Fw 190: the good, the bad and the ugly (1 Viewer)

[GregP]

The situation does not change the effectiveness in dealing with the threats it was deployed against. Opportunity? Sure. It is possible they might have done less well, as well, or even better with another aircraft, but history doesn't allow you to have a mulligan. The Bf 109 was a star wherever it was deployed until well-trained pilot attrition kicked in, at which point NO fighter was going to do as well as it might have.

I am not making excuses for any situation, aircraft, or person. The Bf 109 had the best combat victory record of any fighter in any war ever fought until the F-15 managed zero losses on some occasions in combat. But the F-15 still has less than 5% of the victories in 40+ years of operations the Bf 109 achieved in about 5 1/2 years. That is almost the definition of combat effectiveness.

Are you saying the Bf 109's record is not at the top of the WWII fighters or what, Wayne?

I have Hartmann's record on spreadsheet. You tell me how many were non-fighters and I'll tell you if my data agree. If you take the trouble, I will too. Otherwise I'm not all that interested taking the time.

 

[dedalos]

Hi Dedalos,

The outcome of the Russian Front proves you as wrong as it is possible to be.
The outcome of the russian front was decided by many factors but low flying soviet flying was not one of them

By late 1944 there weren't many German planes that could live in a Soviet sky.
Totaly untrue statement. Lw was flying , as fuel permited, non stop on the Eastern front until the last second of the war.
Bf109, Fw190 fighters, the remaining Bf110, a few available Me410s,Fw190F Gs , Ju 88s of every vertion, Hs129s, even Ju87s and biplanes trainers armed with panzerfausts were flying against the soviets. The He 177 flew missions in 1944 with almost invulnerability from the soviet Super fighters and only stopped for lack of fuel


Early on, the main culprit was obsolete Soviet types and poorly-prepared Soviet pilots. Once the Yak-3's and La-5's got there, together with some combat pilot seasoning, the tide of the aerial war reversed quite effectively. If flying low and concentrating on ground support was such wrong tactic, and if they DIED asa result, why did Germany conclusively lose that Front from about late 1943 to mid-1944 onward?

Because germany started operation Barbarossa with 7 fighter wings and almost the 80% of the bomber units and by 1944 had just 3 fighter wings in the east and few bomber units.And even the JG52,JG54,and JG51 that remained in the east periodicaly had to sent partof their strength on the defence of the reich
Also by 1943/44 ,with the use of lend lease fighters like p39, the soviets were flying many mid level fighter missions to cover their lower flying bomber and close escort formations. Lw simply did not have the numbers to engage all these formations
Finally from early 1944 the most terrible enemy for the Eastern front lw units were marauding American fighters. SG2 for example sufferd casualties by the americans far worse than from the soviets

Your statement does not hold up under the light of really happened and if you disagree, that's just fine.
Gre q p you area reasonable person. How you claim that flying low and ignore higher flying fighters is a war winning tactic? Height advantage is the dream of any fighter pilot from 1916 to our days.


Make your own case instead of attacking mine; form you own theory and lay it out for us.
It was never my intention to attack you or isult you

Exactly how DID the Germans lose the aerial war so conclusively, especially with such men as Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall leading the way? Huh?
Actually ,as i already wrote, it was a combination of many factors,. The tactic you mention was not a factor. It was a reason why so many german pilots achieved ace status on the Eastern front

Show me where the error is ... it isn't by accident that the tide turned when the Soviet VVS got aircraft with good performance and good armament.
Untrue. The tide turned when LW run out of fuel and the americans put tremendous presuure over germany

That changed the equipment superiority the Luftwaffe had from the start, and then things started to turn around.
The mythical Claims for the latter war soviet fighters are not confirmed by the memoirs of german fighters pilots. They notice the improvement of the soviet aircraft later in the war but their main problem was the lack of fuel, lack of numbers and poor training of the replacement pilots


The Soviets were also operating in conditions that grouded the rest of the world, but they STILL operated a low-to-medium altitudes in support of ground forces. That is acording to world and Soviet history, not according to Greg.
After 1942 when soviets were flying LW was flying as well

Maybe you should read up on this front before speaking up?
Thank you for your advice

.

 

[wuzak]

Greg,

I get 325 fighter types for Hartmann. (from Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann)

I'm saying that no other fighter had the opportunity to rack up such numbers. It was used in more theatres than most and for longer than most. The Bf 109 must also have one of the highest sortie totals in WW2. It certainly was built in more numbers than any fighter of WW2.

When you say "best combat victory record" do you mean kills/losses, or just sheer number of kills?

