Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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 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'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.
In fact, the first BF flew with a Rolls engine because the DB was not ready yet.
(why the 210D and not the more powerful 210G/Ga?)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.
Trying to make long range fighter in the 1930s would have been too heavy and slower than needed.
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?????