The Bf109 - superior?

[Split from "Most Influential Aircraft of WW2" - it is a bit disjointed, I'm afraid]

But it has little to do with the design of the plane, which on average matched but never surpassed its enemies. The German aces would probably have shot down just as many planes in any other fighter, and possibly more would they have had Fw190s throughout the war.

Scaramouche: I really don't know which one of us is less at home in the story behind Guernica; I can clearly see not a horse's head but a bull's head and a complete horse panicking.

 

I don't have to be told twice (Tony told me)

Wich enemy ? The Bf-109 series was fast, climbed like ****, turned tighter than any U.S. fighter in 44-45 and atleast as tightly as later UK Fighters, plus it had good durability. In the Design, well its Wing-slats were pretty revolutionary when they were first used.

No they wouldnt ! Don't get me wrong the Fw-190 was a good plane, but German fighter-aces who had flown both, by far favored the Bf-109 ! (And there was a reason for it)
The Bf-109 had comparable speed, better climb-rate, much MUCH better turning-rate, low stall-speed, and it was gentle if stalled.

One of the best Fighters of WW2 if you ask me, offcourse along with the Spitfire, and P-51.

Best regards, KBO.

 

Weren't these the devices known as 'Handley Page slots' prewar?

After reading many (often conflicting) reports on flying the Bf 109 I have come to the conclusion that it was a very effective fighter in skilled and experienced hands, but a poor choice for a novice. That especially applied to the later versions, which were heavier and had higher landing/take-off speeds. Eric Brown rated it badly as a flying (as opposed to fighting) machine.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

Because T&B wasnt the future, B&Z was, and the Fw-190 excelled at it.

The Spitfire could forget all about matching the Fw-190's dive, speed, and roll-rate when it first appeared.

But if we look at the numbers, the Fw-190 wasnt really what was disasterous for the RAF as Bf-109's still shot down far more fighters.

Ask Erich Hartmann and Galland wich airplane they prefered
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony

Yes your right about the Wing-slats, I forgot all about that. But still, no other country used them on their fighters until very lately in 42.

Thats odd, considdering how effective it actually was. Erich Hartmann saw it as one of the finest if not 'The' finest Fighter of the war (And he wasnt the only one)

That actually only really applies to the G-6 series and slightly to K series, but the late-war G10-14 were all great fighters. The G10-14 could keep with the later U.S. fighters in B&Z, and superceed them in T&B.

Best regards, KBO.

 

Ask Erich Hartmann and Galland which aeroplane they were most familiar with...

No variant of the Bf109 caused the RAF to rapidly upgrade her fighters in an attempt to simply pull level rather than be superior. The Fw190 did.

As to kills -

1) there were more Bf109s in service
2) Fw190s tended to be used as fighter-bombers or low-level schnell-bombers, as they also excelled in those roles. Not much opportunity for 'kills' in either of those.

Statistics are far too easy to discredit!

Let us see kill ratios for the type, or even just loss ratios (how many lost vs how many built)

So, how many Fw190s crashed while taxying, or during take-off / landing compared to the Bf109?

 

:roll: Geeesh Ricky !

Yes and why do think it did ? It was a B&Z fighter "Wich was the future", so offcourse the RAF rapidly upgraded their fighters to be more suitable for B&Z fighting.

There's always a hundred explanations, but wich is the right one.

Actually alot of 109's were lost due to that, so there the Fw-109 is superior.

Best regards, KBO.

 

I think that was Ricky's point...

 

A huge article about Me-109 discussing some of the claims made about Me-109 in this thread. First hand info from those who flew the fighter.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

Hang on - the Fw190 was 'the future', but the Bf109 was more influential??
To my mind, the Bf109 was on a par with the current RAF fighters, but the Fw190 (when it first arrived) was better, and therefore more influential...

Although the pre-war propaganda value of the Bf109 (especially as it set speed & altitude records - admittedly in modified versions) and its performance in Spain, for example, helped create the myth of German strength.

 

And I think i know that !

The Bf-109 was a superior fighter to any Allied fighter up until somewhere in 1943, I mean look at the Dogfights between the RAF and Luftwaffe on the English-channel at that time ! From 43 and onwards one could argue the Fw-190 was more influential, as that is where B&Z tactics started to really become superior.

Tell that to the poor Russian, RAF and U.S. pilots who faced the 109, and didnt live to tell the tale.

Marseille who fought the Western Allies from the beginning always saw his 109F to be vastly superior, and btw he was 'never' outturned or outclimbed by an enemy aircraft ! (And he shot down alot of Hurricane's and Spit's)

Anyway most influential in the Design, the Bf-109 wasnt.

KBO

 

Ok, I'll agree on that, and agree to disagree on the rest, as we are departing rapidly from the point...

 

Ok well, there is always the PM option !

 

Well Galland for example also flew other planes than the 109, and so did many many other German fighter pilots. But they all agree wich was the best in Fighter vs Fighter scenario "The 109".

The Bf-109 was infact one of the finest fighters of the war, and P-51 and Spitfire pilots felt that ! (P-47's less so, as they would just dive if in a tough spot)

Best regards, KBO

 

Of what I heard (moving further and further off topic), the Bf109 wasn't structurally superior to the Spitfire in 1940, the two aircraft's biggest qualities were simply in different areas. Where the Spitfire was the more manoeuverable, comfortable and safe or forgiving airplane to fly, the Bf109 was the faster and better armed plane.

