Best Messerschmitt Bf109 subtype

Best Bf 109 subtype:

  • Bf 109 A/B/C/D

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Bf 109 E3/E4/E7

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • Bf 109 F2/F4

    Votes: 12 22.6%

  • Bf 109 G1/G2

    Votes: 5 9.4%

  • Bf 109 G6 variants

    Votes: 10 18.9%

  • Bf 109 G14

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Bf 109 G10

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Bf 109 K4

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Hispano II HE round has 8% HEI * 130 gram projectile = 10,4 grams of high explosive.

The MG 151/20 HEM round has 21,7% HEI * 92 gram projectile = 19,964 grams of high explosive.

That gives the MG 151/20 the advantage in HE of almost 2 to 1 (the numbers come from Tony Williams website who wrote a book about the subject together with the writer of the gun debate website).

Muzzle velocity for HE rounds is not very important (according to the same website).

Also see my website below about this subject. The Hispano wins the kinetic contest but the MG 151/20 wins the chemical (HE) contest.

I agree that the MG 151/20 API and HET rounds are not very strong but the HEM round more than compensates for this. The Hispano SAPI and HE round are more equally matched. Add to that a higher rate of fire (700 versus 600 rpm) for the Mg 151/20 and both guns turn out to be pretty equal in power.
 
The strongest opponent for the 109 B, C, D variants was the Polikarpov I-16. It had about the same speed but was more agile and had a much better armament with 4 ShKas fast firing machine guns (2 x 1800 rpm unsynchronized and 2 x 1400 rpm synchronized).

The 109 was however at the beginning of its development stage, the I-16 at its end.
 
And French AF Curtiss Hawk 75As seemed to have been more than match to 109Ds in early 1940.

Juha
 
Hi Claidemore,

>The Spitfire with 2 x 20mm Hispano II and 4 x .303 Brownings was putting out 133.2 lbs of projectiles per second.

>The 109G2, with 1 x 20mm Mg151 and 2 x 7.92 Mg17, put out 64.4 lbs of projectile/second.

Hm, let's have a look at the actual firepower instead of mere projectile mass (using international decimal separators):

Spitfire:

2x Hispano II: 2x 1,06 MW
4x Browning ,303: 4x 0,09 MW

Total 2,48 MW

Me 109G-2:

1x MG 151/20: 1,27 MW
2x MG 17: 2x 0,09 MW

Total 1,45 MW or 58% of the Spitfires.

However, with the centreline position of the Messerschmitt's armament and the extreme outboard position of the Spitfire's machine guns, I'd still consider both weapons systems as about equal.

The Me 109's hub cannon has about half the dispersion (four times the fire concentration) of the Spitfire's wing cannon, and there no problems with wing flex shifting the aim point during turns. Besides, there is no need to compensate for convergence/divergence of wing guns in relation to range, so aiming is considerably simpler for the Me 109 pilot.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
The French Hawks were delivered first in December 1938. The first Me 109 E were also completed at the end of 1938. Providing that it took the same time to get the aircraft into service the rival of the Hawk is the 109 E (not the D).

My country also ordered these aircraft, unfortunately they arrived too late.
 
Hi Fokker,

>Providing that it took the same time to get the aircraft into service the rival of the Hawk is the 109 E (not the D).

It seems that the Bf 109D met the Hawk 75 in combat, as Osprey's "Bf 109 D/E Aces of the Blitzkrieg" mentions an engagement between 27 Doras of JGr 102 and 9 Hawks guarding a Potez 63 reconnaissance aircraft.

The score was 4 Me 109s shot down and another 5 crash-landed against just 1 Hawk shot down. (It appears that the Messerschmitts tried to bounce the Hawks, so it's not like they were caught unaware.)

The Me 109E certainly was a tough opponent for the Hawk, but I'd say the Me 109D was outperformed due to its much less powerful engine.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Bookmarked your site Fokker, will read it as I get time, theres a lot there. Good info in your post too!

Questions,(which i might answer myself as I read further)
-Why did the 130 gram Hispano HEI (that's High Explosive Incendiary? right?) round have so much less explosive material?
-Did the Hispano rounds have heavier jackets, thereby making them less frangible?
-Did they use a different explosive material than the Germans?
-Did that 130 gram round have more incendiary material if it had less explosive stuff (I'm using the technical form of the word "stuff") ?

BTW, the longer heavier Hispano round would have a much higher ballistic coeffficient, making it more accurate.

Post war investigation of downed planes showed that it was incendiary rounds that contributed the most, so agree that AP was not as important.
 
Hi Fokker;

After a bit of perusal of your website, which is excellent BTW:

Mg 151 HEM (thin walled shell) had 19 grams of explosive, while the HET had only 3.68 grams.
The Hispano had 10.4 grams in the HEI round.

I think that answered some of my questions!

Anybody know the usual mix of API, HET and HEM in the 109? and the mix of API and HEI in the Spitfire?
 
Hi Claidemore,

>Anybody know the usual mix of API, HET and HEM in the 109?

According to the Schießfibel manual, 13 was found to be the best combination against fighters.

>and the mix of API and HEI in the Spitfire?

As they have virtually the same total energy, it doesn't really matter. I think Tony once pointed out that early on, there were actually ordinary steel "ball" rounds were used in the mix, substituting for one of the shell types, but I'm not certain that he was able to pin down the exact time ball was abandoned.

(My above calculations are based on an even API/HEI mix without ball. If it's used, Hispano II firepower drops below the figure I gave.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
And a 25% heavier projectile doesn't mean 25% more filler.
The MG 151/20 used the Mine Round ammo with a much higher % filler than normal, this also resulted in a lighter, less dense round. (due to less metal content)

I don't have figures for the Hispan ammo but for the MG 151/20:

AP - round weight of 117 g.
HE - round weight of 115 g. HE filler: 3.6 g
HE(M) - Minengeschoß ("mine shell") - round weight of 92 g. HE filler: 18 g
HE(XM) - round weight of 104g. HE filler: 25 g


Though the Hispao gun did have a somewhat higher muzzel velocity and muzel power (and a higher recoil force), it was a bit heavier as well and had a lower max ammo load. (150 rounds with belt feed iirc, opposed to well over 200 rounds for the 151/20; though in later developments this did change)
 
Unfortunatley, I prove my ignorance on aircraft. I chose the variants as a guess, brand me as a heretic if you must, I say what I say, and I did because I just felt like it.
 
I missed Fokker's earlier comment that already explained the HE difference:
The Hispano II HE round has 8% HEI * 130 gram projectile = 10.4 grams of high explosive.

The MG 151/20 HEM round has 21,7% HEI * 92 gram projectile = 19.964 grams of high explosive.
Click to expand...

And as I posted the HE(XM) - round weight of 104g. HE filler: 25 g

Widened this gap even further; but it should also be noted that while actual kinetic energy of the round doesn't matter too much for a HE shell, muzzle velocity (and balitic shape) always matter for trajectory/range reasons.
 
SpitfireKing said:
Unfortunatley, I prove my ignorance on aircraft. I chose the variants as a guess, brand me as a hertic if you must, I say what I say, and I did because I just felt like it.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of why these Polls are usually bogus...

And for the record, we dont need ur stupid ignorant comments as to why... And what the fu*k is a hertic??
 
The Hispano was used with a 1 to 1 ratio (SAPI to HE).

The MG 151/20 was used in the ratio's 1 to 1 to 1 and 1 to 2 to 2 and 1 to 1 to 3 (HET to API to HEM).

It depended on the type of target. Against bombers the ammo make up was 1 to 1 to 3, against heavily armored Il-2 the make up was 1 to 2 to 2 or perhaps even 1 to 2 to 1

Local commanders had the freedom to make their own choices in ammo make up.

The Germans found out that HE rounds were more effective in air combat (except against heavily armored planes). So they came up with the idea of an extreme thin walled round (Minengeschoss) , with more HE capacity.

Both 20mm and 30 mm guns got a HEM round. The 30mm is even much more powerful.
 


It proves that the 109 D was quickly becoming obsolete. Probably why it doesn't get many votes.
 
It proves that the 109 D was quickly becoming obsolete. Probably why it doesn't get many votes.
Click to expand...

??? What was that in response to?

And the
HE(M) - Minengeschoß ("mine shell") - round weight of 92 g. HE filler: 18 g
should later have been upgraded to the
HE(XM) - round weight of 104g. HE filler: 25 g
which had the HE filler much more compressed along with a slightly different shell casing.
 
I would tend to go with the G-1/G-2. These were matured designs, with multirole capabilty, excellent performance at all altitudes easily converted to special tasks; they also made quite an impression on evaluation teams, particularly in Russia and in North Africa, where they were most heavily faced; they can be argued to be the best fighters in the World when they appeared, but certainly in top 5, with a good degree of superiority over the most common (which were not neccesarily the latest) enemy types they faced.

Overall, the things that make me consider them the best of the 109 lineage is their maturity as a design, their availability (a bit connected to the last point as they required little changes, and thus could be produced quickly) and their relative performance compared to the opposition they faced; as Bill pointed out, the later, more 'ultimate' variants may be a tempting choice, but the late war enviroment was a much more challanging one, both in terms of opposing aircraft quality and the overall situation in the air..
 
I would tend to go with the G-1/G-2
Click to expand...

Kurfürst, at what time did the 109 G6 finallly get approval for emergency rating (notleistung)? And was combat rating (kampfleistung) as a maximum for the 109 G2 a disadvantage in air combat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
940
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
Menu
Log in
Register