 

[Greyman]

Selective sampling at work when you look at the record of the Bf 109 in the hands of Experten on the eastern front - and ignoring, say, when Mustangs were hunting them into extinction.

I'm not pointing this out to denigrate the 109, I just mean to say that sometimes in the actual war the circumstances are such that your type of aircraft matters comparatively little when a half dozen other very important factors are considered.

 

[GregP]

I get 325, too, Wayne, so we're remarkably close! I count all his "LaGG-5's" as "La-5's" and attribute the error to not knowing the new fighter was from Lavochkin alone. I'm rather curious he had only one I-16 but maybe they were just all gone.

It is certainly possible the Bf 109 was a loser of a plane, but I can't prove it from the wartime results. When speaking of effectiveness, I was talking raw victories. The Allies threw maybe 12,000 P-51s, 20,000 Spitfires, 12,000 Hurricanes, 4,800 Mosquitoes, 3,300 Typhoons, 1,200 Tempests, and a lot of P-38's and P-40's at the 32,000 Bf 109's ... and the Bf 109 did very well given the circumstances it was forced to work in.

Hi Greyman. I was not ignoring late-war. Looking only at late-war IS selective sampling. The only way the math is valid is by using a random sample, so every member of the population has an equal chance of being picked. Taking a sample of only late-war or only Finn victories, etc. is a textbook definition of statistical sampling bias and results in faulty conclusions.

That exactly why it is wrong to base your opinion of the Buffalo on Finland's experience. They flew only a relative handful of Buffalos. If you throw in the other Buffalo experiences and take real random samples, it comes out very badly, but that is how statistical sampling is done ... if it is done correctly.

If you think the Bf 109 was washed up as a fighter at the end of the war, find any Allied pilot who would take on Erich Hartmann at the end of the war, one on one, with equal starting positions and airspeed.

I'd give some pretty good Las Vegas odds on Herr Hartmann.

 

[wuzak]

I get 325, too, Wayne, so we're remarkably close! I count all his "LaGG-5's" as "La-5's" and attribute the error to not knowing the new fighter was from Lavochkin alone. I'm rather curious he had only one I-16 but maybe they were just all gone.

The list in the link I posted has a lot of LAGGs, without a designation number.

The LAGG-1 and LAGG-3 weren't a match for the Bf 109. The La-5 probably was a lot closer in ability.

It is certainly possible the Bf 109 was a loser of a plane, but I can't prove it from the wartime results. When speaking of effectiveness, I was talking raw victories. The Allies threw maybe 12,000 P-51s, 20,000 Spitfires, 12,000 Hurricanes, 4,800 Mosquitoes, 3,300 Typhoons, 1,200 Tempests, and a lot of P-38's and P-40's at the 32,000 Bf 109's ... and the Bf 109 did very well given the circumstances it was forced to work in.

I never said that the Bf 109 was a "loser of a plane". Just that you cannot judge its greatness on raw kill numbers.

No doubt that the Bf 109F was the best fighter at the time of its introduction. Arguably the Bf 109E was also the best in its time. Maybe the Fw 190 surpassed the Bf 109 on introduction.

The Bf 109 was certainly not the best fighter by wars end. By no means was it easy prey either. It remained competitive. It was just not the best any more.

 

[kool kitty89]

Why? The technical advancements in many technical fields will inevitably mean that the expected German adversaries will try and field better aircraft as time passes, so it's better to have a back up in the pipeline, rather than to panic once the proverbial hits the fan.
Fw 190 was devoid of some things that troubled the 109, like the U/C gear, pilot's field of view, it possessed great rate of roll, bigger internal space meant more fuel, guns and ammo can be carried, capacity to have more powerful engines installed. Going for the radial engine also meant an insurance against the current V-12 engines having this or that set of problems.

This latter bit is an interesting point given the lack of fighters adapted (even for testing) to use the Jumo 211 as security against shortages or delays in DB-601/605 production. More so since it would be easier to design an aircraft that could use either engine with relatively few modifications or differences in tooling on the production lines.

Aside from that, one of the greatest assets of the Fw 190 would be its all around handling characteristics catering better to veteran and novice pilots alike, not only making it more potent in the air but also greatly reducing ground accidents.

There's a lot more to logistics than which plane is best in fighter vs fighter combat from a sheer performance standpoint or which plane best suits veteran pilots, let alone aces. Sheer utility in all the applications and mission profiles the aircraft flies, costs of production (including man hours), ease of repair and maintanence, fuel efficiency, range/endurance, armament (external loads included), cockpit and canopy functionality contributing to overall situational awareness, ability to run from a fight (or engage/disengage at will), ability to limp home with considerable damage. All that comes into play and more. The issue of novice pilots would still be significant if the LW training program had been better organized too.

