BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by winny

Surley it was about all these things? To different degrees certainly, but all contributed. And loads of other little factors that just tipped the balance in the UK's favour, tactics, fatigue, morale, quality of pilots.

One thing really came across in the programe and that was just how scared some of the Germans were at the sight of Spitfires, so psychology comes into it too..

I agree about the 109's being superior at that time, just look at what happened in '41-'42 when the Brits had to fight over German territory.

Yes, you're quite right in all the above except maybe the tactics and the 109 bit.
If you re-read my first post, it says 'the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect', which encompasses all of your points.
Tactics-wise, the RAF initially utilised tight 'Vic' formations as opposed to the German's 'schwarm', which led to a lot of early RAF losses when 'bounced'. They also had guns harmonised at an ineffective distance. They soon learned to alter both.
Whether the 109 was a better fighter? Well Tom Neil, who has been quoted, was a Hurricane pilot during the battle, and presumably was comparing the 109 to the Hurri, but this wasn't made clear in the programme.
Sure, the 109 had fuel injection and cannon, and the machine guns (not the cannon) carried 55 seconds of ammo, but there were only two of them. This is the same rate of fire as the 8 Brownings on the British planes.
It's well documented that the Hurri could out-turn the 109, and the Spit was more agile and could also out-turn it.
So the superiority of any of these fighters depends entirely on which yardstick you measure them by.
Certainly plenty of 109's were shot down by Hurricanes, so......