109G Vs Spitfire IX in '42

[riacrato]

North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree. Germany lost aerial superiority in the Mediterranean and over N.W. France well before the P-51B arrived.

The Mustang was a fine late war aircraft. But IMO it's impact on WWII is greatly exaggerated.

I was talking about performance mostly. In my opinion throughout the period of 1940 up until late '43 there was never a real dominance of one air forces fighter designs in the west. In the east the Bf 109 was dominant for a long period, in Africa it was dominant too, at least to some extent and for some time. In the west, give or take, the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, P-38 and Thunderbolt were overall more or less on par eventhough people love fighting about which was the best.

The Mustang had a performance advantage over the 109 that was imo significant and a range advantage over all fighters that was even more significant. Enough to make a difference. Sure tactical and strategical situation as well as pilot skill are way more important, but still. It may be hyped a lot, but in the end, it was the best fighter post 1943 and that's when the war was won by the Allies.

 

[Juha]

Hello Milosh
RAF PR sorties 1943, 2,989 sorties flown, area covered: from Narvik to Spanish border and to Budapest and Belgrad, of those sorties flown 2,252 were successful. During the last six months of the year 12 P.R. a/c of No. 106 Wing were listed as missing.

Juha

 

[tail end charlie]

I was talking about performance mostly. In my opinion throughout the period of 1940 up until late '43 there was never a real dominance of one air forces fighter designs in the west. In the east the Bf 109 was dominant for a long period, in Africa it was dominant too, at least to some extent and for some time. In the west, give or take, the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, P-38 and Thunderbolt were overall more or less on par eventhough people love fighting about which was the best.

The Mustang had a performance advantage over the 109 that was imo significant and a range advantage over all fighters that was even more significant. Enough to make a difference. Sure tactical and strategical situation as well as pilot skill are way more important, but still. It may be hyped a lot, but in the end, it was the best fighter post 1943 and that's when the war was won by the Allies.

The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history. The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous.

The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.

A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.

 

[jim]

Mr Colin 1
1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.Production figures of Boeing prove this. Also us ability to train pilots was enormous .US possesed 157000pilots in 1945. Politicaly everything is sustainamble in times of war with proper use of propaganda. (e.g. people beleived and still beleive Japan was responsible for the Pasicic war)Besides bomber crew losses were very low in comparison with infantry losses. American bomber offensive would have continiue with or with out P51
2)German controllers called every available jagdgruppe In Northwest Europr/Germany to face every deep penetration raid.They flew far from their bases and were ordered to fly second mission if possible from any available airfield. At the end of the day there were hudrends indivintual fighters scatered in dozens airfields.It took 24-48 hours to regroup ,repair their aircrafts , replace losses etcetera.
3) Recce flights were practically impossimble for the germans until the appereance of Ar234 and Me262 which had some chance to escape Alleid fighters.
4)Lw could inflict losses? Yes Could prevent damage to any factory? No. Could prevent the Hamburg disaster(for military reasons of caurse)?No.Recce flights?No What exactly you mean with the word "air superiority"?
5)Lw was in serius fuel problems since 1942 far before any attack on production centers.Already pilots training program sufferd teriibly. Both Hartmann and Lipfert report that when deployed in the front in the fall of 1942 were barely able to follow their element leader .In 1943 it was even worse. During the battle of Kursk the Sclachtgruppen had to limit their support to the army because of the fuel status. So an air force with no fuel, ineffective training ,facing numerical inferiority from 1:5 to 1:10, with no acces to raw materials crusial for alloys used in turbosuperchargers,turbojets, magnetrons,Goering as chief, was an defeated air force. Perhaps not dead ,but defeated .Survived another year eating its own flesh.
Mr drondog
1)Statistis can be mislaeding 20% or 30% or 40% for 2-3 missions .So what? Thousands new bomberswere on the way.
2)As far as i know night bombing was rejected by the americans as ineffective against military targets.(But it was very effective against civil population as discovered by the british)
3)Bf 109G6 ,Fw190A5-6 , wasn t not enough to be equal or near equal to their foes. Because of the numerical inferiority should offer some edge in flight performance as in 1941/42.
4)German factories produced more aircrafts in 1944 than ever before and the limiting factor was,as before , fuel.Which was not enough even before the bombing of the production centers. So Doolitle campaign only accelerated the events helped by tactical errors by the Jagdwaffe.
5)Aerial superiority over Normandy would secured by the Alleis even without P51 . On D day LW flew 100 missions over the Normandy. Without the spring battles over Germany lets say
that would fly 2000 missions. Alleis flew 14000. Is there any point to further disgus?
Mr Glider
I firmly consider P51 overated. P51H even more.I consider its claimed performance totaly unrealistic But its just my opinion . I may be wrong .Dont call me rubbish

