Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "BFBS Forces News" channel.

  1. The same reason that Poles and many others did, they had no air force of their own left to fly for and they wanted to fight against Germany. Britain had well over 2,000 pilots in the Battle of Britain, Poland 145, Czech about 112 I believe.
    13
  2.  @sandervanderkammen9230  In WW II the Meteor destroyed 46 Luftwaffe aircraft and no Meteors were lost in combat. Too bad you can't say the same about the Me 262 failure that couldn't take on piston engine fighters.
    7
  3.  @sandervanderkammen9230  Designed for jet engines and always flown with jet engines unlike the Me 262.
    7
  4.  @sandervanderkammen9230  You always tell lies. 890 did crash over many years in RAF service but many Meteors were made and flew. It served for decades unlike the failure Me 262.
    5
  5.  @sandervanderkammen9230  Frank Whittle patented it in 1930 and the Germans copied his work. At least the Gloster E 28/39 was flightworthy unlike Ohain's poor attempt.
    4
  6.  @sK3LeTvM1  It really is, imagine how many would have been shot down in 1940, even in 1944 the Me 262 had a poor record as a fighter.
    4
  7.  @sK3LeTvM1  The Meteor was in service in 1944. The Me 262 was a poor fighter.
    4
  8. +7belowzero This is how it should be done, the Spitfire was very forgiving but it needed putting down smoothly by reducing speed until it almost stalled onto the ground, any attempt to put it down as you might other planes and it would bounce. But with such a low stalling speed a good pilot could land it well, even the Seafire on carriers, all it took was good piloting.
    3
  9.  @ivorholtskog5506  Why would anyone want the He 178? it had such low performance that they never retracted the undercarriage.
    2
  10.  @sandervanderkammen9230  Staggering is how many lies you tell. Just as well that so few Me 262's flew, as for the P 80 less were made than the Meteor and more crashed.
    2
  11. Only more in the Battle of Britain and while it was about 15 % more there were about twice as many Hurricanes
    2
  12.  @sandervanderkammen9230  As a fighter the Meteor was much better. The Me 262 couldn't handle piston engine fighters, the Meteor could and jet fighters. You couldn't even tell me how many Spitfires the Me 262 shot down. I know the answer and it was none, you made a claim that the Me 262 shot down 85 RAF aircraft including Spitfires and Tempests but you couldn't even give one example. Poor dorkorbummer the fake Pro Nazi from USA.
    2
  13.  @richardclarke3924  The He 178 was not a fighter and had such low performance they never bothered to retract the undercarriage, the Me 262 flew in 1941 but it had no jet engines, just a single 700 hp piston engine, it was very slow.
    2
  14. Torqa So Britain needed so many pilots? or did Britain just use pilots in a better way than the Luftwaffe, the RAF rested and rotated pilots which the Luftwaffe never did.
    1
  15. FIATF130DT. The two seat trainers were converted from production Spitfire Mk VIII and MK IX after the war, this was an LF Mk IX made in 1943, you are right.
    1
  16. Herpythe Really? maybe you missed the fact that Spitfire and Tempest both had combat against Me 262`s and it was rather one sided, Me 262`s failed to shoot down either and both shot down quite a number of Me 262`s, another fact is that most Me 262 never flew at all. To quote a Spitfire pilot late in 1944, "the Me 262 is not as rare as it used to be but is not as dangerous as we had been led to expect".
    1
  17. Brit. Try reading up on the subject, Hugo Broch scored his victories from 1943 on the Eastern front. He would be well aware of the Spitfire but did he meet any?
    1
  18.  @sandervanderkammen9230  Gib es auf dorktorbummer du hast wirklich keine Ahnung.
    1
  19.  @sandervanderkammen9230  Gib es auf dorktorbummer du hast wirklich keine Ahnung.
    1
  20. War little boy. The Meteor was a very effective fighter.
    1
  21. If there were no Hurricanes but more Spitfires the Battle of Britain would still have been won, If there were no Spitfires but more Hurricanes that may not have been the case.
    1
  22.  @rodgeranderson4922  Just like your claim that the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain aided by the Spitfire, there are many if's. the fact is that the Spitfire had a higher kill ratio and lower loss ratio and more often took on the fighters which was the more dangerous job.
    1
  23.  @dovidell  They were invited but Russia controlled Poland at the time.
    1
  24. We have to thank all 2,900 pilots, if it wasn't for all of them the Battle of Britain would have been lost. It is the height of ignorance to claim that one nation did more than any other, in fact very insulting to all the other pilots.
    1
  25.  @johnsweda2999  I wonder if so many British pilots lost their lives and changed to Polish tactics. From all I have seen the Polish tended to be rather aggressive but not as disciplined as British pilots. If the RAF losses were worse and suddenly got less you might be right but that is not how it happened.
    1