Most overated fighter

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


  • Total voters
    111
Soren
where you have got the idea of only 50 jets, if from that Galland quote in the end of your messages, forget it, he seemed to have "forgot" JG 7 and KG(J) 54 altogether.

Generally, IIRC Jumo 004B-4 design was "frozen" ie it was decided that its design had reached level that its reliability fulfilled minimum level needed for operational engine, in June 44. Before that it was impossible to mass-produce jets even if plans called series production of Me 262 to beginning in Jan 44, because there was no massproduction of jet engines. Milch had seen that all early 262s were fighters until the fact dawned to Hitler on 23 May 44. Still the first fighter-bomber unit (3./KG 51) and the first fighter unit (Kdo Nowotny) began operating around same time, IIRC late July 44. When one remember that in early Sept 44 there were still over 100 262 airframes waiting for engines it seems that Hitler's dictate on May 23 had little effect to deployment of 262 as a fighter, maybe a month. In Sept 44 it was again possible to deliver new 262A-1as (fighters) with production engines to Kdo Nowotny. When one looks the results of Kdo Nowotny in Sept and up to 7 Oct 44 it claimed something like 20 kills but lost 13 Me 262s, of which 6 in combat. When Nowotny was killed on, was that 8th, Nov 44 the unit was sent to rear for extra training, so it seems that it was committed too early. And to train fighter pilots to Me 262 took more time than LW had anticipated, so the combat debut of JG 7 was delayed. And the last strength figure I can remember, on 9 Apr 45 LW combat units had some 200 Me 262s of which over 160 were fighters. IMHO Me 262 fighter was in main delayed because of technical problems, especially on Jumo 004B, natural difficulties in introducing radically new a/c to service and need to train fighter pilots to twin engine a/c with very temperamental engines.
ADDITION: 9 Apr 45 Me 262 situation: 163 day fighters (JG 7, KG(J) 54, JV 44), 21 fighter-bombers (KG 51), about 9 NFs and 7 Tac Recce. Max day fighter effort was Apr 7, 59 sorties, Me 262s claimed 5 lost 2. Best day seems to be 31 March 45, JG 7 flew 38 sorties and it seems that Me 262s shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters against 4 losses.

On Spitfire, I think I first time in certain degree disagree with JoeB. Firstly IIRC here in Finland in late 60s and early 70s IMHO Bf 109 was overrated not Spitfire. I and my friends were well aware on the problems RAF had with its Spit Vs "clipped, clapped…" probably because of Closterman's books and also probably because of J.J. Johnson's Wing Leader. German technology was in very high regard here in that time.

IMHO Spit V was the low point of Spits career, the quality leap from Mk II to Mk V was clearly less than that of from 109E to F. But then the quality leap from Mk V to Mks VIII/IX was clearly bigger than that of from 109F to G. So IMHO Mk VIIIs/IXs were better than early 109Gs. And even if Mk Vs had negative exchange rate in NW Europe they were instrumental in saving Malta and when they arrived to NA they at least made life more difficult to JG 27. And in 41-42 was there better Allied fighter to combat LW? The late war Spits were short legged when compared to P-38, -47D/N and -51 but so were all European fighters. Long range heavy bomber day raids were not so fashionable here. And enemies were near.

Juha
 
The Spitfire
(

The Me 109


These two aircraft, designed in the mid thirties, are the only fighters I know that was also formidable fighters in '45 against late model fighters. They stayed competitive through probably the greatest ten years in aircraft design. And, they continued active in military use after the war. They cannot be overrated.
 
Your getting performance mixed up with the hype. Did the 109 dominate europan airspace? no. Did the Spitfire win the battle of britain? no. Did either of these aircraft even do half the things people say they did? no. Therefore are they overrated? you bet, even if thy are technologically advanced. This is why this poll is a bit tricky....its not about performance in a lot of cases (unless someone is trying to overstate the performance of a given type)
 
Zip is the point of your post...

Besides using your statement above you might as well say ALL jets, allied and axis were overated in WW2, which I will still have to disagree with you because jets were the future of aviation. Fact is fact...
Yes...jets did nothing in WW2. As you say jets were the future. But the Germans needed a fighter, not a future fighter.

The Me 262 could not, under any realistic scenario, have won Germany the war. The idea which has been spread about that it could is simply not true.

The german military was doomed in 1941 at the gates of Moscow. That was the game right there. Declaring war on the USA at the same time...that was just adding fuel to the fire.

The 109 was built in huge numbers, shot down more aircraft and lasted for 10 years. It was the opposite of a failure. For sure, it couldn't do this or that but it did what was asked of it and that is all.
 
...it did not dominate the skies over Europe at any time, because it lacked the range to do anything of the sort. ...

Of course it had range. Did not dominate, I would say it gave a pretty rough time to enemy aircraft over France and the Med in 1941, over the desert in 1942, over Russia between 1941 and 1943. Schweinfurt and Ploiesti also come to mind.