Beyond that there's also the issue of what the LW historically was using the planes for vs what they should have been using them for given more rational military command, leadership, and planning. Ability to reach and destroy bombers (and evade escorts if possible) would be high on that list. (speed, rate of climb, maintaining both at least up to bomber cruise altitudes, and heavy firepower are the demands there; endurance providing increased loiter time and longer range interceptions would also be significant) Granted, from that standpoint, the Fw 187 may have been the better bet. (it somewhat depends where the line between performance, attrition rate, and pilot value come in vs numbers of aircraft produced -the Fw 190 probably makes a better escort fighter, assuming significant edge in maneuverability -- but then again, you wouldn't have to be taking engine/production resources away from one to make more of the other, you've got the likes of Bf 110 production as well and potential to use the Jumo 211 engines otherwise slated for bombers)

 

[bobbysocks]

what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?

 

[SpicyJuan11]

what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?

Hans-Joachim Marseille.

 

[GregP]

We'll have to disagree there , Wayne.

When you go into a war, you get ONE SHOT at fighting it. If you are losing, you can turn it around, but if you DO lose, you lose. There aren't ant replays.

The accomplishments of the people and equipment they use are what they are as historically recorded, with inaccuracies and deliberate falsehoods aside. The Bf 109 was the aerial victory leader of all the fighters, fighter bombers, and heavy fighters regardless of circumstances, opposition, weather, or whatever. That makes it the most effective fighter of all times since there were more aerial victories scored during WWII than in all other wars in all of history combined.

For sheer flight performance, there is little debate the Spitfire was at or near the top alongside the Ta 152. For effectiveness at specific missions, the P-51 will always remain the best escort fighter of the war. There are other categories. I'd choose the Japanese Emily as the best flying boat hands down. The Bf 109's place at the top of the fighter heap in wartime shoot-down of enemy planes is damned hard to dispute unless someone is ignoring the facts.

I'm not saying it was the best fighter in service at the end of the war at all; it wasn't. But looking at the data for the entire war, the Bf 109 was right at the top of the heap for enemy shot down and traded virtual number one status with the Spitifre in actual flight and fighter performance for a LONG TIME before the Spitfire eventually eclipsed its rival at the tail end of the war through better development potential. Even on VE Day, any Spirtfire pilot who wasn't on his game was in danger from a well-flown Bf 109.

So, I'll keep the Bf 109 on top of my list for most effective figher of all times even though it was on the losing side. Hey, it's my list after all.

We've had long discussion about best fighter and decided it depended on the mission parameters. You can make a case for several planes if you can choose the mission. Those are fun debates and, though I am in the U.S.A., I might have to slip the Spirfire in there at the top for a lot of missions for which it had the range.

I think for you the Mosquito always seems to surface as a favorite. I have my own favorite too. But if I think of the pile of WWII enemy planes on the ground in wrecks by victor type, the Bf 109 comes to the top every time for me.

 

[tomo pauk]

The war was supposed to last months not years and the 109...Spitfire excepted...was better than any other fighter it met in the first few years and the 109 could turn better than 190 and had better high altitude performance than the early Antons.

The Fw 190 was a winner of the RLM request from 1937, and it flew for the 1st time on June 1939. The RLM was also pushing with several bomber aircraft designs by that time, plus jet aircraft, plus new more powerful engines, so I'd say that Germans were keen to either acquire or remain at technological edge when it was about aircraft.

Of course been a later design the Fw190 could take advantage of more powerful engines and new ideas. More growth potential whereas the Me 109 was lumbered with its small light airframe which can be taken so far.

That is what it's all about - in the Fw 190 there was more 'stretch' than in the Bf 109.

I would wager that the cannon armed 109E/F were better point interceptors than the equivalent Spitfire I armed with 303s. I would easily compare Spitfire to 109 until the Spitfire 9 appeared.
I think the fear of the Fw 190 in its first appearance by the RAF was more novel as the 109F had similar performance and was seemingly less deadly

The Bf 109F was not equivalent of the Spit I, but of the Spit V, that, once with workable Hispanos, have had twice the firepower than Bf 109F4 - meaning a better bomber killer, but will also make a short work of any fighter that gets hit. The Spitfire IX added needed performance boost with advent of the 2-stage Merlin. Id agree that part of the Fw 190 'fear' was do to the novelty, but there was a substantial performance gap (~20 mph), the Fw 190 also rolled much faster than either Spitfire or the 'legacy' Bf 109, the visibility could help out to the Fw 190's pilot - the Spitfire V was in true disadvantage. The Bf 109F could be faster than Spitfire II (RAF still have had those in 1941) and Spit V, that would be it. The Fw 190A-1 carried 2 cannons and 4 LMGs, and while the MG FFM was not as 'fast as either MG 151 version, the 190 will land many times twice the metal to the targeted aircraft than it would do the Bf 109F of 1941.

 

[GregP]

The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.

I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.

But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.

 

[Greyman]

Again if you're going to base your Air Force's fighter on what the Experten can do with it, I don't think you're going about it properly. I'm sure the top three aces of all time could land the Bf 109 consistently just fine. How many hundreds of Luftwaffe pilots did not?

 

[Juha]

The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.

I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.

But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.

LW saw 1x20mm + 2x7.92mm armament too weak against heavy bombers and Il-2s, maybe also against B-25 and B-26. And against bombers 2 20mm in the wings tended to be better than one 20mm in the nose, in fighter vs fighter combat it wa so and so.

Spitfires seems to got upper hand against JG 2, JG 26 and other LW unist in the Channel Front in late 1943, still in July 43 the LW seems to have a slight edge but in November 43 Spitfires seems to won all the bigger air combats against 109s and 190s. And Haartmann never flew 109F-4 in combat, when he was posted to 7./JG 52 the unit was already equipped with 109Gs.

 

[bobbysocks]

Hans-Joachim Marseille.

he was technically more in the MTO than the west....and flying in africa he did face us and uk planes. interestingly though, most were p 40s and hurris much like what the russians were using in east due to lend lease...

from wiki...

Marseille's 151 claims in North Africa included:

101 Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk fighters;
30 Hawker Hurricane fighters;
16 Supermarine Spitfire fighters;
Two Martin A-30 Baltimore bombers;
One Bristol Blenheim bomber; and
One Martin Maryland bomber.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.

I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.

View attachment 294091

But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.

Interesting, how did it compare to the Merlin Spitfire?

 

[dedalos]

what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?

Mareseille, jg27, 158, Mainly Africa
Egon Mayer ,Jg2, 102, all on the channel front
Adolf Galland, JG26, 104
Josef Priller, Jg26, 101 all on the channel Western fronts
Kurt Buhligen, Jg2, 112 (40 in Africa)
Muncheberg 102of his 133 kills in the mediterrenean and Western europe
And of course Heinrich Baer, 126 (if i remember correctly) of his 220 kills were on the Africa and Western fronts
Forgive me if i forgot someone. Several others scored at 70-80 range

I forgot Werner Schroer with 102 of his 114 kills in Africa and Western europe

 

[The Basket]

The first Fw190 encountered ,...A2 I believe ...did not have cannon. And only superior to Spit V not Spit IX
I would add the Me109 was certainly no loser by any stretch. To prove let's put a Emil against a Defiant. There we go.

Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
A)good enough
B)nothing else

And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?

 

[pbehn]

But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.

How did the nose armament on a Bf 109 take down a bomber? During the BoB the RAF wanted more mgs or cannons, even before the BoB the RAF wanted cannon armed fighters. As I understand it all German pilots wanted heavier weapons to take down bombers which is their primary duty.

 

[GregP]

Bombers were made mostly of metal. Any metal that suffered a cannon hit from a cannon shooting an explosive shell was badly damaged if not destroyed. A few "badly damaged" major components were usually enough to make a bomber almost unflyable if not actually unflyable.

I'd estimate that many thousands of bombers found that very thing out at the end of a burst from a Bf 109. That would be B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, Hampdens, Whitleys, Manchesters, Mosquitos, Sterlings, etc. They all qualify as bombers and one hell of a lot of them went down to Bf 109s. It must be true since it happened.

Sure, German pilots wanted heavier armament specifically for bombers. That meant fewer shots were necessary and less time was spent inside Allied fighter cover and bomber defensive fire screens. Later Bf 109s were fitted with underwing gondolas with cannons. These were usually easier for the covering fighters to shoot down since they were slower, didn't roll as well, and had heavier wing loading in turns. Most of the Aces did not want underwing gondolas because they knew how to shoot better than most other pilots.

But the thousands of bombers that fell to standard Bf 109 armament never did figure out why the existing fire was "ineffective." Ineffective always means it didn't work when the fire hit you or other guys. When it DID shoot you down, it wasn't ineffective, particulalrly if you were floating down through a German fighter staffel in a parachute wondering how the completely ineffective Messerschmitt managed to get YOU.

The prison camps were full of guys who were shot down in bombers by Messerschmitt Bf 109s with only standard armament.