P51D/K vs Me109K-14

drgondog · Jul 18, 2007

Hunter368 said:
I agree facts speak volumes.......but that lines above is hardly a fair statement. The number of planes lost does not directly correlate to the quality of the plane.

Soren sez "But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air."

Hunter - it does say something to the 'unbeatable' comment.. Rall was as good as they get and he was shot down, what, 18 times? Not always outnumbered just some airplane pulled lead on him and scored. The list of Experten flying the 'unbeatable' 109 - that were shot down - is quite large.

Ditto for the 190D, for the P-51B/C/D, the Me262, and the Spit - all superb aircraft flown by superb pilots that were 'beaten' in equivalent 'unbeatable' fighters

How would you have expressed disagreement to 'unbeatable'? or do you believe the 109 was unbeatable?

Regards,

Bill

Hunter368 · Jul 18, 2007

drgondog said:
Soren sez "But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air."

Hunter - it does say something to the 'unbeatable' comment.. Rall was as good as they get and he was shot down, what, 18 times? Not always outnumbered just some airplane pulled lead on him and scored. The list of Experten flying the 'unbeatable' 109 - that were shot down - is quite large.

Ditto for the 190D, for the P-51B/C/D, the Me262, and the Spit - all superb aircraft flown by superb pilots that were 'beaten' in equivalent 'unbeatable' fighters

How would you have expressed disagreement to 'unbeatable'? or do you believe the 109 was unbeatable?

Regards,

Bill

I misunderstood your statement a little, I see you were not talking literally.

No plane was unbeatable, simple as that. Soren knows that, while I don't know when he posted the term "unbeatable" that you are referring to.......he knows the 109 was not literally unbeatable....I think you also misunderstood him.....thinking he was talking literally.

The 109 was a very good plane in its role, but no plane could be unbeatable. In air combat crap happens to fast, pilots are humans who make mistakes, machines break down or do not function at 100% full performance, etc etc.

Glider · Jul 19, 2007

I found this that may be of interest

On November 26, 1944 the 2nd SF took 12 P51's to scout Misburg and Bielefeld. Four ships went down to check out Bielefeld while the remaining eight stayed out in front of the Misburg force. Near Hannover approximately 200+ FW-190s and escorting Me 109s, in two separate gaggles, were observed approaching the bombers.

At the time of the attack, the three B-24 groups that the 355th and 339th FG were chartered to escort were strung out on a 40 mile line due to a navigation error and impossible to cover with even two Fighter groups. The 339th was trailing and closer to Dummer Lake.

The Luftwaffe Controller detected the lack of coverage and skillfully orchestrated the attack in between the 355th and 339th FG. The large German force split into several smaller forces of 50 to 75 fighters and attacked in waves at the rear of the 339th.

The 491st BG immediately lost 15 B-24's to heavily armed JG301 Fw 190 A-8s from a 'company front' attack from the rear before the 354FS and 357FS intervened to drive them off in a major dogfight ranging to the deck. The 339th picked up two more large enemy forces further west and the sky in the Hannover-Gardlingen-Dummer Lake region was full of fighters and bombers in various states of distress.

Shortly afterwards another force of JG 301 fighters attacked the 445th BG strung out behind the remaining 358FS cover

Seeing the huge danger to the unprotected 445th BG, Bob Whitlow led his eight remaining Scouts to intercept more than 100 Fw 190's and Me 109 top cover fighters of JG301. The first wave hit the B-24's and shot down five before the Scouts got there, and dove for the deck. Whitklow's force hit the second wave head on and completely broke up the attack.

In a running battle. the Scouts shot down six plus a probable and several damaged before the 358FS arrived to add their firepower to the fight. Lieutenants Bill Whalen and George Ceglarski nailed three and one while Whitlow got two.

Captain Stauder was later lost returning from the mission when his Mustang was seen to dive inverted into the Channel near the Dutch coast and remains "Missing in Action"

The leaders of the 445th BG stated unequivocally that the 2nd Scout Force had saved them from the same disaster that hit the 491st.

In all the 355th and 2nd Scouts claimed 27 of JG301 Fw 190's and Me 109's for their worst single day loss in the war. The 339th further behind in the bomber stream also contributed 29 more claims making tis the worst day in the war for JG301. After a review of the film and reports the awards reduced to 27 and 26 respectively.

Soren · Jul 19, 2007

What a surprise ! Bill like every other USAAF fanboy is a fan of Rall's comments !

I bet you loath what all the other LW experten have to say eh Bill ?