Ricky: I said one of the most important. It was in any case one of those tasks where shortages of transport aircraft occured, showing the volume of the demand.

 

Suggestion: Split the topic

Thats the popular opinion yes. The Spitfire wasnt really more maneuverable, they were very close. (The Spit had lower wingloading, while the Bf-109 had its Wing-slats)

The Spitfire and Hurricane were beaten badly by the Bf-109F-4 and G-2 in late 41-43.

Read Len Deightons book on the Bf-109 and Spitfire.

Best regards, KBO :smok:

 

My impression over much reading of personal accounts, objective analyses etc is that the Spitfire and the Bf 109 remained reasonably well matched throughout most of the war, to the point where pilot quality and luck generally decided the outcome of any equal combat between them. In the BoB they were very closely matched overall, with different pros and cons. The main difference was the Luftwaffe training and experience were superior at that time.

However, the Spitfire had more ultimate 'growth potential' and in its final versions was a superior combat machine to the equivalent 109s. In all of the 'best fighter' analyses I have seen, the Spit XIV, Fw 190D and P-51D are rated best of all, with little between them. The Bf 109 isn't considered to be as good.

There is no doubt from RAF accounts that the Fw 190 caused the biggest scare when introduced in 1941 as it was superior all-round to the Spit IV (IIRC), and led to a revised mark of Spit being rushed into service (the Mk IX IIRC). No mark of 109 had that effect.

I would always be wary of accepting the evaluation of pilots who specialised on one type. It may simply be that the characteristics of that type happened to suit them, or that through experience they had learned exactly how to get the best from the plane and could fight in it very well, or simply the well-known psychological factor that if you've trusted a weapon with your life many times and it's never let you down, you fall in love with it and overlook its deficiences. For instance, many US Army vets swore by the BAR and would hear no criticism of it, but by any objective anaysis it wasn't very good.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

I fully agree with everything Tony wrote above.

(Except that it was the Mk V Spitfire that was outclassed by the Fw190 )

 

it was superior all-round to the Spit IV (IIRC),

MkV, but pretty close... , actually the Fw190A-0 which first encountered the Spitfire MkV was superior in every aspect except armament which was a woefully inadequate 4x7.92mm Mgs, following the first clash over the channel in September 1941 the production planes were up-gunned to 2x7.92mms and 2x20mm MG-FF.

I would just like to echo what Tony has said, since my readings tend to agree with him. The Bf109's in Luftwaffe service tended to come off better against Spitfires of the RAF in the BoB and immediate aftermath because of two principle reasons, pilot quality of the Luftwaffe was far superior to that of the RAF and Luftwaffe tactics were far superior. Even after many RAF squadrons had success adopting the Luftwaffe Schwarm in during the BoB, they were ordered back into Vics for the sweeps over Northern France in late 1940 early 1941.

As for Len Deighton's book on the Spitfire/Bf109, I haven't heard of one, although I have read both Blitzkreig and Fighter, his account of the BoB. Fighter is a good account, basically unbiased and having read it a few times I believe the conclusion Deighton came to was that the Bf109 and Spitfire were very evenly matched. The Bf109E had a marginal speed advantage over the Spitfire MkI at altitude and a superior engine, the Spitfire MkI had better manouevrability. Deighton does offer the opinion that the Bf109 could possibly have out-turned the Spitfire, but that fighting over enemy territory it's pilots were unwilling to push their machines as far as the RAF pilot's. That's just his opinion though, and it's worth stating that unlike the likes of Eric Brown Deighton never to my knowledge flew either.

As for the Bf109/Fw190. Yes it's true that many of the veterans who flew both said that they prefered the Bf109, but significantly those who started in the Bf109 (Such as those who started in service with the Condor Legion) preferred the Bf109, although according to one documentary I saw once (Don't ask the name, I really can't remember!) apparently those later pilots who started their career in the Fw190 prefered the Fw190.

Members of the military are by and large a conservative bunch, they tend to prefer tried and tested kit that they're used to. I don't believe fighter pilots are any exception, so of course pilots who are used to and know the capabilities of their Bf109s inside out having flown them for a decade are going to say they prefer them.

To illustrate the point, the Japanese tested the Bf109E against an A6M2 Zero and a captured P-40 (A "B" I think, but can't remember), guess which plane their test pilots prefered?

 

I said just this, but with less coherence.

By the way, thanks for splitting the topic. I couldn't find the right posts to split through all the side issues so decided not to bother, but this one should work out. In fact, it is.

 

I have never read or heard that ! All the accounts and interviewes I have state the pilots who had flown the 109, but transfered to the Fw-190, still prefered the 109 for Fighter vs Fighter engagements.

I cant remember who said it, but I fully agree that the Spitfire XIV was the first Spitfire to be superior to the latest 109. However before the XIV was developed, the Spit and Messer were always very evenly matched. (I remember a reading that the Spitfire Manufactures always felt that the 109 was a step ahead of them in design)

Best regards, KBO. :smok: