Most overated fighter (1 Viewer)

Which was the most over-rated fighter of the war? (As folks over-rate them nowadays)


  • Total voters
    110

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

How much would the drop tank degrade the performance of the 109? My understanding was that drop tanks were introduced towards the end of october, with no appreciable change in the loss rates (admittedly the LW Jagd were already just about on their knees by then with reportedly less than 200 fighters on average left in an operational state).

It is a VERY big stretch to argue that the 109 had sufficient range to be classified an effective offensive fighter IMO, even with LR tanks. And if it was such a simple excercise, why wasnt something done earlier?????

Neither was the Spitfire etc, but then only the germans were planning an aggressive war, so one would expect them to incorporate some adequate planning in their preparations, so as to provide LR tanks earlier, or make modifications to the aircraft itself so as to increase its range
 
Must be remembered that all first generation monoplanes were very short ranged. Put the most powerful engine in the smallest airframe and you have short range.

The 109 was an interceptor and so therefore not designed with range in mind. The battle of Britain scenario was a difficult one as the Germans never planned for it.

You can't blame the Germans for having the 109 in 1939 but you can in 1945.

Hype is all it...the Hurricane won the Battle of Britian while the Spitfire got the glory. And the Mustang won the won in 1944? Cool...overlooking the fact that there was plenty of war even before the Mustang flew.

If you look closer, the fighters that won the real deal were the Wildcats and the Hurricanes and the P-40s.

The Mustang wasn't there at Stalingrad or Midway or BoB so it didn't win the battles that won WW2.
 
You can't blame the Germans for having the 109 in 1939 but you can in 1945.

Hype is all it...the Hurricane won the Battle of Britian while the Spitfire got the glory. And the Mustang won the won in 1944? Cool...overlooking the fact that there was plenty of war even before the Mustang flew.

If you look closer, the fighters that won the real deal were the Wildcats and the Hurricanes and the P-40s.

The Mustang wasn't there at Stalingrad or Midway or BoB so it didn't win the battles that won WW2.

Very good points. And don't forget the Gladiators!:lol:
 
The Germans had tested drop tanks on 109's in the Spanish Civil war, but up to the BoB there hadn't been need for any such, and with policies not oriented toward escorts (ie "the bomber will always get through" :rolleyes: ) and the assumption that the Bf 110 was a competent fighter...

And again the number of tactical mistakes made by the Germans durring the BoB. (in terms of the 109 alone, utilizing close escort instead of top cover, puting the escorts at a disadvantage, or possibly using sweeping/roaming escorts intermitent with the bombers)

And as to performance degridation, once the tank was dropped, there would be a little loss in speed (and very slight loss in climb and maneuverabillity) due to the fusalage rack/pylon, but not too serious.


Also as to all the early monoplane fighters having short range: the P-36 (and P-40 -Tomahawk/Model 81-) had relatively high fuel capacities with combat ranges of 800-850 mi and max range (at minimum cruise settings) of over 1,000 mi. (over 1,200 mi claimed for P-40B -134 imp, 160 US gallon capacity-)

Not to mention the F2A, the first model with over 1,300 mi with 161 US gal (over 1,500 mi claimed) range on internal fuel for the lightweight F2A-1, and over 1,600 mi on the F2A-2. (now with 242 US gallons internal)
 
Must be remembered that all first generation monoplanes were very short ranged. Put the most powerful engine in the smallest airframe and you have short range.

The 109 was an interceptor and so therefore not designed with range in mind. The battle of Britain scenario was a difficult one as the Germans never planned for it.

You can't blame the Germans for having the 109 in 1939 but you can in 1945.

Hype is all it...the Hurricane won the Battle of Britian while the Spitfire got the glory. And the Mustang won the won in 1944? Cool...overlooking the fact that there was plenty of war even before the Mustang flew.

If you look closer, the fighters that won the real deal were the Wildcats and the Hurricanes and the P-40s.

The Mustang wasn't there at Stalingrad or Midway or BoB so it didn't win the battles that won WW2.

