Me109F vs Spitfire MkV

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

Spit V for: manevrability, armament, DF
Fritz (the best of 109's IMO) for: manev., DF + EF combination

For me: there are two equal planes.
 
the spitfire, why?? because the spit was used by the allies, the -109F by the axis, the allies beat the axis, and so, the spitfire was better than the -109F :D
 
Hmm. The Spitfire did have great manuverabilty, which became useful in dogfights, but the -109 was just as good as the Spitfire.

If you ask me, i would have taken the Spitfire over the -109. Besides, the Spitfire had a more guns on it than a -109.
 
2 20mm and 4 - .303 or 4 - 20mm which beats the 109s 2 - 7,92 and 1 - 20mm
 
I'd take the Bf 109F. It has a cannon on the centerline, two MGs in the nose.

From Erich Hartmann Gerhard Barkhorn, "One in the nose is worth 4 in the wings!"

Between these two guys, they shot down over 650 Allied aircraft. I believe them.

The 109F was the best of the series as far as the Aces were concerned.
 
The Spitfire V and Bf-109F were equal opponents. It purely came down to the pilot skill when these two faced off. The Spitfire V had none of the problems of the Spitfire I and II so comparison is zilch. The Fw-190A vs. Spitfire V however would be the end of days for the Spitfire.
 
Plan_D you are right. It comes right down to the pilot who's flying the bird.

It all comes down to luck, skill, guts, and of course being alert. Every shot that you would have fired counted. It could be that one misfire or moving to slowly that got bullets hitting your cockpit.
 
The Spitfire V had none of the problems of the Spitfire I and II so comparison is zilch.

I thought it still had a float carb and was unable to bunt?

The Fw-190A vs. Spitfire V however would be the end of days for the Spitfire.

Well, 'till the MkIX came along and restored the balance

On the armament thing 'one in the nose' is only good for experienced pilots, a novice is going to get himself killed with that armament (as discovered in Russia).

The Me109F actually had a 15mm in the nose, but it was better than the Oerlikon and could esily be made into a 20mm as all (pretty sure every one?) later were.
 
The eary Spitfire V still had the carb problem but it was solved in the later V production. And I do realise that the Spitfire IX brought back a balance between the Spitfire and German opposition. But this discussion is about the Spitfire V. All Spitfire marks are different, refer to the mark everytime.
 
"On the armament thing 'one in the nose' is only good for experienced pilots, a novice is going to get himself killed with that armament (as discovered in Russia). "

May i know how is it that such a thing happened?

In Russia what was discovered is the VVS received a kind of battering no air force in the history of war has ever experienced.
 
I thought you meant the Spit (all marks) had had it's day by that point PlanD.

All Spitfire marks are different

Really? Thats news to me! :lol:


One of the Soviet screw-ups Udet, but I think the problem was known but ignored?

Basically all Allied pilots sent to Russia went with their planes, but preferred Russian types (nose armament) whereas the Ivans prefered multiple wing armament, unless they were elites.

It's kinda like arming a green Russian Infantryman with a Mosin-Nagant Sniper Rifle and Vasilly Zeitzev-types with a PPSh41, if you will.
 
Since you have created the thread "Me109F vs Sitfire MkV" maybe I should just refer to the Sitfire, whatever that is. Is that a Spitfire without fuel?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back