Battle of Britain programme on C5 8pm
Discussion
And if you use Twitter, there are Battle of Britain tweets taken from diaries and events as they happened 70 years ago to the day/hour from Duxford.
http://twitter.com/RAFDuxford1940
Plus RAF Museum Hendon is sending out Battle of Britain message too - http://twitter.com/RAFMUSEUM
http://twitter.com/RAFDuxford1940
Plus RAF Museum Hendon is sending out Battle of Britain message too - http://twitter.com/RAFMUSEUM
Ah. Bob Doe was interviewed and is mentioned in the book. Sadly passed away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Doe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Doe
Not bad but it didn't explain why the Luftwaffe switched targets from airfields to London. I think the general theory that the BoB didn't succeed is because Hitler was far more interested in building up for the attack on Russia than conquering a small island in the other direction. Unfortunately in doing do he left the door open for D-Day (but he didn't then know that the US was going to enter the war on 7.12.41)
The main thing that didn't work for me was the 'computer game' dogfights.
The main thing that didn't work for me was the 'computer game' dogfights.
Simpo Two said:
Not bad but it didn't explain why the Luftwaffe switched targets from airfields to London. I think the general theory that the BoB didn't succeed is because Hitler was far more interested in building up for the attack on Russia than conquering a small island in the other direction. Unfortunately in doing do he left the door open for D-Day (but he didn't then know that the US was going to enter the war on 7.12.41)
The main thing that didn't work for me was the 'computer game' dogfights.
It might not have (for a while anyway) if Hitler hadn't decided to declare war on the US first. Mad he was, I tell ya.The main thing that didn't work for me was the 'computer game' dogfights.
Personally I thought it was rather poor. Yet another example of British TV being 'dumbed down'.
Specifically:
1. The reference to Spitfires being cannon armed. Yes there were a handful of cannon MkIIs, but these were few and far between (and they didn't work owing to wing flex causing the ammo feeds to jam - fire 3 or 4 rounds and the cannons stopped). These were taken out of service until the Mk Vb could be introduced the following year.
2. The constant referrals to Messerschmidt ME 109 and Me 110. NO! NO! NO! They were Bf 109 and Bf 110 (for 'Bayerische Flugzeugwerke'), they did not become referred to as 'Me' until FAR later.
3. When talking about RAF photo' recce' they showed a picture of a Mustang Mk1. EXCUSE ME when exactly did these serve in 1940?
4. The statement that Churchill visited Fighter Command on 15 Sep 1940. No he didn't, Fighter Command was at Bentley Priory. Churchill visited HQ 11 Group at Uxbridge - the Ops Room still exists as a museum.
5. The usual rubbish of showing footage of both pre battle Spitfires (white and black undersides) as well as obviously post battle a/c (Mk Vs, clipped MkVs and Mk9s).
Specifically:
1. The reference to Spitfires being cannon armed. Yes there were a handful of cannon MkIIs, but these were few and far between (and they didn't work owing to wing flex causing the ammo feeds to jam - fire 3 or 4 rounds and the cannons stopped). These were taken out of service until the Mk Vb could be introduced the following year.
2. The constant referrals to Messerschmidt ME 109 and Me 110. NO! NO! NO! They were Bf 109 and Bf 110 (for 'Bayerische Flugzeugwerke'), they did not become referred to as 'Me' until FAR later.
3. When talking about RAF photo' recce' they showed a picture of a Mustang Mk1. EXCUSE ME when exactly did these serve in 1940?
4. The statement that Churchill visited Fighter Command on 15 Sep 1940. No he didn't, Fighter Command was at Bentley Priory. Churchill visited HQ 11 Group at Uxbridge - the Ops Room still exists as a museum.
5. The usual rubbish of showing footage of both pre battle Spitfires (white and black undersides) as well as obviously post battle a/c (Mk Vs, clipped MkVs and Mk9s).