It would be better to say the Wildcats, Hurricanes and P-40's were major contributors to the Allies not Losing the war in the 1939-1943 period. Those Battles did not Win WWII.

I also voted the Mustang as over hyped, along with Ta 152, as great as they both were - but the Mustang did win the battle for air supremacy over Germany at a time when the entire US Strategic doctrine was at risk.
 
As far as the Corsair being overated, because this forum is biased, for good reasons, toward the ETO and it's AC, the Corsair may be the most under appreciated fighter of the war. Almost all of the premier single engined fighters in the war became multirole fighters. This was of necessity but the 109s, 190s, Spits, P40s and so on all were adapted to the ground attack role even though the original design probably was not optimised in that direction. Strangely, the original missions flown by the Mustang were ground attack even though I don't believe Dutch Kindleberger designed the fighter for that role. Anyway, if a multirole fighter is the epitome as far as piston engined fighters are concerned in WW2, the Corsair may be underappreciated as it might have been, all considered, the best fighter of the war. As far as the great unwashed public is concerned (and that includes most of the people who make TV stuff on both sides of the pond) the Mustang is probably the most overated but it is undeniable that the P51 played a major role in winning the war. I have forgotten which AC I voted for but, with all the excellent opinions stated and supported, this may be an unaswerable question.
 
How is the forum biased to the fact that the Corsair is overated, when most people here do not think the Corsair was overated. I think only one person voted for it.

My vote by the way goes to the P-51D. It was one the best fighters of the war and ever built, but I just feel that it is overhyped and made out to be more of an uberfighter than what it was.
 
I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion.

Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.

The P51 is over-hyped, but it did achieve it's operational goal, of long range escort and air superiority over Germany. The Spitfire also gets a lot of hype, but it was designed as a home defense fighter, and it also achieved that goal. The 109 fell short of what was required of it. If it had been successful, this posting would be in German. (that's a tired cliche I know, but it's relavant


Battle of Britain, Midway and Stallingrad might not have been the battles which won the war, but they were definately turning points, arguably the three most important battles of the war, insofar as they showed the allies that both Germany and Japan could be defeated, basically by individual nations within the Allies. BoB/Britain, Stalingrad/Soviets, Midway/ USA.

It is a common assertation, that Germany made a tactical error during BoB by insisting on close escort. Really, the close escort order was in effect for only part of the Battle, and they were already experiencing serious losses before that, hence the order. Keep in mind, the Soviets used close escort throughout the war and they were quite successful with it. I think lack of range for the 109 was more of a factor than orders from Goerring.
 
I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion.

Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.

The P51 is over-hyped, but it did achieve it's operational goal, of long range escort and air superiority over Germany. The Spitfire also gets a lot of hype, but it was designed as a home defense fighter, and it also achieved that goal. The 109 fell short of what was required of it. If it had been successful, this posting would be in German. (that's a tired cliche I know, but it's relavant


Battle of Britain, Midway and Stallingrad might not have been the battles which won the war, but they were definately turning points, arguably the three most important battles of the war, insofar as they showed the allies that both Germany and Japan could be defeated, basically by individual nations within the Allies. BoB/Britain, Stalingrad/Soviets, Midway/ USA.

It is a common assertation, that Germany made a tactical error during BoB by insisting on close escort. Really, the close escort order was in effect for only part of the Battle, and they were already experiencing serious losses before that, hence the order. Keep in mind, the Soviets used close escort throughout the war and they were quite successful with it. I think lack of range for the 109 was more of a factor than orders from Goerring.

See I disagree with you because of one aspect. The Germans were not going to win air superiority with any aircraft. They could have had the Spitfire or the P-51D and they were not going to win.

So I do not think you can blame the 109 on that. I think it comes down to tactics and inferior numbers (not in all campaigns of course).
 
