P-51 against the 109

[drgondog]

"around the hundreds of km long bomber stream", surely not for US daylight bombing in close combat formation, maybe for BC night bombing.
cimmex

Juha is correct. Use your imagination to picture 20 boxes of 50 B-17 and B-24's per Box for a 1000 bomber mission. Recognize that each Bomb Division (1st B-17, 2nd B-24, 3rd B-17) penetrating German airspace in one long column.

At some point, say Brunswick, one long foramtion of 1st BD (~350 a/c in seven boxes) continues to Berlin. The Second Box heads SE toward Mulhausen then breaks for Leipzig. The 3rd Division heads SE then East for Halberstadt. The mission is co-ordinated to plan a route point for the formations to re-join at Kassel and return home en masse,

If this mission occurred in mid April 1944 - ALL of the Penetration Escort P-47 FG's (approx 5 including 9th AF) that were escorting the three BD (2 each ..P-47 FG to cover seven boxes of bombers strung out over 20-30 miles).. so one FG covering 175 bombers in 3-4 boxes each. Max effort = 48 in three squadrons of 16 - one above center 'essing, one out in front and one in trail.

There are five Mustang Groups (4, 354, 352, 355, 357) and three Lightning Groups (20, 55 and 364) now hitting the R/V with responsibility to split up and cover the 1000 bombers going to three (or more) locations. So, the division of labor is about the same as the P-47's.. two cover one BD of 350, two cover another BD of 300, two more cover the third BD of 350 and the last (Mustang) group sweeps out in front of the Berlin strike force.

Density of US Fighters per cubic mile is very low. Far lower than the LW 'eyewitness' can claim.

If you 'do the math', the LW can easily place 200 fighters on one or two boxes and expect to run into zero or at most two Fighter Groups IF the LW makes first contract and MAINTAINS contact. In that example, specifically Munich on April 24, the LW put 225 fighters between Ulm, Augsburg, Erding, Munich, Oberphaffenhofen and Landsberg - covered by the 355th and 357th only. 98 Mustangs against 225 is not a very bad ration for the LW. This example is NOT unique.

Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.

 

[drgondog]

I kinda doubt that given the Soviets measured about 18 secs for their P-40s and about 23 secs for their Allison Mustangs (from memory)...

Tante Ju - given that the wing loadings, the gross weight for common load out and the power loadings for the P-40 and P-51A were nearly identical - a result like that can only be that one airframe/engine (the P-51A) was not at some mfr standard...or one pilot was far superior to the other. particularly when the P-51A drag was approximatly 70% of the P-40.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hi Drgondog,

Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.

Interestingly, Bill's father was a P-51 pilot in WW2, and owned a P-51 after the war. Bill also has time flying the P-51 as well. He also has spoken to the aces and other pilots from his fathers squandron, and still maintains contact with the surviving ones today. I would not be so quick to dismiss him.

 

[stona]

If you 'do the math', the LW can easily place 200 fighters on one or two boxes and expect to run into zero or at most two Fighter Groups IF the LW makes first contract and MAINTAINS contact. In that example, specifically Munich on April 24, the LW put 225 fighters between Ulm, Augsburg, Erding, Munich, Oberphaffenhofen and Landsberg - covered by the 355th and 357th only. 98 Mustangs against 225 is not a very bad ration for the LW. This example is NOT unique.

Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.

You've alluded to a problem with the maths in your own post. The Luftwaffe may well have put up 200+ fighters in a fairly limited area to oppose this raid but what is important is how many actually engaged the americans. This number was often rather low. This is what gave the Luftwaffe pilots who did press home attacks against escorted formations the impression that they were out numbered. Many Luftwaffe units were distinctly wary of,or downright unwilling,to attack bomber formations when the presence of escort fighters had been established. Those that did may well comprise the "experten" whom you suggest were engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers
Steve

 

[drgondog]

You've alluded to a problem with the maths in your own post. The Luftwaffe may well have put up 200+ fighters in a fairly limited area to oppose this raid but what is important is how many actually engaged the americans. This number was often rather low. This is what gave the Luftwaffe pilots who did press home attacks against escorted formations the impression that they were out numbered. Many Luftwaffe units were distinctly wary of,or downright unwilling,to attack bomber formations when the presence of escort fighters had been established. Those that did may well comprise the "experten" whom you suggest were engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers
Steve

