Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

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


I don't get your point ,the P-51 had range and good performance esp at altitude.Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere? The USAAF had a strategic bomber fleet to support .The LW and the Soviet Airforce needed agile ,cheap tactical fighters not heavy aircraft loaded with fuel to fight at 30.000ft .The RAF on the other hand did need a plane with long range but unfortunately they were stuck with the Spit.The P-47 had worse performance than the much smaller P-51 ,it didn't offer anything that's why it left the stage.
Generalizations ? How do you think countries produce armaments ? They decide what kind of weapons they need based on what threats they will face and build them .Each may value different things.
 

I think it would be more true to say the Brits were stuck without the Mustang because escorting daylight bombing raids was more important than tactical reconaissance. The British wanted 500 Mustangs per month but didnt get them because the USAAF naturally took most production for escort work.

The P 47 didnt leave the stage it changed theatre, it was a much better ground attack A/C than the P51 and ground attack was a major part of the Normandy campaign.
 
Last edited:
Mustang nut said:
The P 47 didnt leave the stage it changed theatre, it was a much better ground attack A/C than the P51 and ground attack was a major part of the Normandy campaign.
Click to expand...

All the fast aircraft ( FW190 , P-51 ,P-47 ) were not good at ground attack missions .Fast = inaccurate look up ''Air power at the Battlefront''.
 
ctrian said:
All the fast aircraft ( FW190 , P-51 ,P-47 ) were not good at ground attack missions .Fast = inaccurate look up ''Air power at the Battlefront''.
Click to expand...

The speed of an airplane is the choice of the pilot isnt it? I was refering to armament payload and most importantly its ability to withstand ground fire.
 
Mustang nut said:
The speed of an airplane is the choice of the pilot isnt it? I was refering to armament payload and most importantly its ability to withstand ground fire.
Click to expand...

Speed is also ''built in'' due to the design of the plane.As for withstanding ground fire the p-47 and P-51 were just fighters put into ground attack roles not specialized planes like stuka and Hs 129. Their losses were heavy.
 
The stukas losses were prohibitive against anything that was defended, it was heavy and slow and a dive bomber with a water cooled engine. Dive bombing gives the attaker a point target. Similar for the Hs 129. The P47 had an aircooled engine which is a big plus.
 
Readie said:
The Spitfire was the 'woodman's favourite axe' Chris, the name remained the same as we didn't want to say goodbye to the Spitfire. The final version bore little relation to the original. Whereas the 109 was clearly the same machine.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but my point was that "conventional" piston engined aircraft had reached or were near reaching their pinnicle.

As with Njaco, however I do have to disagree a bit on the 109. It had evolved into a different machine as well.
 

If you say it it must be true go read Luftwaffe Colours ''Stuka'' for a very different opinion.By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?
 
The 109 was a first rate fighter in 1940. It not only could perform the point defense mission, it could perform the short range bomber escort mission (nobodies single engine fighter in 1940 could do the long range mission) it carried as heavy a weight of armament as any other fighter. It's performance was, everything considered, as good as any other fighter. What it may have lost in one place it gained in another. If equipped with a bomb rack it's bombing ability was as good as any other fighter. If the Germans had simply equipped more 109s with drop tanks and manufactured more drop tanks the British would have had many more problems with in the BoB.
Please notice that I am separating out the capabilities of the aircraft from the actual usage.
In 1940 the Germans had no need of a different aircraft or airframe. The "F" version continued the 109s position as one of the best, but with a different tail ( no supporting struts) and a modified wing and forward fuselage/cowl there were some significant changes. For 1941 there is still no other challenger than the Spitfire (except maybe the Zero). At some point in 1942 things start to change. Spitfire weapon load has gotten much heavier starting in 1941, American planes, while not in theater yet are rolling of the lines with heavy armament if not sparkling performance. (P-40E&Fs) Early P-47s. P-38s. FW 190s for the Germans also show the future. Typhoons also show up, badly flawed, but showing the trend.
By 1943 the 109 is no longer in the front rank as a fighter bomber. It's air to air armament in the early "G"s leaves a lot to be desired. A single 20mm and two 7.9mm mgs is just not world class. It can be fought effectively by good pilots but it is not the armament anybody designing a new fighter would pick. actual speed, climb and air to air combat performance is still very good but range is little better than the 1940 "E". the lower drag and more efficient engine help but with no change in fuel capacity the ability to "project" power is lacking. Withe Luftwaffe going over to the defensive this is less important to the Germans but is another strike against the 109 for considering it world class.
The G-6 bring the 13mm cowl guns which, while nice, are a day late and dollar short as far as firepower goes. Newer DB 605 engines keep flight performance up which keeps the 109 useful as a point defense interceptor. Provision of the 30mm MK 108 cannon helps firepower at the cost of combat duration. 6 seconds of firing time is rather short. The British have been doing better than that since 1941. The Late "G"s and "K-4" get even more engine power but darn little else.
They are fast with excellent climb and good agility but lacking in both flight endurance ( again, less important to the Germans but saying the Germans didn't need a little more is making excuses) and combat power, a single 30mm cannon with 60 rounds and two 13 mm pea shooters (the least powerful 12.7-13mm mgs used by anybody). Bombing ability is no better than a Curtiss P-40C.

