BoB & Spitfire vs Hurricane (vs 109-ish) - an interesting viewpoint
 

Some of you may know the excellent Aviation Classics magazine that publishes every couple of months and exclusively focuses on one particular aircraft each time. Here's a viewpoint from the September 2010 issue by an ex-BBMF pilot I thought you might like to read...

http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/ne...e-or-hurricane

I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion as to why the RAF 'won' the BoB, that's perhaps more subjective than his personal Spitfire and Hurricane flying experience. I think it was also heavily influenced by two other factors, one being Goering's instructions for the 109s to tie themselves to the bombers but there's another aspect that's often overlooked. It was considered to be 'won' because the LW did not return to try again in 1941. Well, I was a guest at an Ex-Aircrew Association meeting a couple of weeks ago when Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown was giving a talk. He told us of how he was asked to interview Herman Goering during the time of the Nuremberg trials and he asked Goering "who won the Battle of Britain?". Goering claimed it was a draw. He could not continue the Battle because Hitler had ordered him to withdraw much of his strength to prepare for operation Barbarossa.

I often wonder what would have happened if the Battle had resumed?

An interesting read! It's something of a credit to 1C that as I was reading, a number of things he says about the performance characteristics between the aircraft seemed to me to also be true in the game (stall characteristics particularly).

I agree that the Battle of Britain being 'won' had a lot to do with decisions made by the Luftwaffe command. If they'd stuck to taking out the airfields and let the 109s roam hunting more often, things might have ended very differently.

+1

Agree. It truly was "a close run thing". For someone of Goering's huge ego to even concede that the BoB was "a draw" is a huge admission on his part.

Good reading, this sim covers all the details.

I don't thin "Win","Draw" or "Loose" are appropriate terms. The Axis did not meet any of their major objectives. The British did not have any major objective other than a long term goal of gaining aerial superiority which they failed to do tactically, but gained anyway on account of German strategic decisions.

If your playing chess and one side does not have any real short term objectives other than surviving and being in a position to succeed in futures games and the other player gets up and goes off to Russia half way through, it's not really a "Draw" so much as a 'non-result'.

I would disagree that they didn't have any short term objectives, they're just not as easy to quantify. Preventing something from happening, whether by the enemy's inability to do so or by their deciding not to for whatever reason, seems to be a pretty clearly met objective - namely preventing Germany from launching any kind of channel crossing invasion. Based on when they were considering launching such a thing, I think maybe that could be a pretty short term goal met.

But I do agree that 'win', 'lose' 'draw' terms aren't entirely adequate for the result. Britain could claim victory based on achieving the result of defense. If you're playing american football, and the other team fails to score during their downs that is a pretty clear victory for the defensive side. However, Germany basically did reappropriate their resources and 'give up' the attack so in another way, you definitely can argue that the battle resulted in a 'to be continued' that never really got continued.



It seems pretty clear to me that EVERYONE won as a result of Germany not defeating England, though.

I am not reading this in German, so that's a win in my book.

I think this has been discussed before.. lol

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ghlight=defeat

Did the Germans force people of the occupied countries to speak German instead of their own language?

They didn't get that far ;)