Thu May 09, 2013 12:42 am
Thu May 09, 2013 8:21 am
Thu May 09, 2013 9:31 am
Red Baaron wrote:I just finished watching a rerun of a 2005 Battle Field Detectives on NetFlix. I do believe I'm far dumber for having watched it.
Here's a few things I learned.
When the Stuka is making a dive bomb run, it has to be pulled out of the dive by an automatic pilot. The pilot is unconcious due to the G forces.
Red Baaron wrote:According to a flight simulator, the 109 had better performance in two of the three most important manuevers, climb, dive and turn.
Not much question that the early RAF "vic" formation was more vulnerable than the Luftwaffe "finger four". The RAF eventually adopted the latter which pretty much says it all.Red Baaron wrote:According to another simulator, the Germans flew better formations than the British did.
Radar sites (CH, CHL) were vital to the defenders, but their effect on the outcome of the battle has been the subject of debate. On the one hand it allowed interception of raids which likely contributed to keeping RAF bases more or less operational throughout, but since without it there would have been far fewer dogfights, the attrition of pilots and planes would be considerably less. Either way the Luftwaffe could not have prevailed in 1940, which was the objective.Red Baaron wrote:If the Germans had just destroyed the radar sights, they would have won the battle.
It was an integral part of the defence system put together by Dowding and it's hard to dispute the above claim.Red Baaron wrote:The telephone was the biggest decideing factor in the Brits winning.
This hypothesis is also put forward by others (see Holland, Hough/Richards Terraine et al) and, given escalating German losses from September onwards, it seems a reasonable supposition. But the RAF was suffering too, so who knows?Red Baaron wrote:And finally, according to the computer model these geniuses worked up, if the Germans hadn't started bombing London and continued on their previous path, they would have been out of business due to attrition in 3 1/2 months anyhow.
Hurricanes fought the bombers, Spitfire fought the fighters. Generally. Both were important but I can see why an amateur TV show would concentrate on the Spitfire.Red Baaron wrote:Oh yes, the Hurricane was not even mentioned as having been a part of the deal.
Thu May 09, 2013 11:14 am
WallyB wrote:I haven't seen the show so can comment on the presentation (although I can imagine what it was like), but I don't think the conclusions were necessarily far off the mark.
Thu May 09, 2013 1:24 pm
Thu May 09, 2013 2:10 pm
Thu May 09, 2013 6:23 pm
Thu May 09, 2013 7:01 pm
Thu May 09, 2013 7:07 pm
Agreed, but without it a different strategy could have been employed. Disperse the fighters to satellite fields and/or pull them back to Group 12 then hit the raids on egress. Leigh-Mallory and Bader advocated this (so-called "Big Wing" theory) claiming it was better to down 10 raiders on their way home than 1 on the way in.David J Burke wrote:Wally -without CHL we would have been siting at bases relying on the Observer Corps to give us reliable information. Whilst that would have been ok - having the radar warning meant the fighters were not siting ducks on the ground waiting for the Luftwaffe.
Thu May 09, 2013 9:55 pm
Thu May 09, 2013 11:03 pm
Fri May 10, 2013 2:20 am
SaxMan wrote: It wasn't until the Spit IX that the Merlin finally got fuel injection.
Fri May 10, 2013 4:26 am
Red Baaron wrote:And finally, according to the computer model these geniuses worked up, if the Germans hadn't started bombing London and continued on their previous path, they would have been out of business due to attrition in 3 1/2 months anyhow.
Fri May 10, 2013 8:23 am
Mike wrote:SaxMan wrote: It wasn't until the Spit IX that the Merlin finally got fuel injection.
I'm not sure where you're getting that little nugget of information from, but I were you I'd drop that particular book on the nearest bonfire!
Fri May 10, 2013 8:26 am
expat wrote:Wasnt most of the fighting above 10000ft though ? That would have an effect on the turning circles ?