Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s

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


A lot of this is "what ifs" but I think it's safe to say that if placed in late 1944, early 1945 this is what the picture looked at. Messerschmitt was looking at engine/ prop combos that would have given the K4 a top speed of well over 450 mph with boost and a climb rate of over 4800 FPM, a perfect interceptor, but the H model Mustang was advertising top speeds in excess of 480 mph and about the same wing loading on a heavier airframe. Again, placing both aircraft in a similar tactical scenario, I don't think you can say one aircraft would have a real advantage, but given where the P-51 "would have" been operating, you're looking at the situation history actually played out - numbers for the P-51, better trined pilots and -109s tring to tangle with bombers and fighters. Too much for one design to handle.

As far as the P-51H not going anywhere? Hard to say. Maybe it was time to beat swords into plowshares?
 
Last edited:
we seem to be decending into the "plane a on a wednesday can outclimb plane b if the pilot weighed less than an anvil" kind of statistical tennis match, again!
simple fact is trying to claim the superiority of one aircraft over the other is pure folly unless there is a clear hands down advantage , think 190 v Spit V in early 42, take the dogfight episode as an example, the ace pilot in the 109 put himself in a hopeless situation , ended up having to resort to all manner of violent evasive maneuvers all the time losing altitude and energy, pulled off a desperate split S at low altitude and ran out of options, he was shot down moments later as witnessed by the guys he was fighting!
bottom line was despite pilot skill and an alledged "superior aircraft" he lost his life because the tactical situation trumps just about everything!
 
Kryten said:
bottom line was despite pilot skill and an alledged "superior aircraft" he lost his life because the tactical situation trumps just about everything!
Click to expand...
bottom line is that superior (overwhelming) numbers trumps just about everything...
 
Oh no not this red herring again. Over germany, the Luftwaffe WAS NOT outnumbered by P-51 escorts. Ask Erich or DG, they have the dirt on all of this.

Just so we are clear, the 8th had virtually unlimited supplies of reserve aircraft (but then so too did the germans), but in numbers of fighters that could be put over the target, the US did not enjoy a marked numerical advantage. only if furphys like including bombers in the totals, or not looking at the specific tactical situations (LW as defenders could concentrate their forces, US escorts always had to provide cover to the entire stream, which could often be over several hundred miles).

Sorry, but Germany was not solely overwhelmed by numbers. They were outfought and outgeneralled as well. Yes, in a general sense they took on too much, and in the finish this came home to roost, but in the context of the battles over germany in 1944, this is just not the case that they were badly outnumbered by allied fighters that could reach them
 

yes,flying against 1100 bombers,900 escort fighters , 2-3000 short rnge alleid fighters in support , gives Lw a clear numerical advantage. However i partly agrre on the outgeneralled part of your comment.
 
not that simple unfortunatly Jim, I read the info on this matter and when you add in, the area covered, the relay sytem of escorts, the time frame it takes to feed that many aircraft over the target areas, themselves many miles apart, the Luftwaffe did AT TIMES attain localised numerical superiority, and the key word is LOCALISED, the Luftwaffe just like the RAF in the BOB were able to dictate when and where they engaged!
 
Germany had four major fronts and limited aircraft.. where are these Day fighters coming from? JG 11/27/53, The main players in Germany's defence, had nowhere near enough aircraft. As for localized.. dosn't help when a group of 1000 bombers breaks off into 5 seperate groups of 200 w/ escourts.
 
Last edited:
Ratsel said:
bottom line is that superior (overwhelming) numbers trumps just about everything...
Click to expand...
Not really. Aside from fighting against overwhelming numbers, the range/ endurance of these -109s actually sucked and they were doomed just to be really great interceptors. If these aircraft were able to offer the same performance with the range the P-51 had, now we're talking. Aside from that, if you start looking at numbers they were nearly equal.
 

I suppose what it comes down to is could the P51 do the same job as the 109, and the answer is yes, could the 109 do the same job as the P51, well the answers no, and thats what made the P51 unique, thats what made it the best single engined fighter of ww2.
 

Ahhhhhh, something I was going to comment on. The 109 carried little fuel and the drop tank was not of great capacity. Lots of accounts about the low fuel light coming on.
Not that the Germans had a lot of fuel anyway, but some additional fuel, more loiter time to await a more opportune attack time/less/no escorts around.

Escorts do not have to defeat the defenders. Mere presence forces the attackers to modify their attack plan. Presence or potential presence of escorts would force the 109 guys to remove their cannon pods, rockets. Escorts ranging ahead can disrupt the defenders. Escorts returning to base make no part of the sky safe for returning defenders, possibly damaged, likely low on fuel.

Formations of 200 bombers bristling with .50cal tough enough. Add escort, too much for the available German defenders.