 

[tail end charlie]

Mr Colin 1
1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.Production figures of Boeing prove this. Also us ability to train pilots was enormous .US possesed 157000pilots in 1945. Politicaly everything is sustainamble in times of war with proper use of propaganda. (e.g. people beleived and still beleive Japan was responsible for the Pasicic war)Besides bomber crew losses were very low in comparison with infantry losses. American bomber offensive would have continiue with or with out P51

Jim losses in 1943 were unsustainable, consider the losses as a percentage, then consider mounting a similar raid the next week then the next, in a few weeks you have no pilots It dosnt matter what your industry can produce it matters how quickly you can produce experienced pilots. To produce a bomber pilot is comparable with a university graduate in cost and effort from both sides it takes YEARS not months. The only sustained daylight bombing campaign was that of the USAAF after 1943 because the LW and the Japanese were defeated. If the LW had put up 1000 fighters per day in Big week then big week would have been big monday.

 

[Colin1]

The Mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a Merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the Mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but don't rewrite history. The 109 wasn't dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the Mustang which is ridiculous.
The Allison-Mustang was what?
It was 35mph faster than the Spitfire Mk V at 15,000ft, its 4-hour endurance was double that of its peer. It covered the Dieppe landings and though under Army Cooperation Command, it was becoming noticed by Fighter Command wrt answering the tip-and-run raiders coming in along the south coast.

It was the burgeoning numbers of Mustang 1s that eventually led to the RAF finding other tasks for them, these included Populars, Rhubarbs and Rangers. Some squadrons were particularly successful on the type, the Canadian 400 and 414 Sqns brought down nearly all of the 30-odd enemy fighters brought down by the 1A, destroyed or badly damaged over 100 locomotives in their first six months of Rhubarbs and Rangers and then claimed a further dozen enemy aircraft in the air in the following year. Commencing June 1943 they flew night intruder missions, shooting down nightfighters over their French bases.

1s were eventually augmented by 1As (cannon-armed) and then P-51As (.50 cals). The Allison-Mustang had altitude limitations but it was no dead duck - horses for courses and choose your fight

The Mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the Mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.
Could you expand on this scenario which proves beyond all doubt that the Mustang wasn't all that? Outnumbered by 5 or 10 what? Pilot ability? Altitude? Fuel load? Ammo state? Then explain why any of its peers - outnumbered by 5 or 10 - would have fared any better

A 1944 Spitfire outperformed a Mustang in everything except range. The RAF used Mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground strafing because that is all they were good for

Once again, some specifics would be nice. On the point of your cannon-armed Mustangs, more specifically, the RAF used Mustang 1As, again a case of choosing the right fight for your type. Army Cooperation Command was disbanded in June 43 and the Mustang inventory was transferred to Fighter Command, who in turn seconded them to 2nd TAF. These were used to support the D Day landings in intensive operations in support of ground forces, moving through France and Belgium and into Holland. These would have been 2, 168, 268, 414 and 430 Sqns, totalling a 100-strong force of Mustangs, with 26 Sqn reverting to Mustang Is in October 1944 to photo-recce the V2 launch sites in Holland. These squadrons kept their Allison Mustangs until the end of hostilities in Europe and much of the technique of tactical reconnaissance was pioneered by, and credited to, the Allison Mustang.