Steve - I posted a researched narrative on the April 24, 1944 mission on Mike William's site. You may also draw on Caldwell's facts regarding the LW order of Battle on 276-277 of "Day Fighters in Defense of the Reich" - or not. Simply, Sturmstaffel I., ALL of JG3, III./JG26, I., III. and IV./JG27, I./JG5, I./JG301, II. and III./ZG26 - attacked the 1st BD starting around Ulm thence to Augsburg, Efferding, E. and S. Munich, Obephaffenhofen and ending at Landsberg between 1315 and 1420. According to LW and US mission reports the attacks were made in numbers primarily ranging from Staffel to Gruppe level strength. The defenders were first the 355th which broke up the SS and JG3 attacks, then the 357th which also hammered JG3. The 357 and 354FS were the two 355th FG combatants as the 358FS stayed with the lead boxes as escort.

The 354FS also attacked I./JG301 and III. and IV JG27. The 357th FG engaged all three FS and dealt with ZG26 plus JG5, JG3.
You'll have to decide what math to work with here as flights of the 355th and 357th were battleing with Squadrons and Gruppes intitially - then the fights broke down to fligt and element battles as they always do.

The point I would make to you is that I can easily draw on at least seven (3/29, 4/13, 4/24, 6/20, 7/7, 11/26/44 and 1/14/45) specific air battles between the LW and the 355th FG - in which I have the order of battle, the times and places of the combat and the approximate attacking force by the LW in which less than 50 Mustangs were defending a very large volume against repeated attacks - in which rareley did more that two squadrons actually engage..

To summarize - US force (355th) attacking much larger LW forces in the form of Gaggles - rather than flights or squadrons. The examples NEVER involve the entire group with the single exception of November 26 over Misburg and that was a case of an understrength 355th (38 Mustangs plus 7 2nd SF) intercepting in units of sections to flights all of JG301, and Stab., I. and II./JG1 plus III./JG6. Between 1215 and 1245 these 45 Mustangs were the Only defending force for 88 B-24s.

Do the math anyway you wish. 21 B-24s went down simply because there were far too many Fw 190s and 109s to deflect with such a small defending force. Zero Mustangs were lost by 355th and 2nd SF. 26 Fw 190s and Me 109s were credited as destroyed. In Willi Reschke's book the P-51 force was described as 'overwhelming' and he also claimed numerous Mustangs were shot down.

It is up to you to make your own judgment about 'the math'.

 

[davebender]

1943 to 1945 production.
2,970 x P-38J
3,923 x P-38L
4,632 x P-40N.

310 x P-51A
1,988 x P-51B
1,750 x P-51C
8,100 x P-51D
…..12,148 Mustangs produced 1943 to 1945.
…..Excludes A-36 and P-51H.
12,608 x P-47D.
…..Some Mustangs and P-47s operated in the Pacific. However quite a few P-38s and P-40s operated in Europe.

How many British built Spitfires operated as daytime bomber escorts during 1943 to 1945? "The Day of Battle" (Rick Atkinson) gives the impression Spitfires were the primary Allied fighter aircraft operating from Sicily and Italy during 1943 to 1944.

11,289 Fw-190 fighter aircraft produced 1943 to 1945.
21,618 Me-109 fighter aircraft produced 1943 to 1945.
…..32,907 total.
…..How many of these German fighter aircraft were committed to bomber interception missions in the West?

 

[drgondog]

Hi Drgondog,

Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.

Ah yes, Greg - the last time you cited 'experts' on the subject at hand was when you dropped Bud mahurin's name as a P-51B combat expert. How did that work for you?

Now you cite "20 or more who were there and did it".. which 20 are you going to trot out here and what do they get to testify about that is contrary to what I said? Be specific.

