Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Battle of Britain

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Battle of Britain Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 4:53:42 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 61
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 4:58:41 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20379
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane
warspite1

But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills.


I suspect that there are. But I am equally sure that there are lots of German bombers included in the figures for the British fighters. And the figures claimed are stated as for Battle of Britain.

BTW. Are the British raids on German soil included as part of the Battle of Britain.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 62
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:00:09 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly.
warspite1

Yes but the OP asked what was the best fighter? Under that criteria does the Bf-110 beat the Spitfire and Bf-109 because it was a very good
fighter-bomber? Yes it does if those ratios are correct but..... I just don't understand those ratios in the context of the Bf-110's reputation and operational history.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 63
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:03:36 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane
warspite1

But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills.


I suspect that there are. But I am equally sure that there are lots of German bombers included in the figures for the British fighters. And the figures claimed are stated as for Battle of Britain.

warspite1

Yes and if that is the case and we remove the bombers for all aircraft, we get to just the fighter vs fighter number (the air superiority number) - and unless the Bf-110 kills reduce by more, then I am at a total loss to understand (which is not difficult I know ).


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 64
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:05:25 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20379
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane
warspite1

But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills.


It goes against most of what I read as well. But I have a very nice, new, book about the Battle of Britain where the author, who seems very knowledgeable, claim that the Bf 110 was a lot better than its reputation.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 65
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:09:29 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane
warspite1

But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills.


It goes against most of what I read as well. But I have a very nice, new, book about the Battle of Britain where the author, who seems very knowledgeable, claim that the Bf 110 was a lot better than its reputation.
warspite1

That the Bf-110 was probably better than its reputation I have no problem believing (presumably your book will mention Epro210). But the words and figures differ here and I'd love to know why.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 66
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:09:49 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8486
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 67
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:11:53 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better.
warspite1

But that is the battle. As the OP said, he didn't want other factors to muddy the waters - but simply which was best; the Spitfire or the Bf-109 (and I assume that he meant as an air superiority fighter).


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 68
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:16:11 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20379
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
The problem here, I think, is that the Bf 110 is a completely different beast when it is allowed as a high escort, than when it is used as a close escort. And, as we all know, the German fighters were forced into a close escort role by HG so that their bomber pilots would feel safer when they actually saw the escort. No matter that the British, and Polish, and any other nationality on the British side, pilots also saw the escorts and got first strike. Why on earth should one give away the first strike capability to an enemy fighter eludes me.


The experience of Joachim Jabs during the Battle of Britain seems relevant. Although he is better than his fellow pilots in that he continues having success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Jabs#Battle_of_Britain

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 69
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:17:24 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8486
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
The British won, hence their fighters are the best.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 70
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:20:45 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20379
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better.

I would claim that the British won because the battle took place on their turf. If the roles had been reversed and fought mainly on German turf, then I would claim that the German side would win. No way that either side could afford to lose almost every pilot whose plane was lost. The RAF pilots were very often back in a new plane shortly, while the Luftwaffe pilots soon had a long vacation in a camp paid by British tax payers.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 71
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:23:55 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The British won, hence their fighters are the best.
warspite1

Well yes, if you discount tactics, radar, organisation, repair, the channel, leadership etc etc etc.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 72
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:25:02 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20379
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The British won, hence their fighters are the best.

With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war.

No offence to the French, or their war effort, intended.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 73
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 5:25:35 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42953
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The contest should then come down to either the Spitfire or the Hurricane because they were outnumbered in the fight and more than held their own - they won! Of the two, the Hurricane probably shot down more enemy aircraft simply because of numbers. It is precisely because of the numbers of German aircraft lost that they had to quit. So being out numbered and with some pilots inadequately trained, the British won which means that their fighters were better.

I would claim that the British won because the battle took place on their turf. If the roles had been reversed and fought mainly on German turf, then I would claim that the German side would win. No way that either side could afford to lose almost every pilot whose plane was lost. The RAF pilots were very often back in a new plane shortly, while the Luftwaffe pilots soon had a long vacation in a camp paid by British tax payers.
warspite1

This sadly was proved later in the war when the British fighters were ordered over the channel... with predictable results.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 74
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:15:50 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock


quote:

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition.

Good luck.