 

[tail end charlie]

Once again, some specifics would be nice. On the point of your cannon-armed Mustangs, more specifically, the RAF used Mustang 1As, again a case of choosing the right fight for your type. Army Cooperation Command was disbanded in June 43 and the Mustang inventory was transferred to Fighter Command, who in turn seconded them to 2nd TAF. These were used to support the D Day landings in intensive operations in support of ground forces, moving through France and Belgium and into Holland. These would have been 2, 168, 268, 414 and 430 Sqns, totalling a 100-strong force of Mustangs, with 26 Sqn reverting to Mustang Is in October 1944 to photo-recce the V2 launch sites in Holland. These squadrons kept their Allison Mustangs until the end of hostilities in Europe and much of the technique of tactical reconnaissance was pioneered by, and credited to, the Allison Mustang.

I think you just provided the specifics, the mustang wansnt considered as a front line fighter in 1943 /44 it was a photo reconnaisance or ground staffer. When the merlin was being fitted to the mustang the griffon was being fitted in the spitfire. Your post seems to confirm the mustang was a round support fighter (TAF)

 

[Colin1]

Your post seems to confirm the Mustang was a ground support fighter (TAF)

TEC
my post does nothing of the sort, it defines which version of the Mustang was good at what. Far from being a 'dead duck' the Allison Mustang enjoyed an exemplary career supporting ground forces all the way to Holland and defining the art of tactical reconnaissance.

The Merlin Mustang's role is more clearly defined on the forum.

 

[Colin1]

Mr Colin 1
1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.
The US public would never have swallowed it. I would venture onto uncertain ground and say it would have been political suicide for Roosevelt and a potential early exit from the war for the US, whose electorate considered Europe's war to be Europe's business for the most part anyway

Production figures of Boeing prove this. Also US ability to train pilots was enormous. US possessed 157,000 pilots in 1945. Politicaly everything is sustainable in times of war with proper use of propaganda.
Or 'lying to the electorate' as it's known in democracies..

Besides bomber crew losses were very low in comparison with infantry losses. American bomber offensive would have continiue with or without the P-51
USAAC losses in WWII outstripped those of the USMC; I wouldn't call those 'very low' wrt anything

2)German controllers called every available jagdgruppe In Northwest Europe/Germany to face every deep penetration raid.They flew far from their bases and were ordered to fly second mission if possible from any available airfield. At the end of the day there were hundreds individual fighters scattered in dozens of airfields.It took 24-48 hours to regroup, repair their aircrafts, replace losses etcetera.
What is your source for this information?

3) Recce flights were practically impossible for the Germans until the appearance of Ar234 and Me262 which had some chance to escape Allied fighters.
I'm largely unaware of any useage of either aircraft in the reconnaissance role, which is of course, not to say that they weren't

4)Lw could inflict losses? Yes Could prevent damage to any factory? No. Could prevent the Hamburg disaster(for military reasons of course)? No. Recce flights? No What exactly you mean with the word "air superiority"?
Careful Jim, there's a faint whiff of political in there. Air superiority, in context, is what the Luftwaffe were finding it increasingly difficult to guarantee in 1944.

5)Lw was in serious fuel problems since 1942 far before any attack on production centers. Already pilots training program sufferd terribly. Both Hartmann and Lipfert report that when deployed in the front in the fall of 1942 were barely able to follow their element leader. In 1943 it was even worse. During the battle of Kursk the Schlachtgruppen had to limit their support to the army because of the fuel status. So an air force with no fuel, ineffective training, facing numerical inferiority from 1:5 to 1:10, with no acces to raw materials crucial for alloys used in turbosuperchargers, turbojets, magnetrons, Goering as chief, was an defeated air force. Perhaps not dead, but defeated. Survived another year eating its own flesh.

