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

Originally Posted by valleyboy

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...

ok...lets get on a track...with tight turns....really tight turns...would a fast / not so manouverable bike beat a slower but more manouverable bike?

you know...when the vfr 400's out class the ducatis on a track day!

ok pilot skill has a lot to do with it.....but speed is not everything!

Numbers is also a huge factor in air battle.
The Soviets lost huge numbers of aircraft and still won.

As an aircraft enthusiast of long time standing, I can say that all my info is fact based

Originally Posted by socommk23

ok...lets get on a track...with tight turns....really tight turns...would a fast / not so manouverable bike beat a slower but more manouverable bike?

you know...when the vfr 400's out class the ducatis on a track day!

ok pilot skill has a lot to do with it.....but speed is not everything!

In a dogfight, speed is everything... if you know anything about the concept of air to air dogfighting, you will know that the fighter with the most energy has options, be it altitude or speed. the fighter without energy will be very low on options and will be fighting a defensive dogfight unless the other pilot f*cks up... the hurricane could turn sharply, but was crap in the vertical, the 109 excelled in fighting in the vertical.. so could enter and leave a dogfight whenever the pilot chose too.. AS LONG as he hadnt wasted to much -e- in doing so... if you read up on anything with dogfighting, the fighter which can retain its energy or re-gain it the best will almost always come out best, as long as pilot skills are equal.
The pilot does make the most difference though, if you put a rookie in one aircraft, be it superior to the next, but put an ace in the other aircraft, you will find that the results will more than likely go in the ace's direction.. as he will be more adept at utilising his aircraft to its utmost performace. these days, air to air missiles kinda make that point moot though...

you cannot apply bikes to dogfights... it matters not really if you can turn a little bit faster than the oposition, especialy if by the time you do turn around, hes decided to climb above you, and you are low on speed you will not be able to follow him... you cannot think in two dimensions with dogfighting, everything an aircraft does in a dogfight either takes energy away or re-gains it.. but its always at the expense of somehting else... want to gain altitude ? you loose some speed... want to gain speed, then you loose altitude... dogfighting is one massive game of chess where you try and not let the other aircraft get the upper hand... or you will take a silk ride to teh ground... again, these days points a bit moot, as with modern fighters you can effectively dogfight at Mach 1 now... and still turn rather well... or just get blown up before you get near him BVR these days...

Good points there. VB

Tactics and numbers too.

Originally Posted by Mr Toad

A good point, except that the Germans had no plans to invade England at that point in time...etc...

Yes, this is all true. In Mein Kampf Hitler does express his admiration for England, but to really understand his foreign policy you need to read his 'Zweites Buche' (if you haven't already). In it Hitler outlines his vision of an alliance between the three great superpowers of Europe - the British Empire, the Roman Empire and the German Reich. He devised a German foreign policy that would allow the three superpowers to prosper and, most of all, one that would avoid war. The crux of it was that Germany would look eastward and abandon her marine aspirations, this would leave Britain to continue her colonial campaigns undisturbed, and Italy would be free to expand around the shores of the Mediterranean. This way, everyone was free to make their respective nations great without there being any conflict of interest.

Hitler also saw a major threat in the USA. He believed that America had the people and the land to become a major player on the world scene, and that eventually an alliance of strong European superpowers would be needed to curb American influence. Perhaps Hitler could have been a psychic...

Although the British leaders are portrayed as the great heroes and Hitler the war-monger, something the opposite was more the truth. The Rudolf Hess incident was just one of numerous German olive branches Britain rejected. Hitler couldn't have possibly done anything more to show he didn't want war. Even though he wanted an alliance and even though war was completely detrimental to British interests, the Brit establishment was determined it would have one. If poor German statesmanship pulled the British Empire into WW1, it was corrupt British statesmanship that shoved us into WW2. Hitler never planned war with Britain, never mind war with the world. It's a wonder the Germans fought for so long.

Originally Posted by valleyboy

In a dogfight, speed is everything... if you know anything about the concept of air to air dogfighting, you will know that the fighter with the most energy has options, be it altitude or speed. the fighter without energy will be very low on options and will be fighting a defensive dogfight unless the other pilot f*cks up... the hurricane could turn sharply, but was crap in the vertical, the 109 excelled in fighting in the vertical.. so could enter and leave a dogfight whenever the pilot chose too.. AS LONG as he hadnt wasted to much -e- in doing so... if you read up on anything with dogfighting, the fighter which can retain its energy or re-gain it the best will almost always come out best, as long as pilot skills are equal.
The pilot does make the most difference though, if you put a rookie in one aircraft, be it superior to the next, but put an ace in the other aircraft, you will find that the results will more than likely go in the ace's direction.. as he will be more adept at utilising his aircraft to its utmost performace. these days, air to air missiles kinda make that point moot though...