The war was not won in the skies over the Reich, sorry guys. The war was won in mid 1943 in the ATLANTIC, Allies sinking the U-Boats AND avoiding the Wolfpacks. Widespread use of escort borne radar, aircraft radar, direction finding, signals intercept and decoding plus lots more escorts were available. The cargo-haulers and fuel tankers were able to reach the UK. Escort Carriers and long range patrol craft played their parts.
Without the logistics, there could have been no serious USAAC effort; No bombs, no crated fighters, no .50 cal ammo, no fuel, no spare parts, no powdered eggs, C-Rations, Corn Flakes, etc. Late 42--early 43, things were pretty bleak in the UK.
Losing the Battle of the Atlantic caused the Germans to lose the whole enchilada. Not only were the Allies able to get their supplies and equipment to the UK, they were able to largely prevent the Germans from getting certain ores and supplies from abroad. Some better metal alloys could have helped the Germans make reliable jet engines sooner. Lack of good engines, not Hilter, kept the 262 from seeing widespread service earlier. This is "what if" but interesting.
 
No matter how many times we remove the heads of the Hydra, they keep coming back i see.

This conversation has happened numerous time in this place, as those with some hours on this site well know. i cant be all that enthused to go through the issue again, so i thought i would post a link to the last thread i know of where this whole issue was discussed adnauseum.

Believe what you will, but IMO its clear as to who was outnumbered, and who had the local supriority.....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...nding-gear-myth-research-thread-29605-16.html
 
parsifal said:
but IMO its clear as to who was outnumbered, and who had the local supriority.....
Click to expand...
So books like Jagdgeschwader 27 Die Dokumentation uber den Einsatz an allen Fronten 1939 - 1945, Bodenplatte The Luftwaffe's Last Hope, JG 27 vol.I-IV, Priens JG 1/11, and many other publications etc., Luftwaffe pilots like Rall, Barkhorn, Nau, Petzschler, Galland, Knooke, Bar, and many other pilots, etc. who publicly stated they were always outnumbered in the later half of the war on all fronts are wrong? Interesting.
 
As I understand it, Germany alone built 119,907 aircraft of all types during WWII. These were divided among fighters, bombers, trainers, maritime patrol, etc., the same as for all other countries.

The U.S.A. alone built 303,695 in WWII ... Great Britain alone built 131,549 ... The Soviet Union alone built 158,220. Numbers are from WWII Stats.com.

And you say the Germans were not outnumbered over Germany, especially late in the war? I don't get it.

Almost all the British aircraft were thrown against Germany, with a few going elsewhere. The Soviet Union fought Germany and Japan, but mostly Germany due to invasion. The U.S.A. concentrated on Germany early in the war and until the Germans were defeated .... THEN we transferred a lot of effort to the Pacific. So the numbers say the Germans WERE outnumbered.

I think the Germans were WAY outnumbered from late 1943 onward, and most Allied combat reports agree with that. In 1944, when the 8th Air Force was flying 1,000 plane raids, the defenders were nowhere NEAR those numbers. The primary problen for Mustang pilots late in WWII over Europe was lack of targets, not performance issues. By late 1944, many German fighters had no fuel or pilots, and that is well documented.

Am I getting this wrong?

We had oil, aircraft, propellers, pilots, and the ways and means to transport a LOT of aircraft to Europe for the war ... ALL the war. The Germans started out with a lot of the same, but built fewer aircraft, were seriously depleted by the end of the Battle of Britain, and oil production decreased as the war went on. Pilot skill did, too, and they ran out of propellers and petrol late in the war, too. The "Experten" were seriously skilled, but the replacements coming into the war later in tne war were not.

The Russian Front was a mire of loss for Germany. They were wildly successful at first there, but were beaten after about 1943 and were in full retreat in mid-1944 ... and mostly unable to do so. By late 1944, most German aircraft could not live in Russian airspace for any length of time.

I'm sure someone will tell me where I'm wrong here, but keep in mind that the Germans surrendered in 1945 and could not put up an effective defense for many months before surrender. By fall of 1944, EVERYONE knew the war was over ... it was a matter of when.
 
We're discussing the nature of local air superiority aren't we? People haven't thought this through very well. Doesn't apply to the late war situation over europe, Germany never had even local air superiority in the west/southern front since Oct43 and on the eastern front since Jul43.
Prior to then Germany only achieved widespread air superiority on three occasions, all short lived: June-Dec 41 on ostfront, mid 42 in the med, 43 over France. All other occasions of German air superiority were only local superiority, including blau, weiss, you name it. General air superiority across a given battlefront was always up for contention.
In 44 Germany was under a condition of general Allied air superiority, in 45 under total Allied air supremacy (and subsequently more ordnance was dropped by the USAF after Jan45 than by all other belliegerant nations combined, for the entire war).

