P-51 against the 109

Hi everyone.

I don't dismiss Drgiondog's father or any of the other first four. I tend to discount anything Kit Carson says because he said only what would further Kit Carson, and everyone else was wrong ... acording to many others I have spoken with. I have little respect for Kit's opinions (comes from Ralph Parr and few other contemporaries). That's MY opinion, and not something I will arguue with anyone; I doubt whatever Kit said because he said it.

I don't have to trot out anyone, Drgondog, I have heard what I have heard ... and your opinions won't change that reagrdless. Wanna' talk about it, show up on an event day and have your say. I'm sure you heard plenty (I'd like to have heard it) and I have, too ... obviously not quite the same stories. What you heard won't change my opinions and I already know the converse is true, right?

So I am left where I started trying to be polite ... let's say we disagree and let it go at that. Your first post to me above (about two up) was polite, but it seems you can't resist the dig with the second one. Face it. You and I don't see eye to eye about a 70+ year old war.

That puts us in good company with about a million or more other people around the world. Please stop being acidic and let's just disagree pleasantly. Otherwise it slides into acidic replys that don't add to the forum and make me want to strike back when I actually value your opinion as a good backstop.

I don't care what you have heard (and also don't doubt you heard it) ... I have heard what I have heard from the people I have heard it from and that won't change. You like to trot out your lists of pilots and that is fine. I believe you totally that you heard it and have NO suggestion that you have lied or misremembered ... you heard what you heard and THAT IS WHY YOU BELIEVE IT.

I simply heard differently and don't agree. Hopefully that doesn't make us enemies ... just means we heard differently. If it can't be that way; then OK ... fight. Otherwise, let's talk pleasantly and exchange ideas. Maybe we'll both move closer to the middle. It's sort of like splitting up a household in a divorce ... when both people think they got screwed, it's probably a fair settlement.

An Me 109 fan will NEVER admit the Spirtfire was better to a Spitfire fan and vice versa but, if they're honest, both can usually admit the other was a good adversary.

No disrespect to anyone intended, but my opinions don't and won't change because someone disagrees with them. Show me proof flying over my head and maybe I'll concede. Otherwise, we can both continue to think as we do with little chance of proving either one of us wrong to the other one. We can still be pleasant and upbeat, can't we?

drgondog said:

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

Click to expand...

Besides which I thought we were discussing P-51s rather than Jugs...or is that beer steins?

Besides which I thought we were discussing P-51s rather than Jugs...or is that beer steins?

Click to expand...

Is this wrong? LOL


Greg, I might comment here about this, if I may.

There is a huge difference between what you'll hear from family members and close family friends, and what you'll hear about guys "sharing" thier stories to people they've met during public events.

I'm sure you've met all sorts of interesting people and all, but the candor of a pilot recounting for an audience (however small) will be different than what you'll hear from a Dad, a Uncle or even a very close family friend (close enough to be considered family)...

DrgonDog is recounting directly from first-person here. Unless you were actually there, then just leave it at that

davebender said:

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

Click to expand...

Not the same and you know it.

Use of Me-109s by German "allies" was by the dozen. Use of Fw-190s by German "allies" was ????

Of the P-40Ns 586 were to be delivered to England, first 130 diverted to USSR, While a few P-40NS were evaluated in England the planes served in squadrons in the far east. 468 (at a minimum) more P-40Ns went to Australia. 172 went to New Zealand Number of P-40Ns to the USSR is hard to find but with over 2000 P-40s of all types delivered well over 1/2 were P-40Ns. Then we get into the quantities the Germans supplied to allies. 36 to Canada, 41 to Brazil, a small quantity to the Royal Netherlands East Indies Air Corps.

As for training use, P-40s were being sent straight from the factory to training schools, or conversion units. How many Me-109Gs went straight to flight schools without a stop at a service squadron? Many 109s and more than a few 190s may have wound up in training units but they were usually obsolete models (Me 109 D, E, Fs) or war weary/repaired examples were they not?

By mid 1944 the need for P-40 replacements was fading fast, a trickle was being sent overseas but even some allied units (like the Free French GC II/5) were being re-equipped with P-47s rather than replacement P-40s. If the US was handing out P-47s to allied units like that their own need to keep P-40s units up to strength instead of converting them P-47s must have been minimal.