you cannot apply bikes to dogfights... it matters not really if you can turn a little bit faster than the oposition, especialy if by the time you do turn around, hes decided to climb above you, and you are low on speed you will not be able to follow him... you cannot think in two dimensions with dogfighting, everything an aircraft does in a dogfight either takes energy away or re-gains it.. but its always at the expense of somehting else... want to gain altitude ? you loose some speed... want to gain speed, then you loose altitude... dogfighting is one massive game of chess where you try and not let the other aircraft get the upper hand... or you will take a silk ride to teh ground... again, these days points a bit moot, as with modern fighters you can effectively dogfight at Mach 1 now... and still turn rather well... or just get blown up before you get near him BVR these days...

you dont need to loose altitude to gain speed!

i feel the need to also say that most of my opinions are fact based being ....dont wanna say enthusiast....but loved all things that fly since i was very very young and then spent some years as an aeronautical engineer and now i teach the stuff!

speed can be handy...but if you cant manover so quickly, its harder to bleed off speed. if a slower aircraft gets round a turn sharper the faster can just overshoot.

you could compare this to the harrier in the falklands!
it was up against the mirage and dagger, both were much faster! and the harrier out classed them both!!!!!!

either way. imho britain would have put up a better fight had it come to fighting on our home land.

The harrier did not outclass its opponents. It simply fought to its advantages, and the pilots exploited the enemies weaknesses. Again, pilot skill played a massive part in that, the Harrier pilots were able to get the opposition to come down and fight them... if the Harrier went up to high altitude, it would have had its **** handed to it on a plate..

in a dogfight, you dont have time to level out and accelerate (well in WW2 aircraft anyway) so the usual quick way of gaining speed was to dive. and is still used today, if you have an altitude advantage over the opponent, you have more options than the person below you, and you already now dictate the fight. You can dive down on him and gain speed quickly, do a boom and zoom attack, and chose when to re-engage.... if you get caught up in a turn and burn dogfight, then the best turning aircraft will have a massive advantage, but its not always a desicive.. the 109 wasnt as good a tunring aircraft as the Spitfire, but wasnt that far behind, but it could get out of a dogfight quickly by diving away.. as the Spit had carbs, and would cut out with negative G, teh 109 had FI, even later in the war when this problem was fixed for the Spitfires, 109's could still seperate away from a dogfight quickly by diving.

I read books on air to air combat and also play flight sims a lot... so even though its not real life.. its put into practice, and even the books say you need speed. Combat pilots Ive had discussions with over the internet also say the same, speed is energy, if you dont have it, your screwed.
If you have speed and know how to use it, you dictate the pace of the fight. If you are a poor pilot and allow yourself to get dragged down to the enemies kind of fight, you will loose, no matter how good the aircraft, and the Falklands is the best example of that. The Harrier in a dogfight with a competant pilot against him would have his wok cut out to stay alive.
Theres always two types of dogfight's... defensive, and offensive, slow aircraft usualy end up on the defensive almost straight away, but the best pilots can turn defence into offence very quickly with one mistake from the opposition


The 109's in the BofB were handed a massive handicap by having to escort the bombers at their altitude and speed, which took away its greatest advantage over the other aircraft.. better high altitude performance, and high speed.

[tinpants]

There seems to be a common misconception going on here. The Argentinian pilots, or ground troops for that matter, were NOT substandard. People I served with that fought in the Falklands have all said that if it wasn't for the fact that the ground troops had been in defensive positions for nearly 3 months without a relief system in place then things could have turned out to be very different. Indeed, during the battle for Mt Longdon it was extremely difficult to see the position you were trying to attack. Its also worth noting that 3 Para had to loot the abandoned Argy trenches for ammunition for our guns (our rifles were SLRs, theirs were FN FAL - same rifle but the FN was/is automatic. They also used the same GPMG that we did)

On the point about the aircraft, they were operating at their extreme limits. They had, at most, 10 minutes "time-on-target" so they couldn't afford to **** around getting into dogfights. If, and its a very big "if", they had a carrier group halfwat between the mainland and the Falklands, they would have undoubtedly kicked our collective arses. Its not about who had the best kit or even the best know-how, but about the amount of time one could spend pootling about looking for trouble.

