Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_851
Hey, what about me?  |
Ok, we'll 'share the glory'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_851
As it happens, I had the opportunity to watch James Holland's broadcast again last night.
On a second viewing, I wasn't as impressed as on the first.
I found myself wondering whether the Luftwaffe pilot's diary was genuine, as the paper looked brand new. Not another 'Hitler's Diary' thing, surely?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.
|
I have it on tape myself - may well watch it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_851
Also, the description of the 109's undoubted firepower was a bit misleading, as he made no distinction between the cannon's duration of fire relative to the m/g's, or the relative hitting power of eight m/g's relative to two once the cannon shells were gone, or how long two m/g's would need to be on target relative to eight in order to deliver the same punch.
I appreciate of course that it only takes one bullet to kill the pilot, or hole the cooling system, but the comparison was regarding firepower.
|
I'm still slightly of the opinion that the 109 was just ahead in 1940 - for the two reasons of fuel injection and cannon. As you say though there are many factors to take into account in comparing the armament.
Also, I know that the Merlin was fitted out with some device that largely remedied the negative g issue, but not sure if that was done before the end of the battle?
Fortunately whatever slight (technical) edge the 109 may have had it was not of a sufficient degree to be anywhere near decisive - the deciding factors in most situations being pilot skill and the tactical situation. Any reasonably experienced British pilot would maximise the superior turn rate of their aircraft and half roll to dive after 109s.