Originally posted by FMF'Myth' is in the eye of the beholder, and virtually no one else.
No. Britain won it. The "myth", as proposed by wolfgang59, is 'it was the Spitfire was the plane that won it'.
Even though there were far more Hawker Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, and that the BF-109 was a superior fighter to the Supermarine Spitfire, the fact is that it was the British pilots, who were flying Spitfires (superior to the Hurricanes in a fighter-to-fighter role), who won the Battle of Britain.
Other arguments say that it was actually superior radar technology, and/or the fact that the Germans simply gave up their assault, or that the German fighters simply could not spend much time on-scene due to fuel restrictions, that actually "won the BoB", but that does not negate the fact that the Spitfire was the British plane on the scene that enabled Britain to withstand the German assault. The BF-109 may have been a superior plane, but the Spitfire was the plane the British depended on to win, and win they did.
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, this iis the point of this thread. The fact that robbie carrobie pointed out that the Spitfire is overrated in large swathes of the collective memory/perception about the events of 1940 does not mean that either wolfgang59 or robbie were claiming that the Germans won the Battle of Britain. The myths about the Spitfire have been in the eye of millions and millions of British beholders for three generations or more.
'Myth' is in the eye of the beholder, and virtually no one else.
14 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFNo, the myth is that the Spitfire had nothing at all to do with the British success in the BoB.
Yes, this iis the point of this thread. The fact that robbie carrobie pointed out that the Spitfire is overrated in large swathes of the collective memory/perception about the events of 1940 does not mean that either wolfgang59 or robbie were claiming that the Germans won the Battle of Britain. The myths about the Spitfire are in the eye of millions and millions of British beholders for three generations or more.
This myth, that the Spitfire was NOT 'the plane that won the BoB', is only in the mind of the one speaking it, and as I said, virtually no one else. Just because virtually everyone agrees that the Spitfire is the plane that won the Battle of Britain, doesn't make it a myth. Did the Hawker Hurricane 'win the Battle of Britain'? Did the German Bf-109? Did the American P-51? No, it was the Spitfire that was flown by the men who DID win the Battle of Britain.
History is history. Calling it a myth doesn't make it one. The premise is stupid.
Originally posted by SuzianneOther factors (from Simon Schama, A History of Britain, 2002)
'Myth' is in the eye of the beholder, and virtually no one else.
Even though there were far more Hawker Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, and that the BF-109 was a superior fighter to the Supermarine Spitfire, the fact is that it was the British pilots, [b]who were flying Spitfires (superior to the Hurricanes in a fighter-to-fighter rol ...[text shortened]... superior plane, but the Spitfire was the plane the British depended on to win, and win they did.[/b]
* The altitude of the battle (20,000 feet and below) -- 'Richard Overy argues that if the Battle had been fought at 30,000 feet the British would have lost...'
* The German fighters had to protect bombers, thus impairing their tactical flexibility
* The German planes' distance from their bases severely limited their operational time
* Radar and the 30 000 strong Observer Corps gave some early warning of the raids
* British pilots who baled out could be back in the air the same day; German pilots and crew were quickly captured
* Civilians contributed (voluntarily) to Spitfire Funds that ran at about £1m per month in 1940 (over £50m in today's money), and ground staff serviced planes 24/7
14 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRichard Overy argues that the Me-109's two-stage engine supercharger only gave it an advantage in manoeuvrability well above 20,000 feet.
Although the Spitfire is a beautiful plane, the version that fought in 1940 was inferior to its main German rival, the Messerschmitt 109E. Spitfires merely had eight Browning machine guns with 14.7 seconds worth of ammunition, which compared badly to the ME-109E with its 55 seconds of ammunition and two 20mm cannon. Although the Spitfire may have bee ...[text shortened]... ar more effective fighter than the 1940 Spitfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moreRketqek
14 Mar 16
The fact that the Daily Mail reported the so-called 'myth' leads me to suspect that it isn't really a myth at all. After all, didn't the Daily Mail support Fascism in 1933-4 and oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees from Germany thereafter?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293468/The-unsung-plane-REALLY-won-Battle-Britain.html
14 Mar 16
Originally posted by SuzianneOther elements of the Battle of Britain folklore that's had a lot of traction for so long have been the underestimation of the 'less glamorous' Hurricane and the downplaying (or even ignorance) of the contribution by non-British pilots.
History is history. Calling it a myth doesn't make it one. The premise is stupid.