Fuel shortages weren't beginning to bite as early as 1942 or even 1943. That's a scary analogy in bold

 

[riacrato]

The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history. The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous.

The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.

A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.

The Mustang was never "a dead duck". The Allison engined variants were very fast down low and up to ~4500m. I never said the 109 was dominant in the BoB don't put words in my mouth and how about being a little more respectful altogether? The 109 was overall significantly better than the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Hurricane of which there were plenty initially when compared to the Spitfire.

What is a 1944 Spitfire? Better check the relative strength numbers again. And the RAF used Mustangs only for ground attack? Now who's being rediculous?

 

[Milosh]

Colin, the Ar 234 was the first a/c to photograph the entire Normandy landing area. This was done by Lt erich Sommer on Aug 3 1944.He made 3 passes covering a strip 18 miles wide. Thsi was more that what the whole Lw recce force had accomplished in 2 months. It took a team of 12 photo interpreters 2 days to produce an initial report.On Sept 10 1944 he flew a photo recce of the Thames Estuary.

Kommando Sperlng is worth a search.

Thanks Juha. It would seem that the 1943 Lw recce missions were, as some say, nuisance raids.

Not the best scan (source unknown),

 

[Glider]

The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history.

As others have mentioned the Mustang was far from being a dead duck with the Alison. It had by some margin the best low level performance of anything in the air. The RAF put a high value on PR and kept them as long as possible in the role as nothing matched it in the Tac R role almost until the end of the war.
As for the Bubble Canopy being a requirement P51 B/C did an excellent job.

The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous.

The Me109 was dominant in N Africa until Spits were issued, any analysis of the campaign would support that.

The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed.

Are you saying that the RAF outnumbered the Luftwaffe in the BOB by 5 to 10 to 1? If so I direct you to the This Day in the BOB thread.

A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.

In 1944 the RAF mainly used Cannon Armed Mustangs for Tac R and occaisional escort missions covering Mosquito strike aircraft. The Tac R requirement was urgent and conversions of Typhoons, Spit IX and Spit XIV were tried but all fell short often on range. The Allison Mustang were kept flying as long as possible. To use them on GA was a waste of an aircraft impossible to replace.

 

[Colin1]

Colin, the Ar 234 was the first a/c to photograph the entire Normandy landing area

I'll be honest with you
that did spring to mind some time after I made the post, but only from artwork that I have seen somewhere. I think the Sommer's Ar234 is in company with an Me262

 

[Glider]

Mr Glider
I firmly consider P51 overated. P51H even more.I consider its claimed performance totaly unrealistic But its just my opinion . I may be wrong .Dont call me rubbish

I wasn't calling you or anyone else rubbish, However, I do say a lot of rubbish is spoken about the P51 being overated.
It did a unique job which no other fighter in any airforce could do. At the height the US bombers flew it was at least as good as and normally better than anything the opposition could put up against it. It gave the USAAF the ability to take the fight to the opposition and dictate the terms of the fight. To do this and then to have the ability to defeat the enemy on their own ground or airspace is a priceless advantage. An advantage that was as important in the air battles over Germany as it was in the age of the Romans.

Whatever people think about the merits or otherwise of the P51 the above statement is undeniable.

I happen to believe that if the P51 was up against an equal force of Spit XIV's then it would have been at a disadvantage. However even then the USAAF would be able to dictate where and when the battles took place and may well have won the campaign.

 

[Njaco]

To deny that the Mustang was insignificant during the war, is ..how to put it nicely...naive. When daylight bombing was suspended in Oct '43 until escorts could be found, there was only one aircraft that was able to answer the challenge by Feb 44 - the P-51. And even if it had the range, it certainly wasn't a Cessna going against the Bf109s and Fw 190s at the time. The USAAF needed escorts with the range and able to mix it up with the LW. That is why the P-51 is regarded as most worthy. You may have a personal dislike but you can't ignore the facts.