The researchers often tend to be a bit sloppy in digging up archive material. However, I'm not too hard on them in certain circumstances (such as showing the wrong mark of Spitfire) because they are often hampered by the shortage of actual footage from the period covered by the documentary. Showing a type of aircraft that wasn't actually in service - such as the Mustang MkI - is too much, however.
As regards the old "Bf" versus "Me" debate. I think that the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke company had alrerady been rebranded Messerschmitt by the time WW2 had started. From that point on, aircraft coming off the production line at Augsburg would correctly have been referred to as "Me" rather than "Bf". Indeed, during the Battle RAF pilots were refering to 109s and 110s as the "Me 109" and the "Me110".
By convention, most people these days tend to refer to the 109A through to E as Bf109s and the 109F to K as Me109s.
Personally, I don't think it's that big an issue - I remember heated correspondence in magazines such as Aircraft Illustrated and Aviation News back in 1972/73 so to me, it's become a bit of a tired old argument.
As regards the old "Bf" versus "Me" debate. I think that the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke company had alrerady been rebranded Messerschmitt by the time WW2 had started. From that point on, aircraft coming off the production line at Augsburg would correctly have been referred to as "Me" rather than "Bf". Indeed, during the Battle RAF pilots were refering to 109s and 110s as the "Me 109" and the "Me110".
By convention, most people these days tend to refer to the 109A through to E as Bf109s and the 109F to K as Me109s.
Personally, I don't think it's that big an issue - I remember heated correspondence in magazines such as Aircraft Illustrated and Aviation News back in 1972/73 so to me, it's become a bit of a tired old argument.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 15th July 08:17
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
2. The constant referrals to Messerschmidt ME 109 and Me 110. NO! NO! NO! They were Bf 109 and Bf 110 (for 'Bayerische Flugzeugwerke'), they did not become referred to as 'Me' until FAR later.
It's actually "Messerschmitt" not Messerschmidt"Apparently either prefix can be used for the '109:
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm
Got to "Articles" , "Bf or Me and Explanation" on the left.
I've been through this while researching my '109 model. If Messerschmitt (the company) and British intelligence personnel referred to them as either 'Bf' or 'Me' (during examinations of crashed aircraft during the BoB) then either designation is good enough for me. Same with 'Swastika' and 'Hakenkreuz'.
Eric Mc said:
Great article - and wittilly written too.
The one from the '109 Lair ? It's a great website. Lynn Ritger (who's site it is) is a modeller himself, and has written a couple of books I have on the '109 : they are great referencces for models. The downloadable Messerschmitt manuals and pilot notes are also great for modelling.
Yes - the 109 Lair Article..
I am a big fan of the 109 and Holland has set the cat amongst the pigeons in aviation circles in his new book by claiming that the 109E was SUPERIOR in most respects to the Spitfire I during the Battle.
There have been letters
I actually tend to agree with his assertions.
I am a big fan of the 109 and Holland has set the cat amongst the pigeons in aviation circles in his new book by claiming that the 109E was SUPERIOR in most respects to the Spitfire I during the Battle.
There have been letters
I actually tend to agree with his assertions.
Eric Mc said:
I am a big fan of the 109 and Holland has set the cat amongst the pigeons in aviation circles in his new book by claiming that the 109E was SUPERIOR in most respects to the Spitfire I during the Battle.
It was certainly used with superior tactics, which would help the kill ratio. The Spanish Civil War had been a useful practice ground.That is a given.
However, he essentially argues that the 109E was also technically superior to the Spitfire I.
His points are -
it was marginally faster
it had superior armament - both hitting power and ammunition duration
it had mechanical fuel injection
Of course, as the war progressed later versions of the Spitfire and 109 had varying characteristics but he is talking about the way it was between May and October 1940.
However, he essentially argues that the 109E was also technically superior to the Spitfire I.
His points are -
it was marginally faster
it had superior armament - both hitting power and ammunition duration
it had mechanical fuel injection
Of course, as the war progressed later versions of the Spitfire and 109 had varying characteristics but he is talking about the way it was between May and October 1940.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff