Bf109 success, balanced fighter, or superior fighter?
- Thread starter claidemore
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
It is unclear that he favored the 190 over 109 as a fighter but quite clear he did make a recommendation in circa Feb 1944 timeframe that LW stop all development except for 190 and 262 series, and shift all production to Me 262 and Fw 190 series aircraft.
That would have streamlined logistics, training, deployment for LW
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's a bit late in the game. When hanging on by your fingernails you don't make major production changes.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
You have to do that when the situation becomes critical.
Clearly the -109 that was under production late in the war was being bested by allied types.
I think this only meant that the Me 262 would take over Bf 109's job. Galland voted for the best they had. The Fw 190 was better suited than the Bf 109 at low-mid altitude and Me 262 was superior to both prop fighters.
I'd guess you just read too much into that statement. Much like some do for the other famous Galland's quote:"Give me Spitfires."
As for the main title of this thread, my opinion is that the Bf 109 was one of the best pin-point interceptors and short range air supremacy fighters throughout the war and balanced enough to be able to perform other tasks well too.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I think this only meant that the Me 262 would take over Bf 109's job. Galland voted for the best they had. The Fw 190 was better suited than the Bf 109 at low-mid altitude and Me 262 was superior to both prop fighters.
I'd guess you just read too much into that statement. Much like some do for the other famous Galland's quote:"Give me Spitfires."
As for the main title of this thread, my opinion is that the Bf 109 was one of the best pin-point interceptors and short range air supremacy fighters throughout the war and balanced enough to be able to perform other tasks well too.
Wasnt the 190 better than the 109 when it came to shooting down the bombers?
No it wasn't, the Bf-109 K-4 was competitive with the best the Allies had, but the Fw190 could accomplish more tasks and was a more rugged a/c.
With the Me 262 in the picture, both were inferior.
Tho it would be an interesting thread of its own to compare the anti bomber capabilities of both Bf 109 and Fw 190.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Technically what you say is of course true, the same weight would effect the small plane more. But, I guess where the logical mistake is being made is that you assume
a, this is a signicant factor or limiting facto - it is not, take a look at the P-47 again, it carries much larger external load than either, with much higher wing loading
b, wing loading is what defines handling - wrong, it merely defines stall speed, and even that, only partially (given that prop thurst also greatly effects powered stall speeds, and generally, the more power, the more air is pushed over the wings -> lower powered stall speed)
Handling qualities is first and foremost defined by other factors, like control characteristics, the planform and profile of the wing, the centre of gravity of the plane and so on. These usually remain the same during the lifespan of an aircraft, so the general handling, how the plane reacts remains largely the same.
I guess a good example would be comparing the handling of a big SUV and that of a 'get a girl' car for young men like a Toyota Celica. Its fairly obvious that, for example, corning speeds (w/o topping over) will always favour the Celica, even if you put two large loudspeakers in the back and pimp the engine with nitro, simply because its centre of gravity is much lower, the suspension is much stiffer etc.
Let me make that clear. 250 (later 500kg), 4x50 kg bombs, 300 liter droptanks, 20 mm gunpods, (and later, 21 cm rockets) could be fitted to any 109G or later. The wiring for these fields kits (Rustsaetze) were present in all generic 109G/Ks, and any of them could be fitted with them in the field. During 1943 there was indeed a tendency to fit the gunpods already at the factory (given the nature of sorties generally flown), which was discontinued in 1944 since the troops started to remove them
BTW if you check the lower wing section of 109Gs, just outside the wheel weels you can see the panel is not riveteded, but it uses sunken screws.. this is the panel the groundcrew would remove to add the gunpods there.
The various factory fittings and conversions (/R, /U designations) of course were factory only, at least on paper, at least in the sense that is not a simple matter of attach/detach.
I don't get the point about the fitters - surely Allied planes would require armors to remove the guns for cleaning or maintainance, and several Allied planes had option for more/less guns (ie. P-47, Spits with C wing).
There are some G-2/R1s listed with the operational units, yes, but only a small number of these aircraft were build. It was designed as a long range Jabo, and the FW 190G, filling the same role, made it redundant.
There was no seperate oleo leg attached to the 109K, what you describe is for the 109G-.../R1 versions only. As noted already the 109E, w/o any modifications ('cept a bomb rack of course) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but the ground clearance of the bomb fin was very marginal in the case of the SC 500, though the SD 500 was less of a problem.
When the tall tailwheels were introduced, the fuselage got more clearance from the ground, and this was no longer a problem.
So how much were you betting..?
Take for example, the consumption of the early DB 601A of the 109E vs the DB 605A of the 109G.
DB 601 A, 330 lit/h for 990 PS at SL, and [email protected] for 1020 PS. This is the 5 min. rating.
DB 605 A, 320 lit/h for 1075PS @ SL, and the same consumption for 1080 PS at 5.5 km, on the continous rating.
You can see how much these engines evolved, the later one could provide a bit more power, at higher alttidue, without any limitation on use, and at slightly lower fuel rates.
Now also take note that the 109G could certainly take or climb with a 250 kg bomb at cruise settings, quite simply because its engine already develops as much power in cruise than the ealier engine on all out!
What you say is absolutely true, but the effect is not breath taking. You can actually work out the decrease in speed from the increased drag and angle of attack from docs on my website (see the Jan 1944 Mtt report). Pure drag is the major factor, but even that does not decrease speed even 10%, so you might say that in the rough ballpark, that range is reduced something like 5-10% (given that you don't bring the bomb back).
Well, the Germans datasheets give for the 109F-4 on internal 835 km at 410 km/h at altitude,with 355 liters (the rest spent warming up etc.), ie. including some reserves and other factors. With a drop tank, they give 1600 km.
For the 109G, British range tables give 600-725 miles (966 - 1167 km) on internal, at 210 mph IAS speed at 18k ft, which I recon works out to 460 km/h TAS, and 1020 - 1250 miles (1642 - 2011 km) with a drop tank, which is in fairly good agreement with German figures.
Compare to that, the 109E is given with 660 km range on internal, and 1325 using a drop tank (while cruising at 330-350 km/h).
Clearly, improve efficiency of the DB engines was a major factor in increasing the 109s range.
Higher performance always comes with more difficulty in handling it, it is universally true.
As for rearward shifts in gravity, I have never heard of such in the case of the 109. There were no monstre sized fuel tanks built into the fuselage, and I guess the Mtt team was competent enough, esp. as any weight in the back could be evened out by the weight of larger and slightly heavier props and engines in the front.
As to the 109s handling, I fear I have to disagree, unless the source makes this reference to the ground handling, which could malicious, if, as one pilot put it, every take off was not performed as it would be the first. The plane had a tendency to seize control over itself on the ground, provided you let that happen.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That's absolutely true. But I also recall him stating that when he flew the Fw 190 for the first time he considered it to be superior to the Bf 109. Far superior even!
But that was his opinion. Other Luftwaffe Experten preferred the 109.
I read a lot of members accepting that the 109 was inferior to the 190, that the 109 was too difficult to fly and was no longer competitive with allied fighters at the end of the war. These are outdated views which are for starters contradicted by loss figures and by wartime memories.
And I'll repeat what I said before: the most important advantage - and a decisive one ! - is that you could build at least 50% more Bf 109s than Fw 190s or Me 262s while it was definitely not 50% inferior to the 190/262! So that's why Galland is clearly unaware of industrial realities and sees it simply for the pilot's point of view: he wants the best aircraft available and doesn't care how many of them could be build. Quite understandable.
Production logic would have dictated the Fw 190 being replaced by the Me 262 and the Bf 109 by the He 162.
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Well the obvious part is that the Fw 190 performance dropped tremendously above rated altitude. The Bf 109G-6/R6 and even better the G-6/U4/R4 had everything it needed to destroy heavy bombers. The latter would have two HMGs and 3 30mm cannons with a mere 8 kmh speed reduction. The Bf 109 also offered a smaller target! And again, these Kanonenboten suffered substantial losses, and that's where the cheap production of the Bf 109 would be most suited for. Fw 190s should have been reserved for low altitude interdiction missions.With the Me 262 in the picture, both were inferior.
Besides that, I remember reading results of loss/win figures from the Eastern front: no substantial difference between Fw 190 and Bf 109 units!
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's pretty much my thinking also. Once .50cal MGs and 20mm cannon became common it was impossible to adequately armor the entire aircraft. So you armor only the cockpit to protect the pilot. If he survives being shot down the pilot gets a new dirt cheap Me-109 to have another go at the enemy (after a double shot of Schnapps).
One innovation that would have helped pilot survival is an ejector seat. I suspect quite a few pilots died in Me-109 fighter aircraft because they could not bail out (stuck canopy, aircraft spinning, pilot injury etc.). Might not fit in the rather small Me-109 cockpit though.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
My idea is that for every two fighters shot down one pilot was killed. Getting them out of their aircraft ASAP would have been important. Yet one wonders how many pilots died because they couldn't get out, or because they were shot dead in their seats. I've seen the penetration values of the 0.5 cal and it shows that most of the armour plates were insufficient except for larger distances. In fact, it made me wonder what the point is in having insufficient armour: better to have enough or none at all. But then some say one has to take the angle into consideration and that the armour could do enough to deflect the bullet or to stop it shortly after penetrating. But I have my doubts about that ...
Kris
Kris
Wouldn't you say this was the tactic of Japanese thinking? No armouring at all was more beneficial to performance and handling than heavy plates which could still be penetrated by heavy calibre machine guns, or the airframe still torn apart by cannon shells.
What they didn't count on however was the attrition factor. Having made a superior attack force, it was out of its element when air combat turned into an exhaustive street brawl. You'd start with often fewer aircraft losses, but higher pilot losses which is unsustainable. Yours get less experienced whilst theirs get more experienced.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
It's true that the Japanese believed that the best protection would be to make the aircraft light and manoeuvrable. (This was also a result of a lack of high-grade armour and of the requirement to fly long distances.)
But I don't know if I'm really following you on the attrition. First, I wouldn't know if leaving out armour would necessarily mean more attrition. Like I said, most armour was unable to stop the heavy MG bullets anyway.
The real problem with Japanese pilot losses was the complete lack of SAR. A pilot shot down was not expected to be recuperated. A Japanese pilot surviving the crash could just as well kill him self.
Oh, I shouldn't forget the lack of self-sealing tanks. That should remain a standard on aircraft !
Kris
But I don't know if I'm really following you on the attrition. First, I wouldn't know if leaving out armour would necessarily mean more attrition. Like I said, most armour was unable to stop the heavy MG bullets anyway.
The real problem with Japanese pilot losses was the complete lack of SAR. A pilot shot down was not expected to be recuperated. A Japanese pilot surviving the crash could just as well kill him self.
Oh, I shouldn't forget the lack of self-sealing tanks. That should remain a standard on aircraft !
Kris
Shortround6
Major General
"Technically what you say is of course true, the same weight would effect the small plane more. But, I guess where the logical mistake is being made is that you assume
a, this is a signicant factor or limiting facto - it is not, take a look at the P-47 again, it carries much larger external load than either, with much higher wing loading "
True but then it did have a somewhat higher take off and landing speed to begin with. Point is that adding 500lbs to P-47 would barely be noticiable
"b, wing loading is what defines handling - wrong, it merely defines stall speed, and even that, only partially (given that prop thurst also greatly effects powered stall speeds, and generally, the more power, the more air is pushed over the wings -> lower powered stall speed)"
I think you would need a fairly large prop to get much of that effect.
"Handling qualities is first and foremost defined by other factors, like control characteristics, the planform and profile of the wing, the centre of gravity of the plane and so on. These usually remain the same during the lifespan of an aircraft, so the general handling, how the plane reacts remains largely the same."
Many aircraft were described as having detiriorating handling as they got heavier. In many cases because they weren't able to keep the airplane is that same state of balance. Larger heavier radios, extra armour, more armanent in wings on some aircraft. extra fuel tanks (even empty, self sealing lineings/coatings). It change inertia or polar moments and so changed response.
"I guess a good example would be comparing the handling of a big SUV and that of a 'get a girl' car for young men like a Toyota Celica. Its fairly obvious that, for example, corning speeds (w/o topping over) will always favour the Celica, even if you put two large loudspeakers in the back and pimp the engine with nitro, simply because its centre of gravity is much lower, the suspension is much stiffer etc."
Well, hit the nitro in a corner, watch the tires go up in smoke as the Celica exits the corner backwards
or really pile some weight in the Celica such that the load the tire contact patches are trying to hold exceed their grip, Celica doesn't roll but does slide off the corner.
"I don't get the point about the fitters - surely Allied planes would require armors to remove the guns for cleaning or maintainance, and several Allied planes had option for more/less guns (ie. P-47, Spits with C wing)."
True but the fitters didn't change the guns to suit the aircraft for the day's mission. If you got a P47 with 6 guns it tended to stay with 6 guns and not add or subtract the extra 2 every couple of days. Same for Spitfire. It didn't matter if the Spitfire was going to escort bombers or attack bombers or go ground strafeing. Whatever guns it had last week were what it use this week and next week. And they worked petty well for all those missions. Germans trying to use gunboats for bomber attack and 3 gun fighters to attack escorts, protect gunboats is an admision that ONE figher couldn't do both roles with the same gun outfit.
"There are some G-2/R1s listed with the operational units, yes, but only a small number of these aircraft were build. It was designed as a long range Jabo, and the FW 190G, filling the same role, made it redundant.
There was no seperate oleo leg attached to the 109K, what you describe is for the 109G-.../R1 versions only. As noted already the 109E, w/o any modifications ('cept a bomb rack of course) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but the ground clearance of the bomb fin was very marginal in the case of the SC 500, though the SD 500 was less of a problem."
When the tall tailwheels were introduced, the fuselage got more clearance from the ground, and this was no longer a problem."
Don't you mean SC 250s and SD 250s? Please point me to a refence that says the regular 109s could carry 500KG bombs?
"So how much were you betting..?"
Well I guess I may owe you
"Now also take note that the 109G could certainly take or climb with a 250 kg bomb at cruise settings, quite simply because its engine already develops as much power in cruise than the ealier engine on all out!"
Maybe, but then a bare (no bomb) late model G weighs as much as an F with a bomb.
"Well, the Germans datasheets give for the 109F-4 on internal 835 km at 410 km/h at altitude,with 355 liters (the rest spent warming up etc.), ie. including some reserves and other factors. With a drop tank, they give 1600 km."
Strange, only 45 liters used for warm-up, etc including reserves and other factors? German engines must be darned efficient. An Allison could use around 60 liters just to warm up. take off and climb to 5,000ft. No reserve or other factors.
"For the 109G, British range tables give 600-725 miles (966 - 1167 km) on internal, at 210 mph IAS speed at 18k ft, which I recon works out to 460 km/h TAS, and 1020 - 1250 miles (1642 - 2011 km) with a drop tank, which is in fairly good agreement with German figures."
I think you will find that the the british figures are for true airspeed (speed over ground) which, while it gives a range more than I would have thought, means the aircraft is flying at about 265km/h IAS which actually isn't that far off a Spitfires long range ferry cruise speed.
Some figures claim that a MK V Spitfire could do 200 A.S.I. (263MPH TAS) at 20,000ft on 36imp gallons an hour which would give it a range of 526miles (840km) with 13 imp gal (59 liters) for warm-up etc. I wonder what the Spitfire could do if it slowed down to 170 mph ASI?
I don't want to turn this into a Spitfire vrs 109 debate. Just pointing out that the Spitfire, which nobody really claims was a long range aircraft in normal condition isn't that far off from the 109 in range. also it is almost useless to try to compare range without speeds AND altitudes included.
"Compare to that, the 109E is given with 660 km range on internal, and 1325 using a drop tank (while cruising at 330-350 km/h).
Clearly, improve efficiency of the DB engines was a major factor in increasing the 109s range."
Gee, I would have thought the cleaned up airframe going from the E to the F was responsable for a good part of it. Just what was the impovement, 30-35km/h at sea level using the same engine?
And since drag goes up with the square of the speed I think we can see were a large part of the improved range came from evn if the 605 is more effiecent than the 601.
"As for rearward shifts in gravity, I have never heard of such in the case of the 109. There were no monstre sized fuel tanks built into the fuselage, and I guess the Mtt team was competent enough, esp. as any weight in the back could be evened out by the weight of larger and slightly heavier props and engines in the front."
Well, I guess the heavier engines and Props would counter balance that GM 1 tank that weighed how much? Of course the 109 was so light in the rear that when the metal tail was replaced by a wood one they had to bolt a metal plate to the bottom of the oil cooler to restore balance.
Here again we wind up with not only a balance problem but inertia. Take a meter stick with detachable weights. hold it in the middle an try to turn it left and right quickly. Now attach the weights close to the middle so the stick balances and repeat the turning/twisting motion. No move the weights to the ends of the stick and repeat the turning twisting motion. Does the stick "handle" differently even though the CG never changed?
Least you think I am picking on the 109 it is my opinion that had the French stayed in the war ALL of their single engine fighters with the exception of the Bloch 157 were simply too small to offer much scope for development. Even given Merlins or Allisons the airframes were too small to accept the needed increases in armour, self sealling tanks, armament and other equipment. And without their Hispano engines with the prop mounted 20mm the redesigning of the wings to carry effective armament would be another stumbling block.
a, this is a signicant factor or limiting facto - it is not, take a look at the P-47 again, it carries much larger external load than either, with much higher wing loading "
True but then it did have a somewhat higher take off and landing speed to begin with. Point is that adding 500lbs to P-47 would barely be noticiable
"b, wing loading is what defines handling - wrong, it merely defines stall speed, and even that, only partially (given that prop thurst also greatly effects powered stall speeds, and generally, the more power, the more air is pushed over the wings -> lower powered stall speed)"
I think you would need a fairly large prop to get much of that effect.
"Handling qualities is first and foremost defined by other factors, like control characteristics, the planform and profile of the wing, the centre of gravity of the plane and so on. These usually remain the same during the lifespan of an aircraft, so the general handling, how the plane reacts remains largely the same."
Many aircraft were described as having detiriorating handling as they got heavier. In many cases because they weren't able to keep the airplane is that same state of balance. Larger heavier radios, extra armour, more armanent in wings on some aircraft. extra fuel tanks (even empty, self sealing lineings/coatings). It change inertia or polar moments and so changed response.
"I guess a good example would be comparing the handling of a big SUV and that of a 'get a girl' car for young men like a Toyota Celica. Its fairly obvious that, for example, corning speeds (w/o topping over) will always favour the Celica, even if you put two large loudspeakers in the back and pimp the engine with nitro, simply because its centre of gravity is much lower, the suspension is much stiffer etc."
Well, hit the nitro in a corner, watch the tires go up in smoke as the Celica exits the corner backwards
or really pile some weight in the Celica such that the load the tire contact patches are trying to hold exceed their grip, Celica doesn't roll but does slide off the corner.
"I don't get the point about the fitters - surely Allied planes would require armors to remove the guns for cleaning or maintainance, and several Allied planes had option for more/less guns (ie. P-47, Spits with C wing)."
True but the fitters didn't change the guns to suit the aircraft for the day's mission. If you got a P47 with 6 guns it tended to stay with 6 guns and not add or subtract the extra 2 every couple of days. Same for Spitfire. It didn't matter if the Spitfire was going to escort bombers or attack bombers or go ground strafeing. Whatever guns it had last week were what it use this week and next week. And they worked petty well for all those missions. Germans trying to use gunboats for bomber attack and 3 gun fighters to attack escorts, protect gunboats is an admision that ONE figher couldn't do both roles with the same gun outfit.
"There are some G-2/R1s listed with the operational units, yes, but only a small number of these aircraft were build. It was designed as a long range Jabo, and the FW 190G, filling the same role, made it redundant.
There was no seperate oleo leg attached to the 109K, what you describe is for the 109G-.../R1 versions only. As noted already the 109E, w/o any modifications ('cept a bomb rack of course) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but the ground clearance of the bomb fin was very marginal in the case of the SC 500, though the SD 500 was less of a problem."
When the tall tailwheels were introduced, the fuselage got more clearance from the ground, and this was no longer a problem."
Don't you mean SC 250s and SD 250s? Please point me to a refence that says the regular 109s could carry 500KG bombs?
"So how much were you betting..?
"Well I guess I may owe you
"Now also take note that the 109G could certainly take or climb with a 250 kg bomb at cruise settings, quite simply because its engine already develops as much power in cruise than the ealier engine on all out!"
Maybe, but then a bare (no bomb) late model G weighs as much as an F with a bomb.
"Well, the Germans datasheets give for the 109F-4 on internal 835 km at 410 km/h at altitude,with 355 liters (the rest spent warming up etc.), ie. including some reserves and other factors. With a drop tank, they give 1600 km."
Strange, only 45 liters used for warm-up, etc including reserves and other factors? German engines must be darned efficient. An Allison could use around 60 liters just to warm up. take off and climb to 5,000ft. No reserve or other factors.
"For the 109G, British range tables give 600-725 miles (966 - 1167 km) on internal, at 210 mph IAS speed at 18k ft, which I recon works out to 460 km/h TAS, and 1020 - 1250 miles (1642 - 2011 km) with a drop tank, which is in fairly good agreement with German figures."
I think you will find that the the british figures are for true airspeed (speed over ground) which, while it gives a range more than I would have thought, means the aircraft is flying at about 265km/h IAS which actually isn't that far off a Spitfires long range ferry cruise speed.
Some figures claim that a MK V Spitfire could do 200 A.S.I. (263MPH TAS) at 20,000ft on 36imp gallons an hour which would give it a range of 526miles (840km) with 13 imp gal (59 liters) for warm-up etc. I wonder what the Spitfire could do if it slowed down to 170 mph ASI?
I don't want to turn this into a Spitfire vrs 109 debate. Just pointing out that the Spitfire, which nobody really claims was a long range aircraft in normal condition isn't that far off from the 109 in range. also it is almost useless to try to compare range without speeds AND altitudes included.
"Compare to that, the 109E is given with 660 km range on internal, and 1325 using a drop tank (while cruising at 330-350 km/h).
Clearly, improve efficiency of the DB engines was a major factor in increasing the 109s range."
Gee, I would have thought the cleaned up airframe going from the E to the F was responsable for a good part of it. Just what was the impovement, 30-35km/h at sea level using the same engine?
And since drag goes up with the square of the speed I think we can see were a large part of the improved range came from evn if the 605 is more effiecent than the 601.
"As for rearward shifts in gravity, I have never heard of such in the case of the 109. There were no monstre sized fuel tanks built into the fuselage, and I guess the Mtt team was competent enough, esp. as any weight in the back could be evened out by the weight of larger and slightly heavier props and engines in the front."
Well, I guess the heavier engines and Props would counter balance that GM 1 tank that weighed how much? Of course the 109 was so light in the rear that when the metal tail was replaced by a wood one they had to bolt a metal plate to the bottom of the oil cooler to restore balance.
Here again we wind up with not only a balance problem but inertia. Take a meter stick with detachable weights. hold it in the middle an try to turn it left and right quickly. Now attach the weights close to the middle so the stick balances and repeat the turning/twisting motion. No move the weights to the ends of the stick and repeat the turning twisting motion. Does the stick "handle" differently even though the CG never changed?
Least you think I am picking on the 109 it is my opinion that had the French stayed in the war ALL of their single engine fighters with the exception of the Bloch 157 were simply too small to offer much scope for development. Even given Merlins or Allisons the airframes were too small to accept the needed increases in armour, self sealling tanks, armament and other equipment. And without their Hispano engines with the prop mounted 20mm the redesigning of the wings to carry effective armament would be another stumbling block.
Agreed. The Fw190 could also perform more roles than the Bf109, and by 44 to 45 the Germans desperately needed a/c which could fit more than just one role.
I've always thought of the 109 as a high performance version of a family car, like a Pro-stocker whilst the Spit and several other purpose built models designed from scratch were more like Ferraris.
I love the 109, it was awesome and competitive from start to finish. But I'm picturing Willy sitting down with his BF-108 and turning it into a high performance fighter, and the Fw190 being designed on a blank sheet. I think it's a different ball game.
When the 109 was introduced things like production ease were important, and considering the 108 was already in limited production and exercised new all metal and tailored industrial techniques made it just lucky.
The real equivalent of the 109 in the Allied stable in production terms was the Hurricane, a new high performance monoplane readily adapted to existing production techniques. It's not even that fair to compare it to purpose built fighters designed from scratch. But in these terms it is so far ahead of any competition it is everybody else who'll scream unfair.
P-47 and Spit should go up against the Fw190. The Messerschmitt versus Hurricane, Dewoitine and early Soviet fighters like the Yak and LaGG is fair, as these employed pre-existing industrial conditions.
Just a thought.
I love the 109, it was awesome and competitive from start to finish. But I'm picturing Willy sitting down with his BF-108 and turning it into a high performance fighter, and the Fw190 being designed on a blank sheet. I think it's a different ball game.
When the 109 was introduced things like production ease were important, and considering the 108 was already in limited production and exercised new all metal and tailored industrial techniques made it just lucky.
The real equivalent of the 109 in the Allied stable in production terms was the Hurricane, a new high performance monoplane readily adapted to existing production techniques. It's not even that fair to compare it to purpose built fighters designed from scratch. But in these terms it is so far ahead of any competition it is everybody else who'll scream unfair.
P-47 and Spit should go up against the Fw190. The Messerschmitt versus Hurricane, Dewoitine and early Soviet fighters like the Yak and LaGG is fair, as these employed pre-existing industrial conditions.
Just a thought.
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
I don't know for certain, but didn't the Allied bomber crews fear the FW 190 more than the Bf 109? When the 262 came along though, that was their worst opponent; it was so fast the bomber's gun turrets could barely follow it.
Last edited:
They feared the 110/210/410 bomber-destroyers most.
190 squadrons were always in the minority, production was never dramatic before 1944 for the type. But on the west European Front the 190 was equipped to the primary interceptor squadrons JG2 and 26. Their job was not primarily the bombers however, it was jumping escorts. The high altitude squadrons 11/JG2 and 11/JG26 attacked bombers equipped with the 109G featuring cockpit pressurisation and heavy cannon armament.
Generally however the ideal was that large formations of heavy fighters separated individual bombers with flak-cannon and rocket attacks, which were then pounced on by 109G fighters or roaming 190's as available.
During 1943 more special bomber destroyer formations were made of modified Fw190 drawn from JG3, the extra armoured "sturmgruppen" which had thick metal plates bolted to sections of the airframe and powerful 30mm cannon fitted in addition to their normal, already heavy armament. Performance however whilst adequate for bomber interception wasn't exactly sparkling compared to contemporary fighters. Nevertheless I've read at least one tailgunner report that his fifties were just bouncing off a 190 that was shooting up his Fort.
So yes the 190 was feared, but I think context and period is important. One of these "Sturmjäger" could take down a Fort with about four 30mm shells and was virtually impervious to anything but concentrated and dedicated defensive fire by a good portion of the bomber box.
That being said, an Me-410 in early 44 could take down a Fort with a single shot from its 5cm FlaK at such a distance it's still a speck in the sky. Fortunately Mustangs were given free ranging mobility to intercept these attacks during formation. In any case I've also read crew reports a twin engine German fighter was something to get seriously frightened about.
The big concern about the Me-262 was from what I've read its implications rather than direct fear. The bomber being attacked would never see it coming, it was usually his buddies which saw the blurred streak making its way through the formation within a split second that were left to comment. They reported their observations to Intelligence, who's primary concern lay with escorts. The type was impossible to intercept during the attack run, and this was of tremendous concern among fighter pilots rather than bomber crews, who seemed more concerned about aircraft you can't shoot down even when you're hitting them, or have such powerful armament they blast you from the sky like a shooting gallery.
True the Me-262 was the most dangerous, but I think it's a matter of the Devil you know being more problematic than the one you don't. And also interesting is according to reports there appears no differentiation between German jet or rocket interceptors, few seemed to even know the difference between an Me-262 and an Me-163, and the Komet was largely ineffective. Fighter pilots seemed to know more about them, and practised a formal doctrine of seeking them out and destroying them on the ground.
190 squadrons were always in the minority, production was never dramatic before 1944 for the type. But on the west European Front the 190 was equipped to the primary interceptor squadrons JG2 and 26. Their job was not primarily the bombers however, it was jumping escorts. The high altitude squadrons 11/JG2 and 11/JG26 attacked bombers equipped with the 109G featuring cockpit pressurisation and heavy cannon armament.
Generally however the ideal was that large formations of heavy fighters separated individual bombers with flak-cannon and rocket attacks, which were then pounced on by 109G fighters or roaming 190's as available.
During 1943 more special bomber destroyer formations were made of modified Fw190 drawn from JG3, the extra armoured "sturmgruppen" which had thick metal plates bolted to sections of the airframe and powerful 30mm cannon fitted in addition to their normal, already heavy armament. Performance however whilst adequate for bomber interception wasn't exactly sparkling compared to contemporary fighters. Nevertheless I've read at least one tailgunner report that his fifties were just bouncing off a 190 that was shooting up his Fort.
So yes the 190 was feared, but I think context and period is important. One of these "Sturmjäger" could take down a Fort with about four 30mm shells and was virtually impervious to anything but concentrated and dedicated defensive fire by a good portion of the bomber box.
That being said, an Me-410 in early 44 could take down a Fort with a single shot from its 5cm FlaK at such a distance it's still a speck in the sky. Fortunately Mustangs were given free ranging mobility to intercept these attacks during formation. In any case I've also read crew reports a twin engine German fighter was something to get seriously frightened about.
The big concern about the Me-262 was from what I've read its implications rather than direct fear. The bomber being attacked would never see it coming, it was usually his buddies which saw the blurred streak making its way through the formation within a split second that were left to comment. They reported their observations to Intelligence, who's primary concern lay with escorts. The type was impossible to intercept during the attack run, and this was of tremendous concern among fighter pilots rather than bomber crews, who seemed more concerned about aircraft you can't shoot down even when you're hitting them, or have such powerful armament they blast you from the sky like a shooting gallery.
True the Me-262 was the most dangerous, but I think it's a matter of the Devil you know being more problematic than the one you don't. And also interesting is according to reports there appears no differentiation between German jet or rocket interceptors, few seemed to even know the difference between an Me-262 and an Me-163, and the Komet was largely ineffective. Fighter pilots seemed to know more about them, and practised a formal doctrine of seeking them out and destroying them on the ground.