 

[jim]

Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.

a comment full of respect for the pilots that fought and suffered in those battles. I suppose we must accept as truth only the american s opinions
What makes them more reliable?
And since some american pilots flew a few captured german machines we have all the answeres we need about the abilities of the german planes
( I respect the pilots and their war service , i disagrre that their comments is the ultimate evaluation of the german aircrafts)

 

[Aozora]

How many flew both airplanes Greg - at a time when the USAAF didn't restrict the flying.

My father, Billy Hovde, John (Moon) Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy - all air aces - flew the Fw 190D-9, the two seat Me 109G-10(?) and two seater Fw 190 and the 109K in rat races against the 51B and D, when my father was Group CO of the 355th at Gablingen during the occupation - and had access to LW mechanics to keep the a/c in good shape. I have not only expressed the opinions based on historical narratives from both sides but also from those that flew both top line US fighters against top line LW fighters and vice versa.

Having said that my father had only approximately 50 hours flight time combined in the 190D and the 109(s).

Kit carson also had the same opportunity and wrote about it. Al White, also of 355th FG and future NAA Test pilot was there and participated.

What I passed on was what was passed on to me. Take what you want and leave the rest.

So, go back to your 20 and see how many flew both and to what degree? Come back and report what you hear from those that flew both.

Bill Hovde's P-51D "Ole VIII" - Littlefriends.co.uk

"Ole VI" - Littlefriends.co.uk

Gotta be an interesting story about the Cyrillic inscription...

Maj Norman J "Bud" Fortier - Littlefriends.co.uk

Fortier P-51D - Littlefriends.co.uk

Capt. James E. Duffy Jnr. - Littlefriends.co.uk

Duffy, Dragon Wagon and Yank - Littlefriends.co.uk

Dragon Wagon - Littlefriends.co.uk

The two seat 109 was the G-12

 

[jim]

Interestingly, Bill's father was a P-51 pilot in WW2, and owned a P-51 after the war. Bill also has time flying the P-51 as well. He also has spoken to the aces and other pilots from his fathers squandron, and still maintains contact with the surviving ones today. I would not be so quick to dismiss him.

Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above

And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him

The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above

Why should you be so quick to accuse me of saying such? Please be kind and show me where I said that we should so. Please be kind and show me where I have ever said such? Anywhere on this forum.

I think you will find the opposite. I however doubt that you will try, as you will just accuse.

All I have said, is that one should not just dismiss him. He too has talked with many pilots from WW2. You don't have to be a member of a museum to do such.

And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him

The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.

You are arguing with the wrong person jim.

I however unlike you, I am open and unbiased in my studies of the Luftwaffe. I am also open and unbiased in my studies of the Allied Air Forces.

Your arguments for the Luftwaffe also are very selective and result of simplifications. You however do not see this, because they are your arguments.

Now are we continue to have this same discussion every time someone has a different opinion? Are we going to continue to call people liars and such? Are we going to continue to call people mud slingers?

Or are we going to discuss them in a civil and adult like manner? Somehow I doubt it.

I will be honest, I see as much mudslinging from you and others toward Allied pilots and aircraft, as you claim others do to the Lufwaffe and their pilots. I think the Luftwaffe pilots are a lot more respected than you think around here. You just can't have the fact that others might interpret the facts differently, or hold a different opinion than you.

If that is not your intention, then you might want the change the way you come across.

And as for Reschke. Where has he been attacked? He is actually held in very high regard. ONe member of this forum actually has a regular correspondence with Reschke, and is very good friends with his son. Several of us have actually asked him many questions. A thread was started here on this forum about Reschke, where forum members asked questions and the questions were passed on to Reschke, and he answered them.

I for one hold Reschke in very hard regard, and cherish the personalized autographed photo of Reschke that was given to me by him.

So please try again. THIS FORUM IS NOT AS ONE SIDED AS YOU BELIEVE IT IS, AS YOU ACCUSE IT OF BEING!

 

[drgondog]

Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above

And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him

The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.

Jim - your comments have merit. Mine deserve an explanation.

I have known many US, some Japanese and 5-10 RAF/RCAF plus the same number of German fighter pilots including Galland and Krupinski and Rall. I do not denigrate the experience or the bravery of any fighter pilot.

