Best Fighter

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

Udet said:
I am firmly convinced history of WWII, as it has been written, is full of misconceptions, preconceived ideas, biases, manipulations and lies.

He he! All recorded history is, friend.

The thing is, although every post here is for entertainment, that's not to say there is no academic value in it. The important thing is that we all strive to preserve the memory of those times. To be sure, everybody will have ideas and assumptions which are inaccurate, but the debates that go on here help to weed them out and gain as true as possible picture of what went on. It would be a terrible thing if the cataclysmic events of the Second World War were to be forgotten or worse still, taken for granted. I for one, am thankful that there are so many people out there who are interested in this part of history, and remember the sacrifices and sufferings that the people who lived though this period went through for all of our sakes.

 
Hello DerAdler:

I do think the allies as victors, have conducted into some extent an effort to defame the Bf109.

Nevertheless, they give due credit to the clear superiority of the Bf109 over virtually all enemy fighters faced over Poland, France, Low Countries and the first years of Barbarossa in the USSR.

Again and again they frequently put it the Bf109 offered an initial stubborn fight during the first sorties flown by the 8th Air Force over Europe to then rapidly get blown out of the skies by their "superb perfect flawless machines" such as the P-47, P-51 and P-38.

A very misleading depicting of facts.

The Bf109 as pure dogfighter is second to none.

Not even during the Battle of Britain. The Bf109 E-3 which saw service during the Battle of Britain, had a fuel injection equipped DB601 A engine, a feature that gave a plus to the German fighters over the carbureted engines of the Hurricane and the Spitfire whose engines would cut out when pushed into negative G forces.

The sad shortcoming of the Bf109 over England in 1940 was its short range.

When you say the Bf109 (G versions) although of great look, probably did not make the best fighter it would be better to provide further input in order to reach clearer conclusions.

To which G versions would you be referring to?

The G version of the Bf109 was the most produced of all. There were dozens of assembly kits and sub-versions.

Some facts: the Bf109 of the G versions made the main and most numerous opponent to the fighters of the USAAF over Europe.

Above 25,000 ft the Bf109´s outperformed the P-51 which had a poorer high altitude maneuverability (a fact hardly mentioned by the allies who try to portrait the P-51 as a 100% perfect flawless fighter).

The Bf109 G6/AS was fitted with a very powerful DB605 AS engine for very high altitude performance; it outperformed the P-51 in combat sending important numbers of Mustangs down to the ground.

The Bf109 G-10 was perhaps even better against the P-51´s escorting the B-17´s boxes: it could fly circles around the Mustang at low speed dogfights at any altitude (another fact hardly mentioned by the allies; this was illustrated to me by veterans of the USAAF).

The Bf109 was not an efficient bomber interceptor though but I digress:as pure fighter is second to none, and it was proved in the skies of Europe throughout the entire conflict.

Some G versions, in certain assembly kits, overburdened the fuselage reducing its performance therefore its chances against the allied fighters.

Yet, the cleaner versions which I mentioned here are in equal terms against any allied machine.

But I have to agree with you DerAdler, the Bf109 is a wonderful looking plane.
 

Users who are viewing this thread