P-51 against the 109

[Jenisch]

What they say in the video I posted was that fighters in the escort role used fuel twice as fast. They say that because this a thousand fighters might be needed to keep 40 to 100 in the escort all the time. Don't know if this is true, but there's also the advanced escort to be considerated...

 

[GregP]

We might be forgetting some of the facts of the real-life WWII here.

Before the advent of the P-51 Mustang, bombers on long range missions had to fly unescorted. Since the fighter planes early in the war had a range of only about 250 miles, this meant that they could not escort the bombers further than Aachen, near the western border of German. For any penetration deeper into the Third Reich, the bombers were on their own.

The unescorted missions had disastrous results for the bombers. During a bombing mission over Schweinfurt, Germany on October 14, 1943 to bomb the large ball bearing factories so crucial to the German war effort, the U.S. Eighth Air Force were attacked by a large number of Luftwaffe fighter aircraft. Out of 229 bombers over Scheinfurt, 60 were shot down and 17 more were irreparably damaged. This loss rate was was unacceptable and proved that the allied bombing campaign over Germany could not continue unless the bombers could be accompanied by fighter aircraft.

From their first long-range missions accompanying bombers in January 1944 with the advent of the P-51B and later escort variants, the P-51 Mustangs tipped the balance of the air war over Europe in favor of the Allies. No longer could Luftwaffe fighters easily shoot down Allied bombers. From this point, and through the rest of the war, the German fighter aircraft were on the defensive. In addition to protecting the bombers at high altitudes, the P-51 Mustangs were given the added assignment of destroying the Luftwaffe aircraft on the ground along with their support facilities during low altitude strafing missions.

A little over 15,000 P-51 Mustangs were produced during WWII. They accounted for almost half of the German aerial losses despite being in the fray in strength for only about a year and a half of a five and half year war. That hardly seems like an equally-matched aircraft … looks more like dominance of the airspace around them including shooting down Me 262's when they showed up.

I like the Me 109 myself, but it was outmatched by later Allied fighters, including the P-51 Mustang ... not in every area of performance, but at least in overall effectiveness of employment and combat results. Those two attributes of late-war Allied fighter operations, including but not limited to P-51 Mustangs, closed out the air war in Europe.

 

[Jenisch]

Perhaps the Mustang could have been an overall better fighter than the 109 (but I'm skeptical about this, the late 109s were equally fast and climbed much better). But the real factor was the fuel avaliability that greatly favoured the Allies. If the LW had enough fuel, perhaps a stalamate in the campaign could have occured.

 

[TheMustangRider]

The LW was not only starved out of fuel; let's not forget it lost experienced pilots throughout its struggle against the USAAF/RAF/VVS.
Airframes and fuel can come around one way or another, Nazi Germany managed this until very late in the war when even Me-262's rose to challenge American air power as late as April 1945; experienced pilots, however, are much harder to produce.

 

[tomo pauk]

Problem is that late 109s (the ones with DB-605AS/ASM/D engines) were, well, late. Too late to matter. The 1st such 109s were started to trickle in from mid 1944 on, ie. in the time of D day and Operation Bagration. Once the W. Allies are firmly in France, the RAF can also make their presence felt above Gemany if needed, let alone above Low countries and France proper. The P-47 can also put the Contnental airstrips into a good use, plus by mid 1944 it has increased internal fuel tankage, the engines capable doing 2600 HP.
By that time the war was long time being decided, the LW also lacks pilots capable enough to really hurt the Allied air forces. We can also note that Germany was out-produced out-numbered long time before mid-1944.
The 109 that was as fast as Merlin Mustang would be the K-4, and that type was available from winter of 1944/45. Ie. as late as Fw-190D-9. The Gustavs with ASM engines were good for 425 mph, ie. some 15 mph slower than contemporary P-51D and P-47D.
The Mustang was a better overall fighter than the Bf-109, the RoC of the late Bf-109s have had much to do with having far lighter fuel load on board. The combat range with fuselage tank and 2 x 75 drop tanks was 700 miles. In other words, P-51 was capable any task Bf-109 could; vice versa not possible.

 

[Jenisch]

Airframes and fuel can come around one way or another, Nazi Germany managed this until very late in the war when even Me-262's rose to challenge American air power as late as April 1945; experienced pilots, however, are much harder to produce.

Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not.

 

[Jenisch]

I don't know if was significative, but late in the war the American pilots were flying with anti-G suits and tail warning radar.

 

[Mike Williams]

I don't know if was significative, but late in the war the American pilots were flying with anti-G suits and tail warning radar.

"Without the K-14 sight and my "G" suit I don't believe I would have gotten this Jerry as he was headed for a heavily defended airdrome."

"There were Huns all over and three times the tail warning system gave good service."

As noted above G-suits and tail warning radar were deemed useful, however, the K-14 Gyro gunsight was a huge asset - a significant difference maker. Check the last section of Encounter Reports of P-51 Mustang Pilots for pilot comments on the value of the Gyro gunsight in destroying enemy aircraft.

P.S. Nice video Jenisch

 

[bobbysocks]

What they say in the video I posted was that fighters in the escort role used fuel twice as fast. They say that because this a thousand fighters might be needed to keep 40 to 100 in the escort all the time. Don't know if this is true, but there's also the advanced escort to be considerated...

that is because the mustangs didnt throttle back and fly along side the slow bombers...they flew a weave back and forth over the box in oreder to keep up speed. so for every mile the bomber flew the escorts flew 1 1/2ish? the 109s and the 190s were formidable aircraft and up to the task of mixing it up with a mustang. the edge had to go to the allies in pilot training. that is where they had the luxury that germany did not. in the beginning of the war when it was fighting vastly inferior airforces and lesser trained enemies the new LW recruits had the opportunity to cut their teeth in not so desparate circumstances. germany not only did not throw their aircraft industry into high gear too late but also their pilot training programs. i doubt whether the out come would have been different but the allies would have had a bloodier noses at the end.

 

[drgondog]

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.

Tante Ju - They were not moving in one blob but all being directed by ground control as the B-17 inbound stream moved eastward from Stuttgart. The LW also did not originate from various locations and R/V to attempt to consolidate. The only LW force that seemed to stay in one cohesive group was III./JG26 which avoided the Mustangs. Much of JG27 came from south, JG3 from north, ZG26 from NE, JG301 from the south (IIRC). Probably the largest single concentration in a small area was JG26 and III./JG3. So you are correct in that the typical LW force was Staffel sized and that most fo the fights were 10-12 vs 4, 20 vs 8, four vs 2 (the JG26 picked off two P-51s that got lost in the clouds - east of Munich)..

OTOH, the two US Fighter groups were attacking in units of four and in the case of the 20+ Bf 110's, the 357th engaged with an 8 ship section.

 

[TheMustangRider]

"Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not."...

My thoughts exactly.
When you no longer have command of the air even to a tactical level to properly train your green fighter pilots; you know you are in deep trouble.

 

[Jenisch]

"Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not."...

My thoughts exactly.
When you no longer have command of the air even to a tactical level to properly train your green fighter pilots; you know you are in deep trouble.

Germany needed to win in the East and have acess to a huge quantity of fuel. Only then perhaps Germany would have a chance to stop the bombing. I think that this only would be possible if the USSR collapsed in 1941 and Germany managed to capture and restore (if the Russians destroyed it) oil production in the Caucasus quickly.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Watching that video and there were two Mosquitos and a Spitfire in the US gun cam footage

Friendly fire!

 

[tengu1979]

Ok my other thought. Although Bf109 guns are grouped tight in the nose (apart from [optional] underwing pods) is there any influence of offset mount sights. Seems to me almost all German fighters have them. For me it would be much easier to have sights dead on like Spitfire or Mustang does.

I must admit it is really interesting subject about those numbers. I am still wandering than why many LW pilots claim otherwise. Or they are simply referring to later times when they were really outnumbered.

 

[stona]

Bf 109,official RLM designation. The RLM got so upset with Messerschmitt AG correspondence which referred to the Me 110 etc that it officially refused to acknowledge such correspondence

You might find some reference to Me when it should be Bf in some contemporary German documents but you won't find it in an RLM document. All handbooks etc refer to Bf or Me as someone (Grau Geist?) explained earlier. That means Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and so on.

