Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

Hmmm Curzon, for the sake of our 'virtual pub' I have to disagree!
If we apply your logic all discussion are over before start: we all know the outcome of the war, so with your rule all Allied and Russian aircraft are superior to the Axis types. Example 'the IL-2 was ultimately superior to Bf109 and FW 190 because Ivan produced so many crates and pilots that no matter how many were shot down the IL2 always succeded in crushing the German army'

I think that if we want to continue our discussions about 'which is the best' we should try to 'filter out' the things related to external factors, like achievements heavily related to pure numerical superiority or special tactical situations (like kills obtained on landing aircrafts)

If Maradona was playing as n.10 in my pub soccer team and we lose 10-0 with Liverpool, that does not mean that the n 10 of Liverpool is better than Maradona...

Yes but everyone is better than Maradona now....drugs, alcohol and bad eating habits.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yes but everyone is better than Maradona now....drugs, alcohol and bad eating habits.

Click to expand...

Here here! :{)

SeaFury said:

Hi people!

Can anyone tell me if Rear Admiral 'Jumping Joe' Clifton is still alive....my favourite Carrier Pilot! Love to know how he he is.

SeaFury

Click to expand...

He was quite down that day in 1962 when he learned that he had been passed over for the third and final time. After I got out in February of 1963, he wrote, but I am afraid I never got back to him. Then, I guess it was in about October that he tracked me down telephoned me where I was a Southern California newspaper editor. He had joined Litton Industries, and I promised we wouild get together soon. It was not long after that I read that he had had both legs amputated and had died soon after. He died, I have to believe, of a broken heart.

Buster Evans

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

If both a P-51D and Bf-109G or K fought one on one with one another my guess is that they would be flying less than 360mph each in there fight. Might be wrong but that is my guess. You dont turn as well at higherspeeds as you would at lower ones.

The main thing that made the P-51D so successful was its shear numbers. 5 Bf-109s versus 35 P-51D's. The numbers speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

Chris - I don't know if you feel the same way now as you did when you posted this... but the greatest contribution made by the 51s was in the Jan-May, 1944 timeframe when there were an averarge of two groups (or less) of Mustangs to perform Target Penetration and Withdrawal escort for each Bomb Division of 10-13 Bomb Groups... and all or most of LuftReich assests would be concentrated somewhere along that 20-40 mile path in general. Except for Sweeps out in front, the US Fighters were largely spread out and initially 'reactive' to the threat - meaning many of the engagements started with a skillful positioning by LW controllers to a 'blank spot' and provide high cover for the attacking force.

In mosts cases Mustangs were attacking in flights and sections - rarely entire squadrons, much less an entire group.

I should be wrapped up on the research for the 8th soon, but a (perhaps) interesting note is that for the 'Mustang only' groups in the 8th AF - (357th and 339th only flew P-51s) their Awards (not claims, but we know that all awards may not have been valid) of Me 109s shot down were:

421 Me 109s awarded vs 81 Mustangs downed by ALL German fighters (including Fw 190s, Me 262s, etc)

Just making the extreme conservative assumption that all P-51s were shot down by 109s, the air to air ratio is more than 5:1 - so the actual ratios of air to air combat between Mustangs vs Me 109 was far higher than 5:1.

Of the highest scoring groups with more than 170 Me 109 awards were 4th (263), 56th (264), 352nd (320), 355th (173), 357th (326) - only the 56th flew P-47s dominantly. The 8th AF lost a total of 632 fighters during WWII in air to air combat for awards of 2414 Me 109s, 1947 Fw 190s and 124 Me 262s...

Admittedly it will be more interesting when I get the details of all Mustang combat against the 109 in Jan-May, 1944 (actually include 354FG starting in Dec, 1943) as that is the period when the 8th AF FC did Not have numerical superiority near the targets in central to east germany.. actual numerical superiority did not occur until the P-47D's got enough range to help the Mustangs - late in 1944 and then finally converted.

Last comment on my part is that I don't feel that it was clear superiority of a/c as I have said many times before - but doctrine and increasing training edge. The Luftwaffe made the grave mistake of taking aggressiveness away from their pilots by emphasizing 'bombers only' and it cost them dearly Jan-May, 1944.

Regards,

Bill

PS - So far the best source for collecting the data is Kent Miller's works combined with 8th AFVCB, USAF 85 and Olynyk.

Kent names the type from 8th AF VCB and closely correlates but there are differences between the 8th AF VCB which were later REDUCED in USAF 85. My data so far is USAF by total and 8th AF VCB by name/type. If USAF 85 is lower number I use that.

For losses, if there is an 'unknown' cause, but German fighters were in the area - I assign a 'Air' Loss which means even if it was mechanical or weather casue - it goes into my "air to Air" column as a loss. I'm trying to be conservative on behalf of LW.

Cross checking is a bitch and will never be 100% reconciled between the three sources. I have too much time on my hands but eventually I will have a month by month by tpe.

Over the last few years with more research I would lean more to a comibation of superior numbers, better training time and superior tactics at the time.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Over the last few years with more research I would lean more to a comibation of superior numbers, better training time and superior tactics at the time.

Click to expand...

Chris _ I know there are no absolutes to the question of air superiority in numbers in a battle area.

Having said that, at what period of time do you place "available or likely" ratios of Mustangs to Me 109s over Central and Eastern Reich during the big air battles of 8th AF plus 354 and 363FG Mustangs?

starting with 1:8 (maybe) when the 354FG started on 1 December
1:5
1:1
2:1
5:1
7:1

I have always thought the only way to even attempt to parse this question is to consider the above mix of Mustangs as they came into operations versus the mix of Me 109s available (operational vs 'on the field') of LuftReich.

Even the above analysis only provides a solution if the 8th and LW chose to put all their available assets into a space perhaps occupied by three or four bomb goups - say 100 cubic miles (16 miles long, 2 miles on each side, 1-1.5 miles in height) say around Eschwege where fighters from Augsburg, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Berlin could meet?

In other words discount JG26 and JG2 as otherwise occupied over France and Holland

How would you analyze the question if you were trying to get a grip on this question over time?

Honestly I dont think it can be done. That is why I have someone changed my views on the topic over there years.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Honestly I dont think it can be done. That is why I have someone changed my views on the topic over there years.

Click to expand...

Statistics are interesting but at the end of the day there was a huge difference between the numbers of Allied Fighters on the ground in England and Italy versus the number over Brunswick or Berlin on a given day.. starting with zero in fall 1943


Of course the % (over Brunswick, Berlin, Munich, Posnan, Brux, etc) increased gradually from Dec, 1943 and March, 1944 to the point in time when P-47D's finally got enough range to be part of the Long Range Escort mix.

But there was a window of significant time in which the LW could hold numerical superiority over escort fighters anywhere they chose in Central and Eastern Germany, and still have enough left over to attack the bombers in that same area.

In my opinion, in order of importance for LW, it was a.) Tactics, b.) subsequent attrition of skilled pilots due to poor tactics (letting US become the aggressor), c.) failure to replace the attrition with adequately trained pilots, leading to d.) attrition of even more pilots.

I don't think Performance of the individual fighter adversaries was ever truly significant between Me 109 and P-51 for example, although the LW design performance peak was generally below attacking B-17 and escorting P-51 and P-47 peaks which did contribute negatively to the Me 109 scores against US fighters.. it wasn't until the G6 'up engined' to G6 A/S that they regained parity where they needed it.

Just random thoughts

Do you know how many USAAF fighters of all types were available around those times for missions over Germany?

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Do you know how many USAAF fighters of all types were available around those times for missions over Germany?

Click to expand...

Short answer - yes. Longer answer it depends.

The USAAF SOP was 64 fighters per group on base in inventory in the 1943 timeframe. Try to put up 48 at bomber R/V.

In 1st part of 1944, the TO&E increased to 72 with same objective of 48 at bomber R/V. With 51s the Groups would frequently put up 2-5 spares and generally have at last that many as 'early return's'

By 1945 some Groups were carrying 96 fighters as TO&E. 355th was one of them but they also maintained all 2 Scout Force ships as a reinforced "E-Flight".. ditto the 364th and 55th who were supporting the 3rd SF and 1st SF respectively in the same way.

The very best way to get a feel for number of long range escorts at any time is use the number 48/Fighter Group of P-51s or P-38s. That would be a high 'effective' average for the actual number of 51s or 38s actually making the target because of mechanical problems/aborts... but it would be the PLANNED number.

When the 56th finally got P-47M's they could go to Berlin but for all intents and purposes the P-47D equipped groups rarely went past a line drawn from Bremen through Kassell and Mannheim.. that's where they would turn back on a Penetration, or Pick up on a Withdrawal Support Escort

As for bomb groups

The typical number of bombers would be four squadrons of 9 per Bomb Group for a maximum effort in late 1943, early 1944. They would be lucky in the fall of 43 to put up 30 ships per group thanks to LW. That number gradually increased until mid 1944 when many bomb groups could put up 45-50 bombers on a max effort.

In mid 1944 each bomb group might contribute the 36+ as a single unit then add 9 to another Combat Wing to bring the total strength sent out to 45-48 bombers. The heavy bomb group TO&E started at 48 and increased to 72 by war's end.

The typical number of bomb groups per Bomb Division effort would be 10-12 and at the end of the war there were 13 Bomb Groups of B-17s each in the 1st and 3rd BD plus 15 groups of B-24s in 2nd BD.

So, to expand:

1-1, 43 4th FG flying Spitfires - max range Paris

6-1-1, 43 4th and 56th and 78th flying P-47s - a little deeper penetration - to Holland/german border

12-1-1, 43
P-47
4, 56, 78, 352, 3533, 355, 356, 358, 359 - go to Munster
Deep Escort
P-38 - go wherever
20, 55
P-51 - go wherever
354FG (9th AF)

No of fighters to cover ~ three BD of 900 a/c ~ 120-150 fighters depending on aborts

2-1-1, 44 (trade 358 for 357FG in mid Feb)
P-47
4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 356, 359, 361 - go to Munster/Dummer Lake

P-38 - go wherever
20, 55
P-51 - go wherever
354FG,(9th - assigned to 8th)
357th mid Feb

Number of fighters to provide Long Range target escort ~ 120-150 until mid Feb then 160-200

3-1-44
P-47 - go to Dummer Lake
56, 78, 353, 352, 356, 359, 361
P-38
20, 55, 364
P-51
354FG/363FG (9th assigned to 8th)
4, 355 (3/8), 357

Number of LR escorts ~ 280 until mid March - then ~320

4-1-44
P-47 - go to Bremen
56, 78, 352 (until mid April), 353, 356, 359, 361
P-38
20, 55, 364
P-51
354/363FG (9th assigned to 8th)
4, 355, 357

number of LR escorts ~ 320 until mid April, then another 40-48 from 352

5-1-44
P-47 - go to Bremen/Kassel/Frankfurt
56, 78, 353, 356, 359 (until mid May), 361 (mid May)
P-38
20, 55, 364, 479 (late May)
P-51
354 and 363 return to 9th for pre invasion assignments
4, 339, 352, 355, 357, 359/361 (mid May)

number of effectives increase to 45-48/group as bugs shaken out
~ 360-390 until mid May, then another 135-144 as the 361st, 359th and 479th come operational in P-51s and P-38s

At the end of May, the 8th AF can put up equivalent strength to entire LuftFlotte Reich - but still spread out to allocate 2-3 Fighter groups to cover each Bomb Division of 10 Bomb Groups.

A cat and mouse game in which 120-140 Mustangs have to escort 300 bombers over 40 miles in one area while two or more thrusts are focused on other areas.

Thanks for the info Bill. I will have to sift through tomorrow when I get home from work. I need to get to bed now, its after midnight. You have a good night.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Thanks for the info Bill. I will have to sift through tomorrow when I get home from work. I need to get to bed now, its after midnight. You have a good night.

Click to expand...

Chris don't waste a lot of time.

It is useful to use only when someone throws out something like "my squadron/staffel was outnumbered 8 to 1 by the (choose either P-51/P-47s)" .. because it means that unlucky bastard just happened to jump precisely in the one area where than COULD be true - namely when one Fighter Group is relieving another at an R/V point. (2x 40-48 fighters in cubic mile).

Otherwise 8th AF doctrine was to attack in flights, then section, then commit entire squadron and call for help.. and usually fight long over before 'help' arrives.

Extend that to a Gruppe strength attack and you can see how difficult it would be to pull several defending squadrons into that area - so local numerical superiority for 8th AF was not easy to achieve but converse is not true due to skills of LW controllers.

And, at the end of the day it would be more likely that only one squadron of the 'possibles' above, would actually be in a position to bounce any attack by the LW unless it was a very large and sustained attack

Hi All,

This is quite a debate!

I had the pleasure of speaking to a chap who had flown for a period with an evaluation unit, where fighters from both sides were pitted against each other.

I asked him about the 'best fighter' and he was very particular in listing the various aspects that contribute to a fighter's worth. Solely in air-to-air combat he said that the Zero was the only thing that he could out-turn a Spitfire in and get a bead on it. He credited this to the light weight and absence of armour-plating.

An interesting viewpoint from someone that flew a wide array of fighters.

Cheers,

Owen

The Zero can out-turn about anything, below 275 MPH. After that, it's a brick. The barn-door sized ailerons gave it a great turn radius, at a cost. Once you hit 275 MPH, there isn't enough human strength the move them and the stick feels like it has been set in concrete. The thick wing cord of the Zero also causes it to not be able to dive as fast as other fighters of that vintage.

I would be curious to hear other test pilots opinions. I may ask some of the guys down at the CAF what they feel is the best fighter. We have a Zero in our stable (a real one) as well as a Bearcat and a Hellcat. Most of our pilots have flown a large number of aircraft.

ME109 for me, but that because of flight sims(il2), but il take a 109G10 over any p51

The Ace-maker Bf-109 hands down!

From 1939 to 1945 it remained a top notch fighter, the final K-4 version out-speeding, out-turning and out-climbing any Allied fighter in the ETO. Sadly for the Germans too few were flown by proper trained pilots and too few were at all available.

Of the three the P-51 is ofcourse the second, by 1943 the Zeke design had reached its limits and was completely outdated compared to the US F6F Hellcat F4U Corsair.

No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.

You are seriously misinformed Renrich! Look at the performance differences for crying out loud!!

The P-51B, C D were pigs compared to the Bf-109's equipped with MW-50 boost. The only thing the P-51 had going for it until the introduction of the Bf-109 K-4 was speed.

Top speed of the K-4 was 719 km/h, climb rate in excess of 5,000 ft/min, turn rate excellent on par with the late Spitfires.

The F6F isn't even in the same league as the Bf-109! Are you even thinking right now ??

The F4U Corsair is the only fighter I'd rate up there with the Bf-109.

There's a reason the Bf-109 gave birth to majority of aces in WW2, including the top three of all time. The top ace even choose it over any other available in the LW. The fighter was a thoroughbred!

You should visit the aviation forum and take a peek at some of the threads there, Crummp posted some good graphs to look at.