 

[Milosh]

To deny that the Mustang was insignificant during the war, is ..how to put it nicely...naive. When daylight bombing was suspended in Oct '43 until escorts could be found, there was only one aircraft that was able to answer the challenge by Feb 44 - the P-51. And even if it had the range, it certainly wasn't a Cessna going against the Bf109s and Fw 190s at the time. The USAAF needed escorts with the range and able to mix it up with the LW. That is why the P-51 is regarded as most worthy. You may have a personal dislike but you can't ignore the facts.

Daylight bombing wasn't suspended. It was restricted to targets that escorts could also reach.

The USAAF in WWII

Foe example, on Nov 3 Mission 119 was dispatched to the Wilhemshaven, Germany

 

[davebender]

Feb 1944 to May 1945 = 15 months. 22% of the total European war period.
Sep 1939 to Jan 1944 = 52 months. 78% of the total European war period.
Something besides the P-51 provided the Western Allies with aerial superiority for most of the war. Without that aerial superiority it would have been impossible to drive the Axis out of North Africa, invade Sicily and invade Italy.

 

[parsifal]

for once i substantially agree......except that the p-51 was crucial to the final victory

 

[NZTyphoon]

The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.

A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.

There are some serious misconceptions here - where to start? Firstly what is meant by "A spitfire outperformed a mustang in everything except range?" Which version of the Spitfire, which version of the Mustang? The Allison engined P-51A was about as fast as a Spitfire L.F XI , albeit at a lower altitude. In 1944 the only Spitfire which had a comparable performance to a P-51B/C/D or K in terms of maximum speed was the Spitfire XIV . Yup, the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable and could climb faster but had a very poor range and endurance by comparison.

The RAF used Mustangs for more than "ground strafing" - not forgetting, for instance, that the Mustang IIIs (P-51B/C) of 122 Wing 2nd Tactical Air Force were used on fighter sweeps and as fighter-bombers, being successful at both missions, until, in September 1944, they were exchanged with Hawker Tempests of the ADGB (Air Defence Great Britain) and were then used for long range escort duties for the rest of the war. It is also overlooking the contribution of 133 (Polish) Wing Mustangs. From early to mid 1944 Mustang IIIs of the ADGB were also used, with some success, for chasing V-1s. The reason the RAF held on to the Allison engined Mustangs until 1945 was because they were unrivalled as low-altitude Tac-Air reconnaissance aircraft

" if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed."
How do you make this assumption / is there any tangible evidence to support such a claim? Assuming, in the first place that Spitfires were actually outnumbered 5 or 10 to one during the B of B (arguably yes), Spitfires weren't the only type of fighter used by the RAF during the Battle: as McKinstry points out in his book on the Hawker Hurricane
"Sydney Camm's plane was the key weapon of Fighter Command [italics added]....If the Hurricane had not been available the RAF would have been too limited to mount an effective defence...because there were insufficient numbers of Spitfires..."(page 2)
Had the Spitfire actually been the only single-engine, single-seat fighter used by the RAF, and outnumbered by 5 to 10 to one, the Luftwaffe would have gained air superiority over SE England.

 

[Juha]

Hello
In a world without P-51B/C/D/K and before Tempest Mk V GB might have build more Spit Mk VIIIs and less Mk IXs and kept most of Mk VIIIs in ETO instead of sending them all to MTO or to Far East.. Spit Mk VIII had the range of 740mls with internal fuel vs that of Tempest Mk V's 760mls. And both had the option of 90 Imp gal in drop tank(s). That without late Mk VIII's rear fuselage tank. Spit Mk IX's range with internal fuel only was 420-434mls and 900-914mls with 90Impgal drop tank. Mustang Mk III had the range of 890 mls with internal fuel only and it could carry 125 Impgal in drop tanks with them its max range was 1445mls, so it still had clearly superior range but Spit Mk VIII had range for escort missions to Western Germany.

Hello NZTyphoon
On Hurricane, without it FC might have for ex Gloster F5/34s which might well have been a better fighter but there would probably have been fewer of them. Spit and Hurri were not only options available to FC in late 30s

Juha