Having said this I heve been present when many friendly conversations between US and German pilots had at one point or another captured comments like "If you Americans had not had such material advantage it (the air war over Germany) would have had a different outscome". I was present during one such conversation between a famous JG11 ace (to remain un-named) described the swarms of Mustangs he fought over Berlin during the first week of March, 1944. To which Goodson replied "Hell you say, I was There!" - and of course he WAS there as an ace of the 4th FG, and operationally experienced for 12 days in the P-51B.

The point Goodson made is that he was one of three Mustang and three Lightning Groups escorting 700+ 8th AF bombers to Berlin and surrounding area. Further his FG was the only one escorting the entire 1st BD comprised of 12 B-17 Bomb Groups.

For his LW ace friend to focus on the swarms of Mustangs on that day could be accepted as friendly exageration but the simple facts were that for there to be any form of numerical disadvantage for his Jagdgerschwader then they must have taken off and engaged All of the 4th FG with one staffel... But JG11 put up 50+ on that day to intercept and 39 to pursue on the way back to England. In all the LuftFlotte Reich put up 300+ fighters from Hannover to Potsdam, and perhaps 150 from Berlin back to Dummer Lake. The battle to and/from Dummer Lake was fought more by JG2 and JG 26.

Now take a close picture of one JG making contact with the bombers and engaging also with one Group of Mustangs - whilst the 354th was with the 3rd BD and the 357th was with the 2nd BD B-24s.

That scenario is repeated throughout the Battle of Germany between the Mustang groups and the LuftFlotte Reich. Two things are clear. The LW was outnumbered by 8th AF BC alone and when ever they encountered a box od bombers they were in the vicinity of 40-50 B-17/B-24's. Add to that any single group of Mustangs they might encounter and the odds in tha local cubic mile are even - if you are attacking with 2 Gruppe's. To reach total combined odds of 1:10 you must attack in Staffel level and count the bombers in your account.

I have a theory and it is strictly a light theory with no proof. The LW swept the French and the British in 1939/1940. They were stalemated in the BoB, they fought superbly in the Desert while undermanned. They swept the Russians in 1941 and 1942. They fought the Russians to a standstill while undermanned in 1943. They stopped unescorted US 8th AF in 1943.

They were crushed by 8th FC in 1944 when the Mustang engaged.

Is it possible that deep down those magnificent German pilots could not rationalize that the overfed, arrogant/cocky, overpaid US fighter pilots could show the courage and aggressiveness to defeat them - unless they (Americans) had overwhelming numbers and material advantage? And then subconsciously remembered the air battles as hopeless because of the overwhelming superiorirty?

I pose that question because there w.ere more than a few German aces who remembered the RAF as the toughest opponent..

I have no quarrel with any assessment by the warriors that fought each other - but as a historian I do have access to the facts and opinions based on facts that have brought both LW and US and RAF operations to light in great detail and variety - in contrast to anecdotal recollections following WWII by ALL combatants - that show much of what was said and cast on paper by so many authors was imply not in line with facts we have now.

To close. I should not use of 'hyperbole' to describe Lipfert or Rudendorfer or Reschke's rememberances - to coin a phrase "I wasn't there". Having said that I am very comfortable in the summation of both historical force disposition and various orders of battle to conclude that the US fighter pilot more often fought against greater numbers of German aircraft in 1944. Perhaps the definition of 'outnumbered' needs to be further clarified.

I respect your opinion Jim - we have dueled historical perspective before.

 

[drgondog]

Bill Hovde's P-51D "Ole VIII" - Littlefriends.co.uk

"Ole VI" - Littlefriends.co.uk

Gotta be an interesting story about the Cyrillic inscription...

Maj Norman J "Bud" Fortier - Littlefriends.co.uk

Fortier P-51D - Littlefriends.co.uk

Capt. James E. Duffy Jnr. - Littlefriends.co.uk

Duffy, Dragon Wagon and Yank - Littlefriends.co.uk

Dragon Wagon - Littlefriends.co.uk

The two seat 109 was the G-12

Aozora the cyrillic enscription meand "Major". Billy Hovde, Moon Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy were all on the Shuttle Mission September 18-22. So was Al White. My father led the fighter escort portion of the mission to drop supplies to the Polish underground in Warsaw.. Billy added that enscription after returning from Piryatin on the rest of Mustangs, OLE IV through OLE VIII.

Gablingen also had a two seat Fw 190A and I have posted pics of all of them in Peter Randall's website - many of Peter's 355th shots have been contributed by me.

 

[GrauGeist]

Post 32...well said, Bill

 

[drgondog]

Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..

Wonderful "Thangs".

Bill

 

[Shortround6]

1943 to 1945 production.
2,970 x P-38J
3,923 x P-38L
4,632 x P-40N.

A few thousand of the P-40Ns never left the US. From some point in 1943 NO NEW American fighter groups were formed using P-40s. P-40s were used by allies, as trainers and as replacements for units equipped with P-40s until they could be re-equipped with other aircraft. NO P-40s were used as bomber escorts in the European Theater. Some may have been used in the Mediterranean but not on long range missions. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

Few Spitfires were used on bomber escort missions. If they were used they operated over France and Low countries. The Deep penetration missions were flown by P-38s, P-47s and P-51s and the numbers and groups using them can be found.

 

[GrauGeist]

Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..

Wonderful "Thangs".

Bill

lol...this is one of those instances where drag from the components is not only acceptable, but actually enhances the frame design...a nessecary condition, really!

And the beer just compliments that

As far as the discussion goes, I'll also say that when speaking with a pilot regarding his experiences in combat with particular aircraft goes, there can also be a little bias or predujice on thier behalf as well. We had members of the family that were pilots as well as close friends. One of the family friends was a Luftwaffe pilot who made it from 1938 until 1945 flying nothing but Bf109 aircraft. His opinions of the early models were high but his dislike of the late Gustav onwards were very evident. He said they were too heavy and underpowered. He had said that an "indian" wasn't a problem for him as long as he was in a G-2, but the G-6 and later models put him at risk in a turning fight.

On the otherhand, one of my relatives started out flying a P-36 which he loved but hated the P-39 and P-38 and thought the P-36 should have been built up with better engines weapons like they did with many other aircraft.

The list goes on, but this just gives you an idea of thier sentiments, not mine...I have my opinions and I can make observations based on what I have heard all day long, but it really bears no weight in the end, because I wasn't there.

 

[davebender]

The same is true for thousands of Me-109s and Fw-190s.

 

[Jenisch]

His opinions of the early models were high but his dislike of the late Gustav onwards were very evident.

Part of an interview with a Russian pilot:

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?

N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in "ideal" aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.

A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let's attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?

N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn't pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn't. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.

A.S. What can I say? Can we agree that the speeds you have indicated to me are somewhat lower than those listed in reference works?

N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.

I think this "combat speed" concept also find convergence with the Japanese N1K2 fighter. The Japanese praised it's performance, while the Americans, who tested it in the post war, had the same opinion. And the top speed of that plane was rather low. Probably not the case of it's "combat speed." The same being said of the Ki-100.

Part 4

 

[61fury]

I'm not expert but I have read that by the end of WW2 airplanes had been roughly developed to similar levels of performance. Victims were at the hands of pilots who were better or smarter or more numerous. Germany choked on its ambition and had no resources to churn out skilled pilots. Sheer numbers make a huge difference but one on one I believe a very good Me 109 pilot could best anything flying.
The P47 is my personal favorite, but the P 51, I hate to admit,was the best over all fighter plane of the war. It might have been lacking in some qualities but had a greater balance in all of it's qualities The 109 is a very different thing, developed in the 30's and clung to for lack of anything else, and despite all it's flaws, could match and better the opposition, given the right pilot and circumstance. Give a great pilot a Zero and the odds might tilt in his favor too.
By the end of the war it's not like an I 15 vs a Mustang . The 109 fought more and longer than almost anything else out there and could still hold it's own at the end. Here, two planes I'm personally meh about .
The Soviet impressions of planes fascinate me, their favorites, like the P39 seem mediocre to the western world, their descriptions of combat conditions are detailed and have and don't ring false to me. But what do I know? not a pilot, not a WW2 pilot for sure.