Sorry but trying to count P-40 production as "proof" the Germans were out numbered is a real stretch.

We know what the unit strengths were for both sides on a number of days/battles, trying to prove otherwise using several year production totals is a very poor way of refuting those records.

Hi Graugeist,

Your comments have merit here, but I don't see anyone else in here just leaving it at that.

I have absolutely no doubt his dad told him a lot and have no quarrel with any of the information that I wish to discus in public public.

The relative merits of any aircraft are debated between advocates of different machines all the time and nothing ever gets settled, so why should this?

The P-51 absolutely beat the Me 109 in the real war. Whether it was due to mass tactics as I have heard or not, history has already been written. Anyone who wants to debate the two surely has the right to do so. Almost everyone who discusses two different fighters has a debate unless they both feel the same. At our presentations, the former Luftwaffe pilots are sure their equipment was better. The former USAAC pilots are sure THEIRS were better, and the former RAF pilots are sure THEIRS were better. To date, all they can collectively agree on is who won the war in the end.

It's still fun to listen to them, one and all.

My own opinion is that memory is selective. One remebers the really good things and the really bad things. If you were sure you were going to die and didn't, you'll remember your "escape," whether it was in Viet Nam or WWII, and the details may or may bot be what exactly happened. If you sruvived because the enemy pilot hit turbulence that spoiled his aim right when he fired or because his guns fired asymmetrically and yawed the aim slightly, all YOU know is he missed.

The guys who landed at Omaha Beach were all sure they were going to die in the surf, up udner the shingle, and certainly when they were charging the machine guns nests along the beach. To a man, they are flabbergasted they survived. The memories are vivid, but are they all accurate? Or is memory selective?

I tend to believe that anyone who rmembers what happened in WWII has selective memories because nobody has total recall from 60 - 70 years ago and most admit it. The guys who make presentations at the Planes of Fame have their memories and they mostly talk about whatever aircraft we are going to display along with stories about flying it. The speakers are usually former pilots of the bird being flown that day. Almost nobody who fought against and survivied Me 109's took them lightly, but all remember certain characteristics (not necessarily in agreement with one another) about the enemy.

The truth is that not all the enemy pilots were created equal and they might have flown against a rookie or a 100+ victory Ace, and that is what made the difference. The former Luftwaffe pilots have the same difficulty ... they didn't know if their opponent was a rookie or seasoned veteran, unless they shot him down, captured him, and talked with him. The list of pilots who did that is quite small.

So we all believe the sum total of what we have heard from the experts who were there. Drgondog's dad was there and I salute him and thank him for his service. It helped win the war.

But to see Drgondog post something I doubt and just let it go becasue we think differently and his dad was there? Huh? Are you kidding?

Since neither Drgondog or I were there, I think we have equal right to post our opinion in here, which is, after all, an aviation forum centered around WWII. Everyone can discuss in here and we don't all have to sing the same story. But, at least according to the rules we all agreed to when we signed up, we can play nice in the sandbox even if our observations of having heard different accounts of the war are diferent from one another.

My own posts have gotten a bit more polite since I started looking over my replies the morning after and thinking that I really hadn't intended to come off the way it sounded. The solution, at least for me, is to look it over carefully before hitting "Post Quick Reply." As a side benefit, my spelling gets better because I at least catch some of my bad typing ...

I will risk to say that the most important attributes a WWII fighter need to have were top speed and diving speed. A figther who flies faster and dives faster than the enemies rules the day.

Both good points, Jenisch, for getting away from the bad guys or getting to a fight to attack or rescue someone.

The Me 109 was out of its element when going faster than about 320 mph. It had no rudder trim and the ailerons in particular were very heavy when fast as was the elevator. Above 400 mph the Me 109 was basically a straight-line aircraft. The P-51 was at home going fast and rolled quite well at 400 mph.

But for sheer numbers the Me 109K was a bit faster than the Mustang, even if it wasn't going to get into a fight when going that fast, and was a better climber, particularly at low airspeeds. I believe they only built around 1,593 K models out of over 33,000 Me 109's. While the Me 109 could dive quite quickly, it wasn't all that controllable when diving at high speeds and many simly continued the dive right into the ground.