Soren · Jul 19, 2007

In the hands of an experten the Bf-109 was a near unbeatable a/c, the tally of the a/c also speaks for itself. The top 3 aces of all time flew this fighter.

But ofcourse I forgot, Bill thinks the Germans were stupid and that is why they kept the 109 in service from start to finish, it simply can't be because it was a truly supurb fighter.

Hunter368 · Jul 19, 2007

The 109 was a very good aircraft, like many others at the time. The 109 remained competitive with her enemies through out the entire war.

drgondog · Jul 19, 2007

Glider said:
I found this that may be of interest

On November 26, 1944 the 2nd SF took 12 P51's to scout Misburg and Bielefeld. Four ships went down to check out Bielefeld while the remaining eight stayed out in front of the Misburg force. Near Hannover approximately 200+ FW-190s and escorting Me 109s, in two separate gaggles, were observed approaching the bombers.

At the time of the attack, the three B-24 groups that the 355th and 339th FG were chartered to escort were strung out on a 40 mile line due to a navigation error and impossible to cover with even two Fighter groups. The 339th was trailing and closer to Dummer Lake.

The Luftwaffe Controller detected the lack of coverage and skillfully orchestrated the attack in between the 355th and 339th FG. The large German force split into several smaller forces of 50 to 75 fighters and attacked in waves at the rear of the 339th.

The 491st BG immediately lost 15 B-24's to heavily armed JG301 Fw 190 A-8s from a 'company front' attack from the rear before the 354FS and 357FS intervened to drive them off in a major dogfight ranging to the deck. The 339th picked up two more large enemy forces further west and the sky in the Hannover-Gardlingen-Dummer Lake region was full of fighters and bombers in various states of distress.

Shortly afterwards another force of JG 301 fighters attacked the 445th BG strung out behind the remaining 358FS cover

Seeing the huge danger to the unprotected 445th BG, Bob Whitlow led his eight remaining Scouts to intercept more than 100 Fw 190's and Me 109 top cover fighters of JG301. The first wave hit the B-24's and shot down five before the Scouts got there, and dove for the deck. Whitklow's force hit the second wave head on and completely broke up the attack.

In a running battle. the Scouts shot down six plus a probable and several damaged before the 358FS arrived to add their firepower to the fight. Lieutenants Bill Whalen and George Ceglarski nailed three and one while Whitlow got two.

Captain Stauder was later lost returning from the mission when his Mustang was seen to dive inverted into the Channel near the Dutch coast and remains "Missing in Action"

The leaders of the 445th BG stated unequivocally that the 2nd Scout Force had saved them from the same disaster that hit the 491st.

In all the 355th and 2nd Scouts claimed 27 of JG301 Fw 190's and Me 109's for their worst single day loss in the war. The 339th further behind in the bomber stream also contributed 29 more claims making tis the worst day in the war for JG301. After a review of the film and reports the awards reduced to 27 and 26 respectively.

Glider - did you get this from my article on Mike William's site about the 2SF?

Eric helped me put the 'dark side' force structure together

Regards,

Bill

drgondog · Jul 19, 2007

Soren said:
What a surprise ! Bill like every other USAAF fanboy is a fan of Rall's comments !

I bet you loath what all the other LW experten have to say eh Bill ?

Actually - quite the contrary Soren. I spent quite a bit of time w/Galland on three occasions, and met Rall and Krupinski and Stigler in Tuscon at the Fighter Aces convention.

All of them refreshing in their candor of the strengths and weaknesses of all the Allied and German aircraft..and the particular relevance of pilot skill.

Glider · Jul 19, 2007

drgondog said:
Glider - did you get this from my article on Mike William's site about the 2SF?

Eric helped me put the 'dark side' force structure together

Regards,

Bill

Its a Mike Williams and Neil Sterling site about WW2 aircraft and it may well be your article if your surname is Marshall. Hope I haven't upset anyone, certainly not my intention.

THE SCOUTING FORCE

drgondog · Jul 19, 2007

Soren said:
In the hands of an experten the Bf-109 was a near unbeatable a/c, the tally of the a/c also speaks for itself. The top 3 aces of all time flew this fighter.

But ofcourse I forgot, Bill thinks the Germans were stupid and that is why they kept the 109 in service from start to finish, it simply can't be because it was a truly supurb fighter.

I have always maintained that it was superb. You are the one that whined that the add of 20/30mm pods rendered it 'impotent' and thus fell prey to the inferior Mustang in our discussions of 24 April.

