Gold-Clash

Yes the 109 could climb with anything in the sky but here is the thing they were not fighting in a climb. If the 109 climbed away it had a good chance to get away but at the same time they would not dogfight at highspeeds. You just do not have the turning radius at high speeds.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yes the 109 could climb with anything in the sky but here is the thing they were not fighting in a climb. If the 109 climbed away it had a good chance to get away but at the same time they would not dogfight at highspeeds. You just do not have the turning radius at high speeds.

Click to expand...

Neither plane has good turning radius at high speed. Below 400mph you better not try and turn with the Bf-109G-10 if your in a Mustang ! Above 400mph both aircraft get stiff elevators, while the P-51's aileron effectiveness remains pretty good so does the G-10's.

The problem some people here have is they are already attached to the nucleus of an idea.

Such situation implies most of these guys have minimun tolerance values for processing divergent points of view.


Erich:
Being you, one of the very few persons whose knowledge and attitude I happen to respect very greatly is that i clarify: i did not suggest guncamera footage will tell in all due accuracy which plane is superior.


Whatever these guys might call it, the outcome of all this implies either a going getting rough or a blow to the allied chit-chat (propaganda) displayed to mock and to minimize the late war effort of the Luftwaffe pilots.

(i) Let´s give them the point a Bf 109 G-6 with underwing gondolas was "no match" against enemy fighters.

Then they should attempt responding some questions:

1. If it were not match against Mustangs, Jugs, etc., why was it G-6/R6´s could find their out -several times in an environment of overwhelming numerical inferiority-?

2. Perhaps German pilots were not -at all- "ill-trained" by mid/late 1944 so they could manage to leave the pursuers behind flying a fighter with a "dramatically diminished manouverability".

3. Perhaps neither the Mustang or the pilots flying it were as about perfect as accordingly depicted in the allied causerie?


I find it funny to discover some guys here do not get my point here and rather resort to attempt diverting the discussion to the pond where they feel comfortable playing.

Part of the problem here, Udet is that you hae a tendency to word things that either puts them on the defensive, or just puts them off. We all know that allied propaganda is flawed, but you seem to come forward with the attitude that we have all been drinking the Kool-Aid.

I have never stated nor thought that the German pilots and planes were inferior, with the exception in numbers. Yet you seem to lump all of us that are in countries that were on the allied side of believing everything that has been crammed down our throats. You have raised some interesting points, but if you toned down the rhetoric a bit, you might find that your message is better rreceived and more prone to discussion.

several things to point out now.

The gondloa G-6 was to be used for bomber destruction as it's primary purpose, and secondary to fighter vs fighter, and in fact it was worked on to drop the gondolas if at all possible. As I just said the idea was being worked on. the gondloa birds were prime bomber killers especially in the night role by I. and III./JG 300.

The G-10 was developed off the very fast and efficient G-6/AS with a streamlined cowling, larger intake and air and oil cooler. the G-6 was being terminated with the G-14 and AS version being built and soon after the G-10 a bit faster and cleaner lines was introduced for the high altitude protection role or just plain Allied escort intercepting. Because of sufficient numbers of the a/c were produced for the Luftwaffe the 109 was also in useage in the 109 equipped units on the Ost front although JG's 51, 52 and 54 already had the tried and true G-14/AS whcih could keep up with any soviet model at any altitude, but because of the reduction of the Reich and the pulling back of Ost front units, US P-51's with drop tanks could not invade into Luftwaffe/Ost front held air space, Czech areas and into Austria and Hungary, so the faster G-10 model was a very much needed tool in the last months of the war.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Luftwaffe was avery competent force even into January of 1945 and true the well known ace pilots with much experinece were being thinned out and many were given the chance to fly in JG 7 and JV 44 thus ending their carreers for most on not even flying the jet but moving ever so inward the Reich the last months of the war.

the G-10 seemed to be an answer to the P-51 if given enough numbers but it was always the case of being simply overwhelmed in the air. The P-51 units loaded to the plenty in their squadrons on 9 out of 10 occassions always held a height advnatage besides having the larger number of a/c to put in action on any given operation with the Luftwaffe. the G-10 was also given the oppourtunity to show itslef in the ground attack role a role it was not well suited with the underwing mounted 2cm gondolas. these were used by several units such as JG 300 to fight off Soviet bridgeheads and by night flying units such as NJG 11 with the same pricniple - blast out any MT found or eliminate ground and road build ups at important road junctions.

To answer Adlers question. After the G-14/AS was running low in the night fighter units the G-10 was supplemented and given to I./NJGr 10 for mossie cahsing and then removed from that to follow up on RAF 4 enigne bombers. The Three gruppen in NJG 11 used the a/c with it's G-14/AS and later in I. gruppe a few K-4's. One or two special night Kommando's also flew all black G-10's to chase RAF 4 engine jobs as well.

evangilder said:

Part of the problem here, Udet is that you hae a tendency to word things that either puts them on the defensive, or just puts them off. We all know that allied propaganda is flawed, but you seem to come forward with the attitude that we have all been drinking the Kool-Aid.

I have never stated nor thought that the German pilots and planes were inferior, with the exception in numbers. Yet you seem to lump all of us that are in countries that were on the allied side of believing everything that has been crammed down our throats. You have raised some interesting points, but if you toned down the rhetoric a bit, you might find that your message is better rreceived and more prone to discussion.

Click to expand...

I agree Evan.

As do I even. Udet you automatically assume that we all feed this crap. I only know of a few people that posted here that ever posted such nonsense. However I am sorry Udet but the 109 was not the best plane since bread and butter! (this coming from a guy whos favorite plane is the 109)
Secondly if you do not want people to think this of you then you should not use gun camara footage with remarks of "I have seen many footage of P-51's getting blown out of the sky" as sources for your arguments. There is footage that shows the other way around also.

And comments like this:

Being you, one of the very few persons whose knowledge and attitude I happen to respect very greatly

Click to expand...

Dont help your cause either.

Erich said:

To answer Adlers question. After the G-14/AS was running low in the night fighter units the G-10 was supplemented and given to I./NJGr 10 for mossie cahsing and then removed from that to follow up on RAF 4 enigne bombers. The Three gruppen in NJG 11 used the a/c with it's G-14/AS and later in I. gruppe a few K-4's. One or two special night Kommando's also flew all black G-10's to chase RAF 4 engine jobs as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Erich.

Der Adler:

What on earth makes you think i was referring to you when commenting on the allied propaganda over fed ghoulies?

Perhaps i should have added a "you know who you are" to my idea.


Do not misunderstand the core of my comment: i see the Bf109, throughout its entire chain of evolution, as one of the greatest fighters of WWII. Or did i ever anything like "combat with enemy fighters in the Bf 109 was piece of cake"?

So there is footage showing German planes getting creamed by allied fighters? Pointless remark.

I´d ask, have you ever seen footage of Mustangs getting digested by German interceptors? If so, how many shots have you seen?

You respond to me as if guncamera footage from German fighters showing USAAF fighters getting destroyed in combat would be available at the newspaper corner store. You would be surprised on how rare such view is for most WWII aircraft buffs.

The common thing is to watch guncamera films showing GERMANS getting pounded and shot down.

Quite actually, the most common stuff you can watch from German guncamera are a few -dozens- boring and over repetitive films of German interceptors pounding B-17s and B-24s.

Since you are kind of familiar with my tone in the forum, you´d not believe it but when i was in my early teens (i´m 21) i was convinced the USAAF had won the war in the air "all by itself".

That in fact, the German planes by 1944 had been absolute "crap" when compared to Jugs, Mustangs, Lightnings, Spitfires, etc., and that late war German pilots could "hardly take off".

That in fact, the Luftwaffe had received a brutal treatment from its enemies, and that the USAAF and RAF had been "so superior" their losses had been minimum during the process of defeating the Luftwaffe.

I recall the narrations of my grandfather and the books.

SUPREME BULLSHIT!

It was during my mid/late teens (2-4 years ago) that my interest grew and that i had the chance of meeting veterans and acquiring stuff when staying in Russia.

It was then when i learned i had been an allied propaganda overfed ghoulie myself.

We know it: the Luftwaffe, during 1944, in fact took very very high losses. The news, however, were i discovered the Luftwaffe caused horrific losses to the USAAF.

Dozens of thousands of USAAF pilots and airmen took off to never be seen again.

That German fighters and pilots were everything but the "helpless ducks" portrayed by the victor´s hogwash. That even though their training got shortened they remained skilled and competitive warriors.

Also i learned the Luftwaffe was not defeated on any "decisive" day; it was rather a long process of losses one sole nation fighting three large enemy air forces could not afford.

What else did i learn? Ah! the fuel crisis which grounded so many fighter units in the last months of the war; an issue perhaps more critical than losses. So many times the allied guys would not meet the Luftwaffe guys in the air not because "they had already been shot down" but due to the simple reason there was no fuel to take off.

The same process implied learning the Bf 109 remained one of the best fighters; great enough to meet veterans who flying those in the final weeks of the war delivered lead and gained kills against the allied "marvels".

Udet said:

Der Adler:
So there is footage showing German planes getting creamed by allied fighters? Pointless remark.

Click to expand...

This is proving that you are not reading the posts properly. He mentioned that because your remarks about Allied aircraft getting chewed up are also pointless.

It works both ways, there are German, Allied and Soviet gun-cam of the other sides getting destroyed.

That was his, and just about everyone elses point

You act like you are the only one who discovered that the propaganda is not the real truth. Geez, do you think that some of us, as historians are looking at the facts and not the propaganda? You do not have the monopoly on the facts. So stop treating us like we are all programmed zombies and you may find that people will respond better.

Plan_D, your last post should be filed under:

No, David, I had to point it out to him because he obviously doesn't get it.

Plan_D and Evangilder:

I appreciate the counseling very greatly, thanks.

Back on topic please. Plan and Evan, how many guncamera films of P-51s getting creamed by German fighters have you seen?

Several, I work at a WWII aviation museum. We have more tapes and videos of that stuff than you could imagine. What does it show me? That war is a nasty business. It also can show off the skills of the pilots involved. Does it show the full capability of the aircraft? Not really, there is no telemetry data to show the speed, altitude, g load, etc. It does show some manuevering that is possible, I will give you that.

But realize that most of us here know that the Mustang was not the end all fighter that nothing else could touch. The Germans were very capable of putting up a hell of a fight, and did. Some allied planners thought the war would be over by Christmas of 1944. Obviously, they didn't realize how much fight was left.

I agree. Guncam's don't show what an airplane is capable of, but it does sometimes show how hard a 'target' the enemy can be.

------------------------------------------

Anyway back to the topic:

The Mustang was infact not as 'excellent' a fighter as its often put out to be, and the 109 could easely handle it if pilot skill was equal. The F4U-4 on the other hand, is one of the best fighters of WW2, along with the Spit XIV and Fw-190D-9.

In this 'Clash', as a pure fighter I would definitely go for the 109 G-10 , but as an escort-fighter I would go for the P-51.

I agree as well... What i get out of gun cam footage is the destructiveness and accuracy of different weapons and ammo, and their affect on certain aircraft.....

The Mustang was infact not as 'excellent' a fighter as its often put out to be, and the 109 could easely handle it if pilot skill was equal.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%..... The -51D won the battles because of sheer #'s of aircraft...... As has been pointed out many times here, how can 4 alert -109's possibly combat 30 -51D's??? Prayer and a good chute......

But it also goes both ways.... An excellent -51D pilot could easily handle an equally skilled pilot in a -109.... Combat conditions vary, and so do pilots instincts and reactions...

In this 'Clash', as a pure fighter I would definitely go for the 109 G-10 , but as an escort-fighter I would go for the P-51.

Click to expand...

Intereseting choice... I would go with the -190D-9 as a pure fighter, and the -51D as an escort.......

Thats why the greatest pilots that lived through the war should be especially regarded by people such as ourselves......

The F4U-4 on the other hand, is one of the best fighters of WW2, along with the Spit XIV and Fw-190D-9.

Click to expand...

I agree once again, but some would add that the Spit IX was the better of the Spits......

just again watched some dramatic gun cam footage of SturmFw's decimating the rear of a B-24 pulk. What shows ? the destructiveness of 2cm and 3cm Minegeschoss rounds and how the B-24 could take the punishment...........not very well I might add.

and what would be shown in the propaganda useage of these films. where to fire your rounds, closely spaed to cause the most damage in the less amount of time.

yes I know I am repeating this but want to make it clear

time for a Bier

A truly fascinating discussion.....

As a humble student of WWII Aviation History, I've always regarded the War as a closely fought thing, very even in men and material, and I've consumate respect for those that fought in it....All these aircraft that were used extensively, were superb for their time and it's a pleasure and a privilege to be able to discuss and learn on this site, from those who have researched in depth......

Between these two great aircraft there isn't anything I can add, other than the Bf-109's chief weakness was apparently it's undercarriage, which doesn't really count here, but the courage and skill of some of it's pilots' are of legend, they were tenacious to the end. I have read also of Mustangs being shot down, as they weren't infallible, we perhaps forget sometimes that this War was fought largely by young men in the prime of their life, and to quickly learn their skills and to fly fight, and survive those years, was indeed a feat in itself......

I just think we're all lucky to live in an age where we can discuss it in retrospect, and that the awesome craftsmanship of selfless Restorators around the world has given us museums of these aircraft to view, and airshows to watch them fly as they were......

I keep reminding myself, Life's too short to get bitchy about the Past......

It´s a fine topic.
Still on my view, if you factor the probable combat situations properly, the P-51 has a big advantage: cruise speed, altitude (remember the Bf-109 would climb), G-suite, better gunsight and numerical advantage. If we compare one -109 and -51 in an empty airspace at equally skills and altitudes I would like to be in a -109G10 but that´s not very probable in 1944 or isn´t it? I do personnaly think the 109G10 is the better dogfighter of both, but there are other factors in an aerial dogfight and pilot skill is probably the most important of them.

there are other factors in an aerial dogfight and pilot skill is probably the most important of them.

Click to expand...

Yup........