I'll more than likely get a roasting for this but what the hey. The Falklands are something / somwhere I know a LOT about. I served there. Twice.

either way....in wwII or in the faulklands.....our aircraft still came out trumps for one reason or another....and they were not the fastest!

so in my opinion speed is not king!

and another point id like to make is while in some opinions "speed is king" why are forces now concentrating on aircraft that can out manouver aircraft and have great low speed handling characteristics for roles such as aerial combat.....eurofighter typhoon...su37....joint strike fighter..... if in fact speed is king?

and why cant the same situ be used for bikes?
if a bike is fast but dont handle it can be outdone by a slower bike that does handle!
thats what racing is about isnt it?
ok its not 3D but its the same principle.

Originally Posted by socommk23

either way....in wwII or in the faulklands.....our aircraft still came out trumps for one reason or another....and they were not the fastest!

so in my opinion speed is not king!

and another point id like to make is while in some opinions "speed is king" why are forces now concentrating on aircraft that can out manouver aircraft and have great low speed handling characteristics for roles such as aerial combat.....eurofighter typhoon...su37....joint strike fighter..... if in fact speed is king?

and why cant the same situ be used for bikes?
if a bike is fast but dont handle it can be outdone by a slower bike that does handle!
thats what racing is about isnt it?
ok its not 3D but its the same principle.

The SU-37 isnt a production aircraft, it was a one off technology demenstrator, which was reverted back to its SU-35 configuration by taking off the thrust vectoring.. and has since crashed.
The SU-27 is in service, and its multitude of variants are in air forces around the world as well.

Eurofighter, the SU-27, and the F-22 are all Mach 2+ aircraft... they are designed to turn well when they have to, if you talk to pilots today, they will tell you a dogfight only occurs as a last resort, todays game is to stay fast (i.e. supersonic) and shoot missiles off from long ranges, or in the F-22's case with its stealth get up much closer into the AMRAAM's NEZ and shoot every bugger down... without them ever knowing where the F-22 is...
(NEZ = No Escape Zone = basicaly if a missile is shot at you when your in its NEZ, your fooked... as you cant outrun it)

The JSF on the other hand isnt as fast as the others, it is mainly designed as a bomb truck first, with air to air a secondary feature... its main advantage will be its stealth and high technology radar and systems, not its manouverability or speed, as it will be the slowest and least manouverable of all the fighters named so far. but have the highest amount of technology built into it, as its taking the best from Eurofighter and the F-22 (BAe systems and Lockheed being the contractors) the JSF's only saving point in its lack of speed compared to the others is its stealth... the enemy aircraft have to get close enough to see it on radar, but by then, in all likelyhood, the JSF pilot will probably have shot off a missile or two in defence already...

Turning is important, but speed is much so, hence the big play on supercruise these days.. the F-22 can cruise without afterburner at Mach 1.5+ Eurofighter can do Mach 1.3... both of these aircraft have tricks up their sleves in that they can turn exceptionaly well, WHILE travelling at supersonic speeds... you are right that fighters are also designed to turn well also, but again, any pilot will tell you, they will avoid a dogfight at all costs, especialy with missiles like ASRAAM and the AA-11, and AIM-9X about... ASRAAM and the Sidewinder being absolutley lethal at close range, as flares do not work against the newer missiles.. and can literaly shoot at an aircraft flying behind you 'over the shoulder' as it were. manouverability means jack in that situation, but if you are going fast enough, you can get out of the missiles NEZ quickly

If you do have an interest in air combat, there are several sites out tehre that will detail all this, the name of the game is staying outside the oppositions weapons range.... you cant do that with a slow fighter, as again, the aircraft with speed dictates the pace of the game... he who is travelling faster can get places quicker, gain altitude better, and more importantly, impart more Kinetic Energy to his missiles and give them a longer range.... hence why supercruise is a big word in modern fighters..

my point is, the art of the dogfight isnt gone yet, but its very much avoided getting up close and personal these days... why go in close and risk your own life, when you can stay outside his weapons range, and dictate how and when the fight starts... first look, first shot, first kill has nothing to do with turn rates these days... the turn rate at supersonic speeds is now getting more important than subsonic... but only a fool will say that dogfights will never happen, hence why nearly everything built now can easily outmanouver the generation of aircraft they are replacing, and also go much faster.

The F-15 with a weapons load would top out at mach 1.8, the F-22 which is replacing it, is cruising at mach 1.5 to 1.7 already.... whereas an F-15 cannot cruise above mach 1.... that means the F-22 can get his missiles to have a longer range far quicker than the F-15.. the only problem is, teh F-15 cannot pick up the F-22 on radar until its far far too late for the F-15...


god, Im starting to sound like a geek now.. but Im in my elements with this stuff...