This latest sidetrack is nothing more than point matter on what those terms mean, but you'd have to be an idiot to argue why they are consistently assigned.
 
Once agin, i feel compelled to take the time to explain exactly what is meant by air superiority. Ive already done this in the 'three fighter" thread, but once again I find people using the term "air superiority" without actually knowing what it means

The standard NATO definitions of air control states are as follows.....

"Air supremacy" is defined as the condition when the enemy air force is in-capable of effective interference. Through the complete destruction of the enemy air forces, this condition is the ultimate goal of an air campaign. Yet, this condition may be difficult or even impossible to achieve. It may occur however, through the establishment of a diplomatic "no-fly zone". Under the condition of air supremacy, the air commander employs all of his aircraft at will.

"Air superiority" is defined as the condition when the conduct of all types of operations is possible at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the enemy. This is a necessary and obligatory condition to attain success in combat and overall victory in a war. The most efficient method of attaining air superiority is to attack enemy aviation assets close to their source at maintenance and launch facilities, early warning and C2 sites, and ground-based air defense sites.

"Local air superiority", which is purely geographic in nature, is characterized by well timed air attacks to coincide with enemy aircraft downtime, re-turning sorties, aircraft rearming, or gaps in air defense coverage. This condition may also occur in sectors across the theater of military operations where the the enemy may not have adequate assets available to ensure air superiority. In certain situations or against certain enemies, local air superiority for a specified period of time may be a more realistic goal.

"Air parity" is defined as the functional equivalency between enemy and friendly air forces in strength and capability to attack and destroy some targets. Under the condition of air parity, where neither side has gained superiority, some enemy capabilities affect friendly ground forces at times and places on the battlefield. Air parity manifests itself to the commander primarily in the amount of fixed-wing aircraft used for direct support of ground forces. More aircraft are dedicated to interdiction and strike missions to gain air superiority. "

Usually determining the state of control of the air is done on a theatre by theatre basis.

Now, as Vanir points out (and I agree with that) Germany did not have air superiority over much of anything since the end of 41, and the middle of 43 for the eastern Front. They retained significant air denial capability however. air superiority has nothing to do with numbers, nothing to do with losses except if those losses are so prohibitive as to prevent the carrying out of a full mission profile. Fundamentally, "air superiority" is about having the ability to undertake all manner of missions at tolerable cost. That has nothing to do with the argument in progress right now. We are debating numbers, not who held air superiority. There is no contest on that....the allies held air supremacy over western europe, and air superiority over central europe. That doesnt mean they werent taking severe hits, and it certainly has nothing to do with numbers. The allies just happened to have greater numbers partly because their losses were by this stage lower, and partly because of the production choices

Someone posted the germans produced 119000 a/c, I think for combat types it was less than that. The same person also posted that US aircraft production was 324000, okay, British Production 131000 and Soviet production about 140000.

Whats not included here is that the germans also had substantial numbers of aircraft built prewar, substantial numbers of captured aircraft, and the help of allied nations. These issues, however are small change....the big issue is that of the 324000 US aircraft produced, 70% of them either never left continental US, were given to allies as Lend lease (about 10% of the total) or went to TOs outside the ETO (the pacific mostly). US transfers to the ETO serving under US colours only amounted to about 90000 airframes.

For the Brits, my best calculation is that between 17 and 25% of the force structure went to Pacifc, and and about a further 10% to TOs outside the ETO. That means the Brits, and the Commonwealth fought in the ETO with about 90000 airframes as well. For the Soviets, I am less certain, but my estimate is that about 10% of aircraft production was retained for TOs outside the actual ETO combat area, judging by the rate of expansion for these forces (eg in the far east). That would mean the Soviets committed about 116000 aircraft to the ETO.

If we assume 5000 airframes from occupied territories and minor production, a further 14000 from the italians, plus the 119000 the Germans produced themselves, we arrive at 138000 airframes to fight their war. By comparison the allies had at their disposal roughly 180000 and the Soviets 116000. The total allied advantage is about 2:1, not that great when you consider the strength advantages generally thought needed to achieve air auperiority. For evenly matched opponents the loss ratio is normally about 2:1 to 3:1 against the side strategically on the attack.

Moreover by 1944 about 80% of German production was of fighters, and about 80% of fighter airframes were being diverted to defend the reich. The sheer numbers tell the story here...how many p-51s were produced in 1944 compared to the numbers of Me 109s and Fw190s....the mes and the Fws outnumber the mustangs by a considerable number. Moreover about 90% of the 8ths lr escort requirements were being taken up by P-51s. Looked at in those terms the so called numerical advantage in fighters of the americans over the reich is untrue both strategically and as earlier explained tactically or operationally

The numerical advantages of the allies (particularly in fighters) was nowhere near the crushingly overwhelming normally attributed to them. It was substantial, and they certainly werent going to lose, but it not a crushing overwhelming advantage as is so often portrayed.
 