If you do settle it, maybe you can move on to settle the eternal Yamato class vs Iowa class debate.



Agreed.

I don't have a 'dog in this fight', so I'd like to offer that:

1. The Tiger was a superior tank to the Sherman
2. The Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk. And therefore the British derived no honour [sic] from her sinking. Same with the Graf Spee.

_____________________________


(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 75
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:19:41 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain.


Please define what you mean by best.


Best pilots in that or any other gorsh-danged air force in the whole wide world. And with the ladies.

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 76
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:21:04 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Lionel Messi, or Neymar?


Who?

_____________________________


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 77
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:21:20 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition. Which was better Spitfire or 109? Hurricanes can also be considered but not 110s. This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance. Which one was best?

This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo."
warspite1

Sorry but having a best fighter of 1940 competition without the Bf-110, is like going deer hunting without an accordion.




_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 78
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:24:25 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock


quote:

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My ambition from this post is to settle once and for all - and it is an ambitious ambition.

Good luck.

If you do settle it, maybe you can move on to settle the eternal Yamato class vs Iowa class debate.



Agreed.

I don't have a 'dog in this fight', so I'd like to offer that:

1. The Tiger was a superior tank to the Sherman
2. The Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk. And therefore the British derived no honour [sic] from her sinking. Same with the Graf Spee.

You left out who won the Battle of Jutland!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 79
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:25:15 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker were the RAF's best fighters in the Battle of Britain.


Please define what you mean by best.


Best pilots in that or any other gorsh-danged air force in the whole wide world. And with the ladies.

Damn straight!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 80
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:28:51 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly.


Nah. Sorry. That doesn't cut it. No more so than saying that the Soviets made (and really liked) use of the P-39 for ground attack and therefore it should have been in the discussion of the best fighters for use in SoPac. Above 10,000 feet-commonly required for use in SoPac-that thing was a dog. Below 10,000 feet (commonly used on the Eastern Front) for ground attack, it had its charms.

Different front and different uses *must* be part of the discussion. If the discussion involves the best fighter in the Battle of Britain-as the fighter was used in the Battle of Britain-then the record of that airframe in that configuration and usage and employment is how it should be considered. Not some hypothetical spreadsheet about how it coulda/woulda/shoulda been used more effectively.

The Bf-110 in the Battle of Britain was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots.

_____________________________


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 81
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:34:21 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 82
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:35:32 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?


No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 83
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:42:33 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?


No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s.

To make it fair John III should give the Allies F-8 Sabres and B-47s.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 84
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:46:43 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch
F-8 Sabres


Dood.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 85
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:49:23 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war.


No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together.

_____________________________


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 86
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 10:53:58 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly.


To be fair, the Allies in the Pacific Theater had few good dog-fighters. By very definition, the Allied techniques specifically precluded a manuevering fight with Oscars and Zeroes, as that was a losing strategy. The Allies did have a number of great fighters (including later models of the P-38) that performed very well in the A2A arena.

"Best fighter" does not = "Best (manuevering) dog-fighter".

_____________________________


(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 87
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 11:23:51 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war.


No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together.

Vichy was an expansion franchise that folded. They weren't playing in the Premier League.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 88
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/25/2020 11:24:59 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8072
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch
F-8 Sabres


Dood.

Be honest - you just wanted to use that smiley.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 89
RE: Battle of Britain - 7/26/2020 12:31:18 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8486
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly.


Nah. Sorry. That doesn't cut it. No more so than saying that the Soviets made (and really liked) use of the P-39 for ground attack and therefore it should have been in the discussion of the best fighters for use in SoPac. Above 10,000 feet-commonly required for use in SoPac-that thing was a dog. Below 10,000 feet (commonly used on the Eastern Front) for ground attack, it had its charms.

Different front and different uses *must* be part of the discussion. If the discussion involves the best fighter in the Battle of Britain-as the fighter was used in the Battle of Britain-then the record of that airframe in that configuration and usage and employment is how it should be considered. Not some hypothetical spreadsheet about how it coulda/woulda/shoulda been used more effectively.

The Bf-110 in the Battle of Britain was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots.


I don't think that the Soviets used it for ground attack but as a regular fighter. At least from what I read.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Battle of Britain Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172