Allied sources almost invariably refer to all Messerschmitt aircraft as Me,but that doesn't make it right.

Cheers

Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bf 109,official RLM designation. The RLM got so upset with Messerschmitt AG correspondence which referred to the Me 110 etc that it officially refused to acknowledge such correspondence

You might find some reference to Me when it should be Bf in some contemporary German documents but you won't find it in an RLM document. All handbooks etc refer to Bf or Me as someone (Grau Geist?) explained earlier. That means Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and so on.

Allied sources almost invariably refer to all Messerschmitt aircraft as Me,but that doesn't make it right.

Cheers

Steve

Yeah that is what I was saying I had read in German documents. Everything up to the 110 was a Bf (Bf 108, Bf 109, Bf 110, etc). Everything after the 110 was Me.

Me however really has become a common thing though from everyone including Germans today. The Messerschmitt Stiftung in German even refers to their Bf 109G-2s as Bf's not Me's.

 

[stona]

Me however really has become a common thing though from everyone including Germans today. The Messerschmitt Stiftung in German even refers to their Bf 109G-2s as Bf's not Me's.

I'm sure it has. I,personally,don't mind what someone refers to the Bf 109 as in a general context. However in a serious historical context it has to be Bf not Me. This is not a choice. The official RLM designation for the type was Bf 109. The fact that some sources at the time,particularly allied,and modern usage use Me does not make them correct.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

I think it IS a choice and either one is correct since even WWII Germans used the Me designation in official correspondence ... if THEY did it, we can, too. Even if it isn't exactly correct according to the dataplate (which they kept as "Bf"), nobody is confused by it ... we all know what aircraft is being talked about.

The term engine is correct for a piston powerplant, but everyone knows what you are talking about if you call it a motor. Same thing, really.

If you KNOW what is being discussed, you can join the conversation.

We can correct our kids if we want to, but correcting adults too often makes nobody want to speak with you after awhile. Let it go and have a meaningful discussion.

I have reference books that call it Me 109 and others that call it Bf 109. To me, they're interchangeable and I can deal with either one as long as the phrase is referring to an aircraft and not a phone number. If that doesn't fit the technically accurate view, that's OK by me. I generally call anything from the E model and older a Bf 109 and anything from an F model and newer an Me 109 since that is what I was taught more than 40 years ago by people who were in the war and flying over Europe in Allied and German planes. Even the guys who disagree know what plane we are discussing, and that's all that matters since I'm not writing a book about it trying to set the prefix right for all time.

 

[stona]

I think it IS a choice and either one is correct since even WWII Germans used the Me designation in official correspondence ...

No it is not.

There is occasional use of Me for Bf in official correspondence,particularly pre-war when some confusion existed about whether the Me prefix should be retrospectively applied to BFW aircraft now being produced by Messerschmitt. The RLM soon lay down the law.

The official RLM designation for all types whose development or production was started by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke is Bf. You can call it Me and so can anyone else. That doesn't make it correct. As I posted above the RLM made it quite clear what designation was correct to the point of notifying Messerschmitt AG that it would not respond to correspondence regarding the Bf 110 unless the correct designation was used.

I already said I don't mind how these types are referred to in a general sense,we do all know what we are referring to,but on what is essentially a historical forum I would expect a little more rigour. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyone referring to a Me 110 in Germany or anywhere else during the war or later was and is technically incorrect. This is forgiveable in allied documents ( where all Messerschmitt aircraft are almost invariably referred to as Me),unacceptable in German documents (as the RLM made perfectly clear) and also incorrect in any serious historical context today.That goes for the guys who were there. Being there doesn't make them right about official government designations for aircraft types.

The two terms were never interchangeable in RLM/Luftwaffe circles at the time. You will not find an official RLM document,nevermind an aircraft data plate or similar,which refers to an Me 109.

Why on earth would you make a distinction between an E and F,or later, model of the same aircraft type ? I don't mind what you call the thing,that's your business,but to call two sub-types of the same aircraft something different is illogical.

The difference in nomenclature is due to various aircraft being designed and/or produced by two different companies in the eyes of "Das Reichsluftfahrtministerium"

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Seems plenty of people in Germany were acting 'unacceptable'?