But if you got into a dogfight at 180 - 275 mph, the Me 109 was a deadly opponent since it was optimized for combat in that speed range. To fight the P-51 best, the pilot tried to stay fast, above 300 mph if he had the chance to do so.

I believe I like the P-51 better, but the Me 109 has always been a favorite of mine for some reason, I can't explain it. Wish we flew our DB-powered Me 109G-10, but we don't as of today. That could change, but it would need work.

As a sidelight to rememberences , a friend of mine's father went to see "Topgun" when it came out. He had flown with VMF-124 at the wars end. He thought the locker room sequences were realistic!

GOOD fighter pilots have to have big egos in many cases, they may act humble or show respect to other men but they have to believe they are the biggest, baddest guy in the sky or they are at a disadvantage. They cannot take the time to second guess themselves. Men less sure of themselves can make great bomber or transport pilots. But effective fighter pilots have to have confidence in themselves and their equipment. Not misplaced or over confidence though.

Please remember what percentage of total shoot downs were performed by a much smaller percentage of pilots.

I am certainly not saying that any of these men are consciously lying but that some of their memories or opinions may have a filter (tint?) on them??

On a very simple level I once asked my own father ( when I was young) about his experiences with the US .45 cal pistol, having read how difficult it was for many soldiers to shoot. He said he had no trouble with it. Later I found out he had being shooting pistols as a teenager in competition and had fired hundreds if not several thousands of rounds through a variety of pistols before he went in the Marines.

These veterans memories are what they are but many of them do NOT have the same frames of reference as each other.

One of the main problems with the improved Bf109s later in the war, was that no matter how well they were capable of performing against thier Allied adversaries, there just weren't any more experienced pilots to fill the ranks.

If the Luftwaffe was able to get a hundred Bf109s into the air to confront the escorts, only a handful of thier pilots were seasoned enough to bring a competant fight to the Allied fighters, the rest were just casualties that haven't happened yet.

German Me-109s attempting to intercept B-17s don't have the luxury of pretending P-47 escorts don't exist. Ignore the jugs and they will kill you just as quickly as P-51 escorts.

GregP said:

the Me 109K was a bit faster than the Mustang

Click to expand...

Yes. But people frequentely considerate the "Mustang" as the B/C/D/K. There was the H.

The P-51H never fired is weapons in anger...too late to see combat service in WWII and considered unsuitable for service in Korea, it is one of those machines that "could have been"...

GrauGeist said:

The P-51H never fired is weapons in anger...too late to see combat service in WWII

Click to expand...

Yes. But people tend to make comparisons of the late war German fighters with the basic Mustang. The Germans were catching or surpassing it by the end of the war. North American wasn't unaware of this, however. Hence I mentioned the H.

considered unsuitable for service in Korea

Click to expand...

Why?

The H model Mustang was the lightweight model, less structual strenght, not considered strong enough for the rigors of close support in Korea.
Plus only about 500 were made.

How many P-51Ds were deployed to Korea?

davebender said:

How many P-51Ds were deployed to Korea?

Click to expand...

Just because 500 P-51Hs were made in 1945, doesn't mean they're still around in 1950.

500 brand new P-51Hs were destroyed while used P-51Ds were retained in service? That suggests P-51H had significant problems which were never solved.

Not sure of the total number of the P-51's service in Korea, I know it almost made it to the end of the conflict, but was phased out by jets.

The USAF P-51D (redesignated F-51D) served alongside P-51Ds of ROKAF, SAAF and RAAF units.

Also, the P-82 Twin Mustang (later F-82) being also too late for WWII, served well in Korea.

The P-51H wasn't "destroyed" after the war, it remained in limited service, then was relegated to National Guard units.

It's didn't see service in Korea because it's frame and armor had been lightened and it had very limited spare parts.

Hey Graugeist, have read in several references that all 109 models from the E from and earlier were considered to be Bf 109's while from the F-model forward they were considered to be Me 109's, even by the Germans in their own internal documents to a large extent, but not completely. So ... the vast majority were F or later and are thus Me 109's to me.

Not being a German reader, I can't say from personal browsing, but I have seen it said that way in several ... but not all ... references, including from a German friend (not a member of tehse forums). Still, I think when I type in "Me 109," everyone in here knows what aircraft I am talking about.

I wonder what these purists think of the Ta 152 compared with the Fw 190? Was it really an FW 152?