109G Vs Spitfire IX in '42

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

IIRC when introduced the G-2 made 620-630 km/h at 1.3 ata. The contemporary F-4 made about the same at the time (iirc the higher ata for the 601E was not cleared until later, but I'm not sure). When the G-6 came to widespread use 1.42 ata was cleared for use (?) meaning the G-6 could fly something between 640-650 km/h.

So effectively, progression was too slow, but the new types were not really slower than their predecessors in service. The problem was rather that handling got worse and allied fighters got faster. Though really the comparative tests held by the british on the captured G-6 with pods show for me that the G-6 could still hold up with the Spitfire. The test results are only slightly in favor of the Mk. IX, but the G-6 had the gun pods, so I assume had they used a standard G-6 both would be about on par. The real game changer were the Mustangs which were definetly a class ahead in terms of speed and at least on par in every other aspect (low speed turning aside).

BTW: The P-51 B is a bit faster than the D as well.
 
Last edited:

My mistake, I was going from the following chart on Kurfursts site which seemed to show an advantage to the G2.

Kurfrst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen

Compared to the performance of the Spitfire, the Spit does seem to have an edge at most altitudes.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html
 

The leaders of the 8th and 15th AF, and the B-17 and B-24 bomber crews, would seriously dispute your assertion. The Luftwaffe had total air superiority over Germany until the Mustang became operational. What might have tipped the balance was an earlier arrival for the P-38J with manuever flap and boosted ailerons - but that didn't happen.
 
I think you are arguing geography.

The Luftwaffe may very well have lost air superiority over much of France, Italy and the Low countries while keeping it over Germany itself before the Mustang and/or large numbers of late model P-38s showed up.

However, escorting bombers to and from the Germany border or Rhine isn't going to do much for a bombing campaign with greater Germany as it's target. Keeping the bombers safe over France while letting them get shot down over Germany isn't going to affect the loss rate to a large extent.
Alternative to the Mustang/Late P-38 is an earlier invasion of France so you can stage the short legged fighters closer to extend the "air superiority" into Germany. There are number of reasons why that wasn't going to happen.
 
Spitfires provided most Allied fighter cover for amphibious landings on Sicily and Italy. They were perfectly capable of providing fighter cover over Normandy also. And that's really what matters. Get the ground pounders safely ashore in overwhelming numbers.
 

No,Luftwaffe had lost control of the german sky since summer 1943 . The best they achieved was to inflict heavy losses on deep penetration raids but failed to stop even one of them . Bombers damaged their targets in EVERY raid . And their losses ,while very heavy for the european standarts, meaned nothing for the huge american industry. And after each day of heavy fighting almost the whole german fighter force was out of serviability for several days. Back to back raids could be almost without organised resistance. They could not even stop the recce flights. Not to talk about the british night terror attacks that forced day units to share (and lose!) their aircrafts with Wilde Sau units
In addition had to face dispersion raids , attacks by mediums in their airfields on the same time of the deep penetrations ,Spitfires, P47 with drop tanks and a gap in the evaluations of DB605 and BMW 801 which meaned that both Bf109 and Fw190 were in this time frame in their lowest competivnes . Luftwaffe was defeated on all western fronts by late summer/early autumn 1943. P51 arrival only reduced the losses of the bombers(US had unlimited numbers anyway) , and this could have been done by P38s (even without improvements their numbers would be enough as P51),P47s, or simply more and more bombers. Alleid victory was not a result of an aircraft type, but an war of attrition imposed on the germany , supported by the american industry. I beleive too that P51 has far more fame than it deserved and today its capabilities are exagerated. Just my opinion.
 
Jim
the Luftwaffe certainly had not lost control of German airspace in summer 1943. Escorts with drop tanks were making only their first forays into Germany around mid-43 and the bombers up to this point were suffering losses that were unsustainable, regardless of production figures - the mid-1943 raids on Schweinfurt and Regensburg by a force of approx 380 bombers left 60 destroyed and a further 87 scrapped on their return.

I would like you to substantiate your claim that a day of fighting would leave 'the whole german fighter force was out of serviceability for several days'; from mid-43 onwards I don't recall reading of any 8th AF account that read 'raid unopposed - there and back'.

Recce flights esp high-altitude, were difficult for anyone to intercept, regardless of the condition of their airforces. Reflected energy in WWII radar sets from high-altitude plots was weak and even if pinged, they had to get something up there that was i. in time to do anything and ii. wouldn't be seen by the recce pilot, who could head for home in a generally faster machine (unarmed, clean finish, special tune).

Germany was defeated by a war of attrition but aircraft type played a large part in it. Imagine no P-51 or even P-38, you are left with a Spitfire which, while certainly potent, would be useless in the war over Germany, if only because it couldn't make it that far. The P-47 will get you to the border.