I think this forum is biased a little because the members concentrate on the ETO partly because many are from Europe or like you Chris reside in Europe. Nothing wrong with that and understandable. In fact, as far as WW2 is concerned, particularely the air war, if you look in the public library(which I do) the vast majority of the books on WW2 are about the ETO and some historians seem to treat the Pacific war as kind of a back water. In terms of humans involved and casualties it was. Therefore, I don't think the performance of the Corsair or Hellcat is as familiar to some of the members, partly because the Corsair never fired a shot in the ETO and the Hellcat very few. Once again this is understandable.
 
I think this forum is biased a little because the members concentrate on the ETO partly because many are from Europe or like you Chris reside in Europe. Nothing wrong with that and understandable. In fact, as far as WW2 is concerned, particularely the air war, if you look in the public library(which I do) the vast majority of the books on WW2 are about the ETO and some historians seem to treat the Pacific war as kind of a back water. In terms of humans involved and casualties it was. Therefore, I don't think the performance of the Corsair or Hellcat is as familiar to some of the members, partly because the Corsair never fired a shot in the ETO and the Hellcat very few. Once again this is understandable.

You correct in that aspect.
 
I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion.

Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.

The P51 is over-hyped, but it did achieve it's operational goal, of long range escort and air superiority over Germany. The Spitfire also gets a lot of hype, but it was designed as a home defense fighter, and it also achieved that goal. The 109 fell short of what was required of it. If it had been successful, this posting would be in German. (that's a tired cliche I know, but it's relavant


Battle of Britain, Midway and Stallingrad might not have been the battles which won the war, but they were definately turning points, arguably the three most important battles of the war, insofar as they showed the allies that both Germany and Japan could be defeated, basically by individual nations within the Allies. BoB/Britain, Stalingrad/Soviets, Midway/ USA.

It is a common assertation, that Germany made a tactical error during BoB by insisting on close escort. Really, the close escort order was in effect for only part of the Battle, and they were already experiencing serious losses before that, hence the order. Keep in mind, the Soviets used close escort throughout the war and they were quite successful with it. I think lack of range for the 109 was more of a factor than orders from Goerring.


I think your points are well thought out and agree.

Chris also had a point about tactics, although I feel the Germans had the numbers they needed to defeat the USAAF over Germany absent the Mustang but their tactics were not well thought out to maximize what they did have.

In retrospect their tactics during BoB were also flawed to point of losing that campaign when they had the RAF in dire straits.

The bottom line - they had equivalent performance, local superiority over Britain and over Germany and lost both campaigns.
 
The early WW2 European fighters, like the BF, Hurricane and Spit were designed with engines of relatively low horsepower. In fact, the first BF flew with a Rolls engine because the DB was not ready yet. As a result, the fighters were small, light and as a result, of limited fuel capacity. I don't believe they had armor and self sealing tanks. Those tanks were heavy and limited fuel capacity even more. The Japanese encountered the same problem with the A6M but were even more constrained by horsepower or lack there of. IMO, that was the genius of the Japanese in that their small, lightweight fighter had performance similar to the BOB British and German fighters except from land bases it had a combat radius on internal fuel of more than 400 miles. Of course the Germans and British could add armor and some self sealing tanks because they were getting more and more horsepower and still have good performance. The Japanese could not readily get more HP and the armor and SS tanks had to wait and when they came the A6M could not match the performance gains of the BF and Spit although the range advantage was still there. In late 1940, when the A6M began to become operational, for a carrier borne fighter to have the overall performance of the Zero was exceptional engineering.
 
I believe that if the germans had opted for a fighter with sy a nominal 800-1000 mile range, like the P-36, or the D-520, then it would have achieved a completely different outcome over britain, at the least. Technologically this was possible in the mid to late thirties, as evidenced by types like the A5M, A6M, P-36, and Dewoitine 520. Why did the germans opt for a type which,, even by the standards of the pre-war period was so extremely short legged. Kool K hinted at it in one of his posts that it related to the "bomber will always get through" thinking that prevailed at the time, including Britain and Germany.


I just wonder if the Germans could have achieved more if they had had a fighter more suited to their operational needs.

I am not saying that the 109 was an inferior fighting plane. I think it unfair to say that. It fought very well, however I also believe it was the wrong plane for the LW because it could not fulfil all the mission types that it should have....
 
