P-51 against the 109

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Since the Bf108, Bf109 and Bf110 were developed and accepted by the RLM before Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was aquired by Messerschmitt, the model designation remains Bf to the end of production with the exception of the Bf109s that were refitted by Erla Flugzeugwerke, who designated them Me109s...rare, but it occurred.

Any models produced by Messerschmitt A.G. after mid 1938 were designated Me, such as Me410, Me262, Me323, etc...

Kurt Tank's stand-alone designs were designated Ta (Ta152, Ta154, Ta183, etc) even though they were produced by Focke-Wulf...so technically, they are referred to as Focke-Wulfe Ta154, for example.

He was part of a design team that created and developed the Fw190, so it remains designated a Focke-Wulfe Fw190.

I suppose when discussing the details of an aircraft, referring to it by it's correct name adds to the accuracy of one's discussion
 
Several documents at the Kurfurst's site do refer to the 109 as Me 109 indeed. The Me and Bf sorta get mixed from mid war on.
 
Once Messerschmitt was making the 109, it would seem to be correct to called it the Me 109 rather than the Bf 109 since Bf was absorbed by Messerschmitt.

Once Messerschmitt acquired Bf, all the development going forward was done by Mersserschmitt, wasn't it? Why wouldn't the new models going forward be referred to as Me 109's? In many references, they are.

I'm not trying to start anything, but I've been referring to the E and earlier as Bf and the F and later as Me for more than 4 decades and, to date, nobody has been confused by it or taken exception to it other than by two people, yourself included in this post.

I KNOW the DC-9 was designed and developed by Douglas into the MD-95, but itsn't it correctly a Boeing 717 these days?
 
Last edited:
Greg, call it whatever the hell you want if it makes you happy...why not just call all of the German aircraft "nazi airplanes" and make it easy on yourself?

I refuse to get into a stupid and useless arguement over the "technical" renaming aspects of Messerschmitt aircraft that carried officially applied designations by the German government...
 
GrauGeist said:
I have seen people refer to the Bf108 as a Me108 also...doesn't mean it's correct, though
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about what people might or might not say, nor the hangar talk. I'm talking about the original documents, and plenty of such can be found here talk about Me 109.
 
Calm down guys. No need to get into a pissing match over this stuff.

As for the designation. My understanding from reading German sources and what not, is that the 109 kept the Bf status. Me however is also very widely used. I know the Messerschmitt Stiftung in Germany calls their 109G's Bf 109G's. Other aircraft that came after the 109 and 110 were given the Me name.
 
I suppose that alot of the confusion came from popular culture and convention of the time. Look at all the old movies, during the war and after, usually refer to Willy's wonderful machine as an "Me-109". Indeed, that's how I had always known it until recently,...say, the last 15 years or so. However, now that I know, I try to say "Bf" instead of "Me", just the same as I no longer think that there was a creature known as a "Brontosaurus". Learning requires knowledge, and the application of such.
And now I will take my leave as I have less than 6 hours to finish an entry in the #16 G.B.
 
As for "number superiority" of allied fighters: My personal opinion is that the "experten" could feel overwhelmed cause I really do not think they attacked ALL AT ONCE. So one Staffel attacks for ex 2 Groups of fighters and another in few minutes difference so each of them seeing the same formation could think that there is actually much more of them. Maybe they also split Gruppen to attack Fighters and bombers at the same time leaving even further differences in numbers.

As for the Topic. As it was said here two main factors in favour of P-51. Pilot expirience and armament. Germans started to have similar problem as British in the heat of BoB. Lack of really familiarised with plane pilots. I remember seeing an documentary where Bader was saying that after he was asked whicj=h plane was better he said the spit because any idiot could fly it while it was more difficult in 109. (Still I have not heard a lot about P-51 though.). The 109 had also tremendous firepower from G-6 onwards but less siutable for dogfighting than 6x0.5 as its main purpose were bombers. I know there were some German pilots that scored fighter kills on Eastern front with MK108 but I think .50 cal battery is still better to fight fast paced aircraft than 30mm + 2x13mm combo.

As for BF and ME designation. It is a fact that in some 109 manuals there is used a Me109 designation and I certainly seen a scanned document whan both bf109 and me109 designation were used simulanously. (Some kind of test data if I recall that right). So I think it was a confusion for Germans of the period either.
 
GregP said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know they shaped the tail aerofoil a particular way (asymmetrically).
I always thought that was just a different approach to the trim issue.
They must have known how to do it seen it on other aircraft.
I have seen pilot fatigue mentioned regarding having to actively and constantly use the rudder to maintain trim (but I must admit that I am inclined to dismiss this as comments from post-war allied pilots trying out the 109 not being so used to it).

Hope you get your G up in the air.
 
Regarding the numbers in 109 v 51 combat - wouldn't the relative endurance of the german and American fighters have been an issue? Say, on a given day the LW put up 100 Bf109s against 50 P51's. But the 109s are notoriously short-legged; they attack in four waves of 25 each at different times as the bombers cross occupied territory on the way in and the way out. So history records that 50 P-51s took on 100 Bf109s, although at any given time the Mustangs outnumbered the Messerschmitts 2 to 1.
Very simplistic, I realise. I'm just suggesting that simple numbers don't tell the whole story
 
The Mustangs may not have been that long legged. Flying at combat settings can use fuel 2 -2.5 times faster than even a fast cruise.

Others may be more up on this than I am but in many cases the fighters did not fly all the way with the bombers. Different fighter groups escorted on the way in than on the way out.

Just because 100 P-51s were used for escort missions on a given day does not mean that all 100 were in a given area at one time and as Dragndog has already stated, in many cases even the groups/squadrons assigned to the outward part of the mission ( or the return) could be spread out over dozens of miles.
 

The 8th AF 'Box/wing' separation doctrine was that approximately 6 miles separated each box of 36 to 72 a/c boxes (the latter in 1945) - so the Mustang fighter group covering this four box batch of B-17s with three squadrons has 18+ miles of moving territory to cover. If is is a lead group then one P-51 squadron of 16 (or less due to early returns) is 5-10 miles in front in combat cruise about 5000 feet higher than the bombers. There is a trailing squadron 23-25 miles to the rear essing over the trailing box and the middle squadron may be on the move from the second last box up to the lead box and back again.

Pick wherever you wish to attack and there will be no more than 16 Mustangs to defend for the first couple of minutes...

The other advantage the P-51B had in the early days of December 1943 through May 1944 was that the P-51B-1 had the 1650-3 high altitude Merlin - with critical altitude at 29,000 feet - far above the Fw 190 and the Me (Bf) 109G-6. When the 1650-7 replaced the -3, the P-51B-7 through P-51D/K had CA of 24K but better performance at 15K-24K.

The point is that these two aircraft were pretty evenly matched for the most part after the high altitude DB's were installed and neutralized the 51's overwhelming speed advantage. Then tactical situation, aggressiveness and pilot determined the outcome in a one on one fight.
 

Cobber - the 'thing' is that 50 Mustangs will not be 'together' during an escort leg Unless they are flying Sweep for the entire 8th AF out 5-50 miles in front of the bomber stream.

It is an honest assumption that the defending German fighters were greatly outnumbered when you read about say April 24, 1944 in Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Diary.
716 Effective B-17 and B-24 sorties.
867 Effective P-47 (490) , P-38 (131) and (246) P-51 sorties

What the casual reader doesn't see until they understand 8th AF doctrine and the Mission 315 details, is that the 1st Task Force separated from fighter escort at Ulm because the Sweeping force 4th FG was in an airbattle north east of Stuttgart with JG11 at 1200 and the 355th and 357th weren't due to pick them up until 1315 and 1320 at Augsburg.

When the 355th attacked the JG3 109s and Sturmstaffel 1 at Augsburg, they did the first attack with 357FS Red and Yellow Flight, then Blue and Green met the second wave north of Munich as one flight of the 354FS went south of Augsburg to attack a Staffel sized force which were working over the 384th BG out of position... and so on. six flights of the 355th's 42 Mustangs engaged and the trailing 357th also engaged six flights. Six flights did not engage, sticking with the bombers the entire trip.

Summary - two Mustang groups were defending 268 B-17s in seven large combat boxes spread out over 30 miles with a target area populated by cumulus clods offering concealment to 225+ stalking 109s looking for unprotected targets
 
Last edited:
IMHO the other part of the coin is that wheter those "225+ stalking 109s" were moving on one blob (I very much doubt that) or in piecemeal in Staffel etc. size when engaging and may have found themselves locally outnumbered by escorts.
 
Shouldn't the LW defenders have had far more a clear situation assessment, due to friendly radar visual coverage; the escorts lacking the same once deep into continent?
Were the German fighter units being better/worse 'served' with informations during 1944, than RAF fighter units during the BoB?
 
Last edited:
IMO the intention is to make the glory bigger, the bigger the danger the bigger the honor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
861
Ivan1GFP
I
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
P-51 escort operations in the PTO prior to the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
Replies
2
Views
1K
BarnOwlLover
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
14K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register