The P-51 was the only type that could fly to Berlin and meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. Imagine at the start of the war, an Air Ministry requirement for a Hurricane-sized fighter that could fly at 437mph and get you from a field in Cambridgeshire to the airspace over Berlin for the fight they had in mind, and then back. There was nothing overrated about the P-51, it was, for its time, a marvel of engineering.

I would summarise by returning to your point Jim, the Luftwaffe was still very much a coherent and potent entity in 1943 and still very much in the fight.
 
Imagine no P-51 or even P-38, you are left with a Spitfire which, while certainly potent, would be useless in the war over Germany
Click to expand...
Spitfires operated over Germany after Anglo-American ground forces over ran France. Just as Spitfires operated over Sicily from Malta and then operated over southern Italy from Sicily.
 

Just a thought. I did read of some late war Halifax daylight raids to Germany that were escorted all the way by Tempests operating from the UK with 2 x 90 gallon drop tanks. Not to Berlin but to targets in the west of Germany.
I admit I could be wrong and will try to find out where I read it but its an interesting thought.

Edit The raids were on synthetic oil plants in the Essen area on 11th September 1944 and the Tempests were from 150 wing
 
Last edited:
That would be interesting
if you can find it though on the face of it, I don't think the RAF escorted by Tempests sounded any better off than the USAAF escorted by P-47s
 
COlin
Our postings crossed, I updated the previous posting with the details of the raids. However, I would back the Tempest against the P47 if only because of its better climb. Both were very fast, both could dive as if the hounds of hell were after them and both were well armed. However the P47 didn't shine at climbing and that is no small advantage.
It does however make the Tempest an option, if the P51 hadn't been around.
 
Spitfires, P-47s, Tempests all had range to escort bomber formations at least part of the way to Germany, but it was the Mustang that had the legs to escort to just about every corner of the Reich, AND have the loiter time to hang around for the circuses that developed around the bomber formations. This is what hurt the luftwaffe more than anything from late '43, that ther was no point in the bomber mission where the bombers were left unnattended.

The RAF lacked the capability to provide LR escort for most of the war, because they developed Night Bombing as their primary strategic weapon. From 1941 they had been working on achieving air superiority over France and North Africa (and subsequently over Italy). By early 1943 this had largely been achieved, thanks in large measure to the efforts of the Spitfire formations. Without that contribution the US LR escorts would have had a much harder time of it.

Both aircraft probably represented the pinnacle of their respective roles, but both had fundamentally different roles. Both roles were of critical importance in the defeat of the enemy
 
Recce flights esp high-altitude, were difficult for anyone to intercept, regardless of the condition of their airforces.
Click to expand...

The Germans had great difficulty in carrying out recce missions over Britain from the summer of 1941 onwards. In the whole of 1943 they managed 187 recce sorties over Britain, and suffered 33 losses doing so (nearly 18%).
 
Hop, is it possible to put some perspective on the numbers you posted for 1943 by posting the number of Allied recce flights over German controlled territory?
 

The point you seem to be missing is that the Mustang was the dominant factor CAUSING the attrition, and the attrition rate, in the crucial six months before D-Day. The Mustang was the reason that 8th could prosecute the campaign against oil and chemical plants in Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Mustang was the reason that no German airfield or reaction force was 'safe' from intrusdion while trying to take off and land, or assemble to initiate an attack on the bombers. Ditto for barge and rail transport.

The P-38 in late May 1944 was capable of doing those things on a more or less equal basis versus the Fw 190 and me 109 - but it simply was not up to the task when the Mustang was introduced into the ETO at about the same time.
 

I don't deny what you have said and was in no way trying to dumb down the contribution of the 8th Air Force and the P51 pilots. I believe that there is a lot of rubbish spoken about the P51 performance being exagerated. Its range gave it the ability to roam all over Germany and at the altitude the bombers flew it was more than a match for the German fighters.

It was just speculation that if for some reason the P51 had not been developed the RAF did have in the Tempest a fighter that could escort daylight raids deep into German territory and be more than equal to the defending German fighters. Mind you it did help that RAF Bombers normally flew at around 20,000 not 30,000 ft8).
 
Milosh said:
Hop, is it possible to put some perspective on the numbers you posted for 1943 by posting the number of Allied recce flights over German controlled territory?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the number of flights but if I remember correctly, they did map every inch of occupied Europe every 6 months with greater effort at key points and times. Plus of course before and after photo's for each and every raid and the unsung but equally risky weather flights.

It must have been a serious number of flights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Snautzer01
Are there Soviet Air Force vs Polish Air Force encounters in 1939?
Replies
10
Views
3K
J_P_C
J
L
Spitfire losses in North Africa on September 26th 1942
Replies
9
Views
2K
Lfphd
L
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
2K
PAT303
P
B
Supply by air in Burma
Replies
2
Views
294
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register