World War 2, how close did we really come to loosing?

Originally Posted by The Basket

The Battle of Britain is usually taken in the context of the war and what happened next.

Can you imagine if the Germans threw the forces against Britain in 1941 that they did against the USSR?

With the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 both better or equal to the Spitfire V? The Hurricane was not even close.

An invasion was only canceled in 1940 but was a goer in Summer 1941.

Hitler invaded USSR instead and six weeks late too.

how was the hurricane not even close????

it was easier to work on! quicker to repair and i believe this aircraft had more succes atributed to it than the spitfire during wwII and a larger number were involved!!!!

it was capable of a wider variety of roles than the spitfire and was still a formidable dogfighting aircraft!

ok the spitfire was faster...maybe more manouverable! but if it got hit it would be out of action for much longer than a cloth and dope repair takes!

With the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 both better or equal to the Spitfire V? The Hurricane was not even close.

The 109 was nowhere near as manouvrable as the Spitfire and the FW190 was not available until the end of the battle of britain, when Goring asked what the Luftwaffe needed to win the battle of Britain he was told a squadron of Spitfires,
The Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spifire because a there were of them and b they were much tougher aircraft The hurricanes were used to go for the bombers and the Spits used to go for the escorts.

H

My thread said what would have happened in 1941 if the germans had invaded the UK rather than USSR. Not in the context of the original 1940 battle.

The Hurricane was outclassed by the 109E and stuffed by the F. Speed was the most imporant factor in air combat, not agility. The Fw 190 would have been available autumn 1941. The Spitfire V would also have had problems against the 109F and 190. The V was equal to the F but stuffed by the 190.

The fact is that we did win, lets not keep asking a question in such a negative way. Its almost as if we think so little of ourselves we play down any success or victory that we have (not that I want to go all American you understand!).

Germany had this, Germany had that but Germany still lost. Was it down to a change in target? Whatever it was, it was a pretty big flaw in supposedly otherwise perfection. A flaw it seems we didn't have? So they weren't so good were they. Who is? (don't ask an American that question!) - ever owned a Merc?

It ain't the weapon you've got, its how you use it

The hurricane was no match for a pure fighter.... the hurricane in comparisson to the BF109 was much slower, now in a dogfight, speed is king. The Hurricanes main job was to get in close to the bomber formations, where it could do its damage.. it was a much more stable gun platform than the spitfire, and could take much more of a beating due to its construction...
And the 109 was very much a match to the Spitfire, people may think the spitfire was far superiour to the 109, but this simply isnt the truth, if you look up a few things about both aircraft from various sources
the 109 had leading edge slats.... which deployed at low speeds, when the RAF got their hands on a few 109's they tested them, and found it to be far better at things than the spitfire, hence why various marks of spitfire had changes to them to keep up with the opposition... the 109 was faster in a dive, and at high speed climbs.. the spitfire could gain altitude much quicker from lower speeds.

As for turning, the Hurricane was by far the fighter with the tightest turn radius, but a 1 v 1 with a 109 would spell trouble if the enemy pilot was any good, simply because the 109 had speed.. and speed = options in dogfighting.... and dont forget, the main difference in all these aircraft are mainly their pilots. The Germans were at a huge sdisadvantage through the BofB... simply as if their pilots were shot down, that was it, they were out of the war.. RAF pilots on the other hand could be back at their base the same day...


Most of the aircraft with the highest kill ratios through the war were not good turning fighters, they just had speed in abundance, the Mustang is probably the only one that could fly with the fastest, and turn with the best.... and that was only after fitting it with a Merlin engine.. again, the P-47 was a masive fighter, but fast as hell.... with 6x12mm guns would tear an aircraft to shreads in one pass, you had the Zero from Japan, but they got their speed nd manouverability from not putting armour in their aircraft, so would go up in flames very easily.. and again, were no match for the aircraft the americans brought to the fight towards the later part of the war.



If Germany had waited a few years to invade Britain, we would have been royaly fooked. They would have had more U-boats to do their thing in the atlantic... actualy, its best not dive into the realms of fantasy here, as some of the Weapons on the Germans drawing board at the time were rather nasty... they did invent the first intercontinental bomber... so the US wasnt out of reach from being bombed from Germany... if they would have got the ME209 up and going earlier without Hitler saying it had to be used as a bomber, it probably would have wreaked havock that no other fighters had much of a chance against when used correctly...

I wasn't around during WWII (honestly ) but tactics to make the best use of available resources including help from other nations helped hugely. The 'best' kit does not ensure a victory.

Originally Posted by Mr Toad

I recommend a visit to the D-Day beaches in Normandy

And while you are there, you can stop in and visit with a few of my deceased great-uncles in the American cemetary.

As to which fighters were better, it's a moot point. Tactics and experience can often overcome technical advantages. In a 1V1 fight between a Spitfire and a Me109, the Spitfire should win. In a 1V1 fight between a Hurricaine and a Me109, the Me109 should win with all things being equal. But in an actual fight, all things are not equal.

Over France, the Luftwaffe was close to it's bases and could use good tactics. (some of those tactics are still taught and employed today.)

Over England, the situation changed. The Me109 was at the limit of it's range and couldn't stay long. The RAF finally gave up some of it's tactical doctrine and adopted the doctrine the Luftwaffe employed with success over France.

Similar examples exist in China between the AVG and their Curtiss P-40's and Japanese Zeros. In a 1v1 fight, the P-40 should loose every time. But the crews flying them were better at playing the P-40's strengths as a gun platform in the attack role vs. the Zeros who were defending their own bombers.)

Japan and Germany shared a major flaw in the training doctrine they used: They did not rotate crews back into training as instructors. A considerable amount of valuable experience was eventually lost when the experienced pilots eventually got nailed.

[tinpants]

Originally Posted by valleyboy

blah, blah in a dogfight, speed is king. Blah, blah, blahdy-blah

Done much dog-fighting then have you?

Not that I have of course, but I do think that far too much of this thread has been based purely on supposition or what you heard down the pub from an old guy whose mate once knew a bloke that flew spitfires in the war, rather than on personal experience.
If you weren't there or haven't done it for yourself then YOU don't KNOW for certain. I'm not singling VB out here, there are a lot of others that have expressed what appear to be "non fact-based" opinions. With the exception of Korea and the occasional meeting in the Falklands there hasn't been any "dog-fighting" since the Second World War. Therefore, no-one on here can say for certain which was better - the Spit, the Hurricane or the Me109.

Personally I don't think it really matters. The Allies won the War. THAT'S what counts.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Triumphumphumph

The fact is that we did win, lets not keep asking a question in such a negative way. Its almost as if we think so little of ourselves we play down any success or victory that we have

I see it the other way round- if it'd been a huge, clear victory that to me makes it less of an achievement. We had a lot of disadvantages, a lot of near misses, and won regardless, it's like a penalty shootout instead of a 10-0 victory Triumph through adversity and all that.

Originally Posted by northwind

Triumph through adversity and all that.

...umphumph, Amen to that!!