I think all too often the TV shows go a simple explanation as an accurate one would take so long and be so boring to 90% of the views that they would change the channel or go to the Kitchen for a snack in the middle.
When trying to figure out something like landing and take-off accidents there are a number of things that come into play of which the track of the main wheels may be very minor in good conditions. I am not a pilot so bear with me.
For the 109 you had the strange geometry of the landing gear wheels, the tilt and toe in. Landing into the wind on a good surface (I will get to good surface in a while) this may not be a problem. With a cross wind or less than flat surface? The 3 point landing attitude helped generate lift for a low landing speed? combined with a center of gravity well aft of the wheels allowed for heavy braking without the airplane imitating a roto-tiller.
this allowed for a short landing run and helped keep the pilot from running into things, like other aircraft, fuel trucks etc.
However it takes a good pilot to make his approach fairly level and adopt the 3 point attitude at the last minute.
Adopting the 3 point attitude a bit early gives a miserable view over the nose and may contribute to collisions on the runway/airfield.
Modern 109 pilots seem to go either way,
but that may be what the particular pilot is used to. Please note pilot's head and possible view even with the tail wheel up.
None of these tail draggers had a good view over the nose (F4F and F6F excepted?), more a question of which ones had a
less miserable view than others.
Some of these planes were much more likely to ground loop than others. Some had touchier brakes than others. F4Fs were tippy
they sat tall and the landing gear had around 50% more travel than most land planes.
There are probably a number of things I haven't covered but singling out one factor about a plane and blaming a large percentage of it's landing/take off accidents on that one factor is probably wrong.
For most all of these pre-war planes the anticipated landing/take-off surface was grass. However it was hardly "unimproved" any more than a US Pro football field with natural turf is "unimproved" or European champion soccer pitches or polo pitches are "unimproved".
They were filled, rolled and/or tamped with layers of gravel for drainage if the soil required it. In some case while the "landing" field was grass (sod) there were paved taxi ways leading from hangers/terminals to the edges of the flying surface.
Like I said, the real explanation could be very long winded