Don't believe it. Not saying you are categorically wrong, but I don't believe it.

That's OK. You could be right, but the combat reports don't show it. In any case, the result is known.

We've had pilots at the Planes of Fame events that said they flew many mission in late 1944 / early 1945 and never saw a German fighter ... just flak. These pilots have no axe to grind ... it was 65 - 66 years ago. You may think they disremember, but they remember their aircraft serial numbers, their service numbers, and give very detailed accounts of strafing on the way home just to use up ammo. And ... from major targets.

And they have photocopies of actual combat reports describing the same events.
 
Last edited:
so okay, you dont beliefve"it", whatever "it" is

Lets break this equation down to its component parts.

Start with the PTO. Japanese built close to 90000 airframes from memory. How many aircraft do you think of the US forces were diverted to the pacific.

Next, training and defence of the western hemisphere. how many aircraft were diverted to that purpose. how amny aircraft do you suppose were needed to train the very pilots you are talking about. ifr i told you that in the continental US alone ther were over 9000 aircraft lost would you believe that......

now, how many aircraft of the Commonwealth do you suppose were diverted to the pacific. By mid 1944, for the RAAF alone, ther were close to 6000 aircraft deployed. We had the fourth largest allied air force by that stage. And remember, as a rough guide, even if an air force does basically nothing, which the RAAF certainly was not doing, what percentage of aircraft for the pacific do you think they might be losing. the answer is just below 10% per month. That equates to the loss of 12000 aircraft per year, just to maintain one of the smaller air forces. for carriers, during periods of high activity, attrition rates of 30% per month were not uncommon. and by the end of 1944 the US had around 4000 aircraft afloat from memory

You say that combat reports arent self serving, completely unbiased....maybe, but i tend to view pilots reports a bit like autobiographies....sort of "how i won the war" accounts. Autobiograhical works, are in fact known to have innaccuracies all over them. Certainly would not put a great deal of credence on any German combat reports, because they above all have a vested interest to maintaining a lie....'we were defeated simply by numbers"....a kind of variation to a Nurnberg defence.

As for Allied Pilot reports, well, I actually can believe that there were occasions when there was no opposition. What does that tell us. Quite apart from the fact that the snippet is next to useless, because it has no context, it may also suggest what we already know....the Allies held air superiority, whilst the germans still had numbers. Meant that the germans were picking and choosing their fights....concentrating on certain strikes, and leaving others alone. they had been doing that since 1941. Still does not show that they were outnumbered....in fact it merely reinforces it
 
One thing I forgot...I thought we were talking mainly about September '43 through to May '44, not the end of '44, when the whole dynamic had changed. By that stage the Allied Air forces had gained Air Supremacy, which does support the notion that there were many missions where no enemy planes were encountered
 
Mr Parsifal
Look at the orders of batlle for any campaigh after 1941 and you will get the true advantage of alleid forces ,more near 10:1
As for your comment that i am the head of the hydra and remove it , i say i just have another opinion dont remove my head. . But you are correct we have made this discussion again
History has shown that Americans fight always with either numerical or quality superiority , most of the times both. Wars against Mexico ,Spain, Confederate States of America, colonial conflicts, WWi,WW2, Korea , were all comited with huge advantage for the Americans because of their industrial capacity. (Of course this doesn not mean their soldiers were less skilled or brave) Because of this any superior leadership or skill or tactics by foreign generals( Rommel, Lee, Jackson, WW1 greman infantry tactics, Ww2 heavy panzers and their command and control, Me262s, Chinese human wave attacks, Vietgong guerilla tactics) were ,at the end of no use . Us, militarily ,always won. Had FW190 C come earlier , or Ta 152 or Me 262 or Ta183 ,American anwer would be simple, Additional fighters ,additional bombers (b29s)
Mr Flyboy J
could p51 shoot down B17s or IL2s? Could p51 operate on low octane fuel? Could p51 produced by slaves? Could p51 perform without raw materials? Could operate from crude eastern front airfields, had the ease of maintance? Had the rate of climb to be a good interceptor? Could P51 fight on equal terms ( no numbers or height advantage), at the same time against Spitfires LF an HF,La7s , Tempests, P47s, Yajks etc...? Could be produced in under earth factories? Did impress anyone in Korea?(Australians certainly not)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Any Sources on Sea Level max speeds for the Ki-43’s?
Replies
4
Views
606
taly01
Fastest WW2 Prop Fighters at Sea Level
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
J.A.W.
Yak Fighters & Top Speed
Replies
0
Views
579
Laurelix
N
Comparative performance of British fighters 1945.
Replies
7
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
Y
Tests on the La-5/7 series
Replies
3
Views
1K
Trilisser
T
Menu
Log in
Register