Spitfire Vs Me 109

**tikkifriend** · 07-15-2015 12:52

Found this on the net, Might well be on the forum but it makes good watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTrygZfC-g

**grumpybear** · 07-15-2015 13:52

That was very interesting thank you for posting it

LOOP · 07-16-2015 03:02

Nice.

More of that kind!!

**hawkhurst** · 07-16-2015 03:15

very nice

**Naharaht** · 07-16-2015 04:25

It is a good programme. I remeber watching it on television.

LOOP · 07-16-2015 04:40

This thread translated into 1917

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z25T-s0gu8M

**Nicola Zee** · 07-16-2015 06:43

A well-produced program well worth watching. So, a big thank you for posting the link.

There were a couple of things I consider misleading. In particular the conclusion that the Battle of Britain was not a British victory. Well for a start it was not just a British victory - there were pilots from several other countries - Poles, Free French, Indians and many others. But any battle where the enemy suffers 4 to 5 times the loses and fails to achieve any of their objectives is a victory in my mind.

I don't know how you score your air battles but if one side loses 4 to 5 times more than the other side and fails to achieve any of their objectives, I tend to regard it as a victory for the other side. But that's just me. Apparently, it's different in America.

**LTJG NSCC** · 07-16-2015 09:20

"I don't know how you score your air battles but if one side loses 4 to 5 times more than the other side and fails to achieve any of their objectives, I tend to regard it as a victory for the other side. But that's just me. Apparently, it's different in America."

I think it's often tempting for historians and ESPECIALLY historians in the media, to try to disagree with "conventional wisdom" just to seem superior - even when conventional wisdom is obviously completely correct!

Of COURSE the Battle of Britain was a major British (and Allied) victory.

One could certainly argue that with their poor strategy the Germans defeated themselves, but that can be said of many victories throughout history, even most!

**Nicola Zee** · 07-16-2015 09:48

Originally Posted by LTJG NSCC

"I don't know how you score your air battles but if one side loses 4 to 5 times more than the other side and fails to achieve any of their objectives, I tend to regard it as a victory for the other side. But that's just me. Apparently, it's different in America."

I think it's often tempting for historians and ESPECIALLY historians in the media, to try to disagree with "conventional wisdom" just to seem superior - even when conventional wisdom is obviously completely correct!

Of COURSE the Battle of Britain was a major British (and Allied) victory.

One could certainly argue that with their poor strategy the Germans defeated themselves, but that can be said of many victories throughout history, even most!

Very true. The program was excellent in comparing and contrasting the two planes. Where it all became a bit misleading was the dogfight and the conclusion from the dogfight.

The dogfight was set at low altitude over the channel. In such a dogfight, the two planes would be very equal - and probably the 109f had a slight edge. So, the result of the dogfight seemed to me very realistic. But - and it's a big but - such dogfights tended to be less frequent and important after the Nazis switched to bombing London. Then, dogfights became much more in-land and at much higher altitude - giving the Spitfire a major advantage. The unfortunate 109f pilots dogfighting over London had only a very short period before running out of fuel and ending up ditching over England or the channel. The Nazis switching to bombing London probably saved the RAF and resulted in large loses of highly experienced and top quality German aircrew for very little gained.

**tikkifriend** · 07-16-2015 10:04

Originally Posted by LOOP

This thread translated into 1917

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z25T-s0gu8M

Good one Loop.

post this up on the WW1 forum

Glen2112 · 07-16-2015 12:19

That was really interesting to watch......

LOOP · 07-16-2015 23:22

Originally Posted by tikkifriend

Good one Loop.

post this up on the WW1 forum

I'll do that.

**CappyTom** · 07-17-2015 09:33

Nice vid. I believe that those two planes were very close. A lot went to the pilot. IMHO.

Thomas

**Nicola Zee** · 07-18-2015 01:00

The two planes were extremely close. One thing not covered was manufacturing cost.
The spitfire looks like a beautifully crafted work of art while the 109 looks brutally and ruthlessly effective. The looks reflect the complexity of making the machines and it was easier, more straightforward and quicker to built the 109.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuk...n#.VaoCfM7bKlI

Combined with the fuel-injection engine and the twin cannons, overall - as an instrument of war - the 109 had clear engineering advantages. But, when all's said and done, war is as much about psychology as about engineering. The pilots of the spitfire had total confidence in their machines - even more so than the 109 pilots who had become frankly used to turkey-shoots against vastly inferior planes. As the battle went on and experienced aircrew were replaced by novices the more forgiving spit gave a clear advantage and the spit seemed to be more manoeuvrable

As Adolf Galland said to Goering "Give me a squadron of Spitfires"...

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 07-18-2015 01:17

A very interesting comparison between the two aircraft.
I like Nicola's comment, and would add that I rate it on what happens to your pilots as much as anything. If your pilot bales and gets back to the Mess, whilst the enemy bales and gets into a PoW camp in greater numbers, surely it is a victory for side with the pilots back in the Mess.
Rob.

**gully_raker** · 07-18-2015 03:19

One thing that annoys me in these type of Doco's is that they ignore the Hurricane!
There were more Hurricanes in the Bof B than Spits & they had the advantage of often being able to be repaired at their home base whereas the Spit being stressed metal had to be returned to the factory for major repairs.