Well even with the range, there were tactical errors in the implementation of fighters by Germany in the BoB. (not to mention problems in the bombing strategy used)

And again, drop tanks were a simple (and tested) solution to the problem, but not considdered necessary at the time. While the 109's range wouldn't be incredibly long it should have been sufficient for the BoB. With the 300L tank, fuel load would be increased by 75% on the Bf 109E. (although range increase would be somewhat less due to added drag of the tank)


One other note:
From Renrich
In fact, the first BF flew with a Rolls engine because the DB was not ready yet.

I believe the 600 hp BMW 116 V-12 was the original choice for the Bf-109, but that engine was regected. THe Jumo 210 was then selected, but was not yet available so a RR Kestrel was used on the V1. The Jumo 210 was used on all production models up to the 109D.

I have conflicting info on the 109D. According to Wikipedia:
The V10, V11, V12 and V13 prototypes were built using Bf 109B airframes, and tested the DB600A engine with the hope of increasing the performance of the aircraft. However the DB600A was found to be unreliable, and as the improved DB601A was to become available soon, the DB600A was dropped.

Developed from the V10 and V13 prototypes, the "Dora" was the standard version of the Bf 109 in service with the Luftwaffe during the period just before World War II. Despite this, the type saw only limited service during the war, as all of the 235 Doras still in service at the beginning of the Polish campaign were rapidly taken out of service and replaced by the Bf 109E, except in some night fighter units, where some examples were used into early 1940. Variants included D-0 and D-1 Models, both with a Junkers Jumo 210D engine and armed with two wing-mounted and two nose-mounted 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns.[29] The D-2 was an experimental version with an engine mounted machine gun but this installation failed again. The D-3 was similar to the C-3 with two 20mm MG FF cannon in the wings.
(why the 210D and not the more powerful 210G/Ga?)

However this site says otherwise WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn

It claims the Dora was powered by the DB-600Aa.
 
The 109 was good enough.

It is easy today to say the Germans got it wrong.

The Bf 109 for short range and the Bf 110 for long range.

Trying to make long range fighter in the 1930s would have been too heavy and slower than needed. So if you want speed, go light.

If the 109 was planned as an interceptor then it was successful.
 
It was planned as an interceptor, but this was the wrong choice. But technologically it was possible to produce a fighter of moderate performance, and moderate range, aka P-36, D-520, MS406, all of which possessed superior range to the 109, and were also its contemporaries.

What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????
 
Trying to make long range fighter in the 1930s would have been too heavy and slower than needed.

Umm, the Fw 187...

To name Germany's. But a major consideration in almost every country was taken for twin engine fighters in the 30's, notably improvements in a/c designs were coming faster than engines powerful enough to meet requirements for a high performance single engine fighter (withought severly limiting the size of the a/c) additionally modern twin engined bombers had gained a slight edge in speed performance over contemporary fighters for a breif period, adding to the attraction. Resulting in the Fw 187, Westlad Whirlwind, and P-38. (as well as others like the Fokker G.I) Though the P-38 cuts it very close in terms of "late 30's)

THese were all generally faster and longer ranged than the single engined contemporaries, though less maneuverable (most pronounced in roll rate, though the early P-38's were pretty poor turners -prior to the maneuvering flaps-). The biggest disadvantage compared to single engine fighters would be cost and time to manufacture. (possibly also added training/orientation time)
 
What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????

You might want to ask Kurfurst about that (maybe PM, though this general topic -the comparisons, not just on the 109- deserves its own thread).

IIRC the 109 had already had a fuel increase on the E model, from 250L to 400L. And a rear fusalage tank could be fitted to later models. (in place of the MW-50 tank)
 
Kool kitty
IIRC Jumo 210D was used in 109Ds because the production of the fuel injection 210G/Gas was too low.

IIRC the story that serial production 109Ds were powered by DB600Aas is an old myth orginating from Green's and maybe also from Nowarra's old books.

Juha
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back