cannon fire? Is that a fact, or just propaganda? Not confusing anything here mate. Poppycock and balderdash Old Boy.

'Charlatan - One falsely claiming a special knowledge or skill' - OED. Sound familiar?

He says 55 second of FIREPOWER! If you hold down all the triggers in the 109E you indeed have 55 seconds of firepower, nobody said 55 seconds of cannon fire in this 6 minutes of video.

Cannons can be very effective under any angle of attack, in a very short amount of time you can inflict colossal damage to an enemy aircraft. Which is extremely important in the way the 109 is best flown against the Spitfire.

Overall this short documentary contains no new information for me, but it's nice to hear the real fighter pilots talking though!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sven

He says 55 second of FIREPOWER! If you hold down all the triggers in the 109E you indeed have 55 seconds of firepower, nobody said 55 seconds of cannon fire in this 6 minutes of video.

Quite true, but at no point does he say that the cannons had only 7 seconds of fire. He first states 55 seconds of machine gun fire, then shows us the difference in size between .303 and 20mm. This is misleading.

He confuses the two issues such that someone with little or no prior knowledge is left with a completely distorted opinion of the true state of affairs. As I said, this does nobody any favours and gives an impression of biased representation rather than fact.