What it lack was numbers, not range. Still the thing probably knocked down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history.

Even during the periods of its greatest successes the air force that it was a part of suffered heavy losses, which in part stemmed from the fact that its principal fighter could not provide proper cover for the bombers.

Of course it could, later in the war. It could even provide proper cover in 1940 in England, achieving air superiority, but its force projection then was limited. Later variants had much longer range, about 2.5 times as much. I posted a range table before; take a map and draw some distances. It was not a short ranged fighter during most of the war. It between September 1939 and August 1940.
 
Kurfurst, what was the capacity of the rear MW-50/Auxilliary fuel tank again? How often was a fuel tank fitted in place of the MW-50 tank?
 
Kurfurst, what was the capacity of the rear MW-50/Auxilliary fuel tank again?

115-118 liter volume was the maximum for fuel, as on FW 190. If MW50 was filled, 70-85 liter was used (MW is heavier than fuel)

How often was a fuel tank fitted in place of the MW-50 tank?

Absolutely no idea. The 109K could use the MW50 tank for both purposes (there was switch in the cocpit between 'Aux. Fuel tank Mode' and 'Booster tank Mode'.) I do not think it was done too often for practical reasons and lack of need, though the possibility was there.

The longest ranged variant would be the G-4/R3, G-6/R3 long range armed fighter recces and the G-2/4/6 /R1 long range JaBos. These sported a 1-1 300 liter droptank under each wing.

But as noted, even the most basic and numerous fighter variants could achieve up to 1600 km range, perhaps more. This was more than sufficient for their tasks IMHO - the Emil without droptank had apprx. 660 km range...
 
Wasn't MW50 tank totally unprotected. Not that mattered when filled with MW50 but when filled with fuel... Not a nice thing to have during air-combat or in any situation when under enemy fire.

And I'm a bit sceptical on that 1600km range in other than ferry purposes if even in that. IIRC it wasn't use during the attacks on convoys in MTO or to escort LW bombers in their attacks on for ex. Alger, some 500-550km from LW a/fs in Tunisia or on Sardinia.

Juha
 
Yes the MW50 tank was unprotected, however it worked differently than aux. tanks in Allied planes: like the drop tank, it would just re-filled the main (protected) tank with fuel as it was consumed. I would reckon in 15-30 mins the rear tank would be empty.
 
Hello Kurfürst
but fumes probably remained in the tank and it was the fumes that might have been fatal. It is a right fuel fumes/air mixture which is explosive.

Juha
 
On Bf 109G range, max flight time between stops when Finns ferried Bf 109G-2s from Wiener-Neustatd to Finland in March 43 was 1h 20min, that was between Wiener-Neustatd and Breslau (Wroclaw) and that was too much for 6 out of 16 Bfs, but at least some seems to have took off with not full fuel tank. Those 6 had to make an extra fuelling stop near Breslau.

And when Meimberg's 11./JG 2 began its transfer flight to Mediterranean in early Nov 42, it did not flew to its first night stop, Mannheim, in one a bit under 500km hop from Poix, but made a refuelling stop at Rheims and even so arrived at low fuel at Mannheim. End results were 2 damaged Bf 109Gs, it was dark when they arrived, and the probably fatal transfer to the Eastern Front to a LW Assault Regiment to those who were responsible of traffic control at Mannheim a/f on that evening. If the 1600km range was realistic why they flew Poix-Rheims-Mannheim-München-Treviso, then down along Italy and then to Sicily, why not from Poix to say Genova and from there to Sicily, if Vichy was still no go area, if 1600km range was a real thing. Sicily is some 1550 km from Poix. The 11./JG 2 story is from Meimberg's memoirs.

Juha
 
what about the "kamakazie 109's"? they were emils stripped of their armor and guns, but there were no explosives. the pilots would jump out of the planes at the last second and parachute down to safety while the planes would destroy the bomber they were aimed at. they were pretty effective, but Germany used them a few days before surrenduring.8)
 
Might give some information on thye range and endurance of the me 109G, compared to the Spit IX. Those with more experience will know where i got this, but some of the less initiated might never have seen it....

The data is from a series of related webapages, the more important of which, in rlation to this issue are

Me 109G-6 Tactical Trials

Me 109 G Flight Tests

I might warn that there are some here who argue these tests and results are suspect, but i leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves as to the veracity of these test results, which call on both Allied and German sources
 

Attachments

  • Me109G range data.jpg
    Me109G range data.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 224
A fool? It was foolish of the Germans to trust an untried technology when more traditional aircraft could have done more.

No it was foolish of Hitler not to start full scale production and use them as fighters from the beginning...
 
Those seem to match pretty well with Kurfurst's figures, except the fast cruising figures are longer (and at a slightly higher speed) and the long range figures are a bit lower. (and at a lower speed)

MET_109G_rangetable.jpg


67990.jpg
 
Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?
 
I belive it's from this site

WWII Aircraft Performance

Thanks! I bookmarked it!:lol:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back