Some of these limits are just from the size of the air-frame, there is only so much you can stuff in a pint pot. Or lift with a wing the size of a a Cessna. They did a very good job of keeping it competitive as long as they did but they were trapped by the need to keep production going. Once the 209 (second one) got too far from the 109 to make changing the factories over easy it was dropped.
 
ctrian said:
If you say it it must be true go read Luftwaffe Colours ''Stuka'' for a very different opinion.By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?
Click to expand...

Oh yes Kursk, I forgot about Kursk. Please summarise how the stuka helped in that magnificent victory. Are you seriously suggesting that a US pilot in 1944 would be better of flying to North france in a stuka than a P 47. When a stuka drops its bombs it is still a stuka when a P 47 drops its bombs it is a very capable fighter with 8 MGs.
 

The Stuka had precision and armor to take on ground targets.Of course it couldn't outrun a fighter.A specialized aircraft will always outperform a general one in that particular field.The decision to use fighters in the ground attack role was political ,the USAAF leadership did not want to be subordinate to the army so they never built a ground attack craft.Even today look at the A-10 and all the drama it has generated .....
 

Actually they did. Please see the 1930s "A" series aircraft and even the A-20. Also the batteries of guns stuffed into/on the sides of B-25 and B-26 bombers. Also see career of the A-36.
While the Americans may not have fielded specific anti-armor aircraft or quite as much really close support (flying artillery) I too can make excuses and say the US didn't need them as much. US Divisions and Corp generally had more artillery support available,especially ammo supply.

Dive bombers, by the very method of their attack, give light anti-aircraft defenses an excellent target. Fair warning, and a predictable, steady flight path for a number of seconds well within the range of the guns. Dive bombers work really great if the enemy has no effective fighter defenses and few, if any, automatic AA weapons. Trading dive-bombers for a ship is one thing, trading dive bombers for a crater in a road junction or for a few trucks is another.
 
ctrian said:
The Stuka had precision and armor to take on ground targets.Of course it couldn't outrun a fighter.A specialized aircraft will always outperform a general one in that particular field.
Click to expand...

The Stuka was a blitzkrieg machine. Its was slaughtered by the RAF and relegated to other duties.
Cheers
John
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I can agree with that, but my point was that "conventional" piston engined aircraft had reached or were near reaching their pinnicle.

As with Njaco, however I do have to disagree a bit on the 109. It had evolved into a different machine as well.
Click to expand...

Did it ? The ME109 looked very similar at the end of its career. I'll have a look and see what you mean Chris.
Cheers
John
 

Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.
 
Oh again
Ctrian, buy Jentz' Panzer Truppen Vol 2 and look for ex p. 197, there is Oberst Schanze's report, which shows that Jabos hit Panthers, in fact numerous Panthers of PzBrig 112 12-13 Sept 44.

Juha
 
And "light losses" had different meaning to different people. II./StG 3 lost 31 Ju 87Ds in North Afrika in Nov 42 because of enemy actions, I./StG 1 lost 19 Ju 87Ds in SU in July 43 and 15 in Aug 43 because of enemy actions, for III./StG 1 the figures were 19 and 18 respectively.

Juha
 

Yeah, right! Evidence please? Eg:
"In view of the threat from the air and the bombed roads Bayerlein pointed out the (Panzer Lehr) Division's top speed was 5 mph...."The summer nights in Normandy were short....We had just reached Hill 238 and were bowling along when we saw three fighter-bombers in the dawn sky...in an instant the B.M.W staff car was ablaze....Unless a man has been through these fighter bomber attacks he cannot know what the invasion meant....Ten such attacks in succession are a foretaste of hell"....The battalion suffered its first heavy losses before it had fired a single shot itself. The men in their open personnel carriers were being picked off one by one. German account of fighter-bomber attacks on Panzer Lehr Div.n approaching Normandy June 1944 (Paul Carrell D-Day, pp. 115-117)

Yup those Allied aircraft couldn't hit a darn thing, except the odd unfortunate Panzer Division. 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
The Stannum Liberator
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register