Bf-110 is THE fighter

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Most wartime accounts of 110's from RAF pilots gave them little credence and both hurricane and spitfire pilots felt they were more than a match for the 110. GC Johnnie Johnson wrote in his book 'Wing Leader' an account in his early days from some Czech Hurricane pilots: (page 35)

"The 110 didn't give you any trouble. In fact it was slower than the hurricane and was of little account. As soon as they were bounced, the 110 pilots formed a defensive circle. But this was easy to break up, as long as the 109's weren't lurking above. The 109's! Yes, you soon knew when they were about!"

Personally rather than relying on theorists and statisticians, I prefer to trust the word of the guys who flew against them.

[Blue 5]

The brits were getting short of pilots, not aircrafts. And is their own people saying that during the last week of August/first week of september they were on the very edge of accepting defeat.

No they weren't, this is an oft-repeated myth. There were more aircraft and more pilots on strength in late August / early September than in July. No RDF stations had been out of commission for more than 24 hours, no airfields had been 'knocked out' (though Manston was becoming too difficult to use as a full time base owing to its proximity to the coast). There is simply no evidence that anyone involved thought that they were 'near the end' or close to 'accepting defeat'. The whole this is overly Romanticised via Churchill books and some poorly written histories. The facts are there in terms of numbers of pilot, aircraft, supplies and infrastructure and neither Dowding nor Park thought they were losing though they were worried about the ability to turn out enough pilots with sufficient hours to give them a fighting chance. This lead to the prioritisation approach of A, B and C squadron catagories to determine rotation rates between Groups.

And besides, you know how brits talk, when one of them is saying they're in an "unconformable situation" you can bet your life on the fact hat he's actually neck-deep into the shit.

a) Park was New Zealander

b) You can bet all you like but you're still wrong - that was about the most pessimistic remark he made. Much of his negative reporting during this period was about his frustration with Leigh-Malory for not getting 12 Group's arse in gear quicker to play its part in peeling the German onion

c) Trying to infer what might have been meant as an opposite of what was said is very dodgy historiography

Personally rather than relying on theorists and statisticians, I prefer to trust the word of the guys who flew against them.

That's laudable, but as many fighter pilots were hit by an unseen opponent their own accounts may not give a true picture; they are vulnerbale to 'group think' just like any other organisation. 110s may have accounted for more of Fighter Command than they are credited with; pilots accounts may not give an accurate picture of this.

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by BlackbusheFlyer

Most wartime accounts of 110's from RAF pilots gave them little credence and both hurricane and spitfire pilots felt they were more than a match for the 110. GC Johnnie Johnson wrote in his book 'Wing Leader' an account in his early days from some Czech Hurricane pilots: (page 35)

"The 110 didn't give you any trouble. In fact it was slower than the hurricane and was of little account. As soon as they were bounced, the 110 pilots formed a defensive circle. But this was easy to break up, as long as the 109's weren't lurking above. The 109's! Yes, you soon knew when they were about!"

Personally rather than relying on theorists and statisticians, I prefer to trust the word of the guys who flew against them.

Interesting.
Yes, actual combat reports are worth more then statistical.
Then again, circle defenses (luftberry circles) are not that good. Bad tactics IMHO.