Germans weren't stupid - had no choice but to continually upgrade the 109 to attain near parity with the 51 - as well as redesign the Fw190 to the 190D - same reason... no replacement available in numbers to make a difference.

Look to the number of Experten KIA/WIA in the 109 for a testimony to invulnerability - what is your definition, by the way?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 19, 2007

drgondog said:
Chris - I just happened to stumble on to a quote in Caldwell's JG26 Top Gun book. Uffz Georg Genth's comments pg 308 on the K-4 being supplied to III./JG26 in November, 1944. Won't quote the entire paragraph but to summarize.
He much preferred the G-10 as a dogfighter (no underwing tubs, better stability at high altitude)
The K-4s they received had the 30mm Mk108 or Mk103 firing through hub plus two 20mm in the underwing tubs 'greatly reucing maneuverability'
"above 28,000 the K-4 'began to float' causing the pilots to start 'swimming' or 'float' giving similar control feels to a stall"

"Un naturally sensitive" in formation flying at those altitudes.

Yeah I can completely agree with that.

drgondog said:
At the end of the day it would be a pilot skill issue on a level playing field. Neither ship (51D/K vs 109G-10 or K-4) really had a compelling over all edge... probably true for the 190D-9 vs the 51 also.

Agreed as well and I think that can be said for most of the top fighters of WW2 whatever kind of aircraft it was. The pilot who could get the most out of his aircraft would be the victor.

Hunter368 · Jul 19, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed as well and I think that can be said for most of the top fighters of WW2 whatever kind of aircraft it was. The pilot who could get the most out of his aircraft would be the victor.

As has been said over and over here before.......this is the truth.

People often get too hung up over plane stats that were produced under optimum conditions.....which never really happened under real battle conditions.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 19, 2007

Yeap as if paper is the only thing that counts.

Hunter368 · Jul 19, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yeap as if paper is the only thing that counts.

As we all know, esp the guys in the military, what the aircraft designers say a machine "can do" and "what it actually does on the day you enter combat" is totally different things.

Chris you are an expert on this, I don't know you real well but is it safe to say the following:

Chris were you ever able to and did modify a chopper to get better perforce out of it? Did you ever modify a chopper to carry a different weapon then it was meant to carry? Did you ever modify a chopper to carry instraments that were not standard with the chopper?

I would guess yes.

While I am sure Chris is a very good tech, I doubt that he is one of a kind or best on the planet (no slight meant Chris ).

My point being is if Chris could modify choppers, then WW2 ground crews could modify their standard issue planes also (and they did). Test numbers or designer performance numbers are valueable but they are not the end all be all. Pilots were the biggest factor in a battle.

drgondog · Jul 19, 2007

Glider said:
Its a Mike Williams and Neil Sterling site about WW2 aircraft and it may well be your article if your surname is Marshall. Hope I haven't upset anyone, certainly not my intention.

THE SCOUTING FORCE

You haven't upset me - but Soren my be upset as that was one of those missions where the LW achieved local air superiority to get to the bombers - even this late in the war.

Regards,

Bill Marshall

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 21, 2007

Hunter368 said:
Chris you are an expert on this, I don't know you real well but is it safe to say the following:

I would not say that.

Hunter said:
Chris were you ever able to and did modify a chopper to get better perforce out of it?

No the Army does not allow us to do so.

Hunter said:
Did you ever modify a chopper to carry a different weapon then it was meant to carry?

Yes....

Hunter said:
Did you ever modify a chopper to carry instraments that were not standard with the chopper?

No the Army does not allow this.

Hunter said:
While I am sure Chris is a very good tech, I doubt that he is one of a kind or best on the planet (no slight meant Chris ).

None taken. There are plenty of mechanics out there with way more experience than myself.

mkloby · Jul 21, 2007

Hunter368 said:
People often get too hung up over plane stats that were produced under optimum conditions.....which never really happened under real battle conditions.

Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts.

Hunter368 · Jul 23, 2007

mkloby said:
Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts.

Agreed

Hunter368 · Jul 23, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I would not say that.

No the Army does not allow us to do so.

Yes....

No the Army does not allow this.

None taken. There are plenty of mechanics out there with way more experience than myself.

But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above.

Correct?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 23, 2007

Hunter368 said:
But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above.

Correct?

Yeap

P51D/K vs Me109K-14

Which would win?

Kurfurst

Mustang

Draw

Impossible to say

Major

Tech Sergeant

Captain

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Major

Major

Captain

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads