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

errr dont have that information, well at least not in an easily presented form. however I do have a tabulated summary of that report I mentioned. You can find this report at the Hyperwar site.. RPB means Rounds per bird

With regard to German AA rounds per kil, I rely primarily on Professor Edward Westermann Flak - German AA Defences according to this book, the Germans were expending an average of 2805 RPB (HAA) and 5354 RPB (LAA) over battlefield targets. the total numbers of kills of allied aircraft exceeds that achieved by the allies, but the efficiency was less. It should not be hard to see that the higher gross totals achieved by the germanbs was because of the greater numbers of allied aircraft, not because of superior German AA efficiency

Anyway here is the table.
 

Attachments

  • AA results table.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 110
Juha said:
Hello Steve
on the other hand some LW aces had high regard on the wing mounted armament, clearly a matter of taste.
Juha
Click to expand...

True,yet some had outer wing armament removed.That's another topic though! The lack of convergence gave a distinct advantage to those P-38 pilots due to the long effective range of their weapons. I concede that this is not so useful for a smaller rifle calibre weapon with an effective range around 300m.
Galland would have been better training his pilots better. An inability to estimate range let alone angle off and speed (enabling a correct estimate of deflection) plagued all air forces. A British analysis of combat films in 1943 showed that on average only half the correct allowance was made with inevitable consequences for the estimated deflection. An inability to correctly estimate range meant that some pilots were opening fire at 1500 yards! No wonder most pilots never hit anything.
Cheers
Steve
 
Hello Crtion
now during the Crete offensive LW fighter bombers (109Es) sunk at least one already dam RN CL and damaged rather significantly BB Warspite, knocked out part of 6" secondary battery on one side and blow away one of her twin 4" AA mount. When one takes into consideration the small number of 109E FBs available, that was a good result. Somebody might be able to tell what F6Fs and F4Us achieved in Pacific.

Gorky was just a one target, KG 55 bombed also several times Saratov (refineries and bearing factory) for ex. Also at least KG 4 also participated to that strategic night offensive against Soviet war industry.

And even USA had to made choices, for ex Navy gave up its demands for the new Boeing flying boat in order to release capacity to the B-29 production. The USAAF's part of the deal was to release some Liberator production to Navy use. In fact you contradict yourself in that claim, just because Allied did not have unlimited production capacity CC suffered for lack of LR a/c and for ex it was not possible to land all troops in one go at Arheim in Sept 44, there was not enough transport planes for that

Juha

Addum: The CL hit off Crete by 109E FBs was HMS Fiji (8500tons, 12x6" main armament). Now it was undamaged but out of/very low with AA ammo after beating off numerous Stuka attacks when attacked and crippled by a lone/ a pair of 109E(s), it was later finished off by 109Es, a Ju 88 or a or a few Ju 87(s). Every source seem to give different details of Fiji's demise apart of the fact that the attack which crippled her was made by (a) 109E(s).
 
Last edited:
Hello Steve
deflection shooting was difficult to vast majority of pilots, that ws Galland point, spread helped to achieve at least some hits. Also some other aces regarded the RAF style armament effective while many others preferred the concentration type armament. And with K14/GM2 sights USAAF and RAF pilots were able to get hits from long distance and from difficult deflection angles late in the war, so wing mounted armament did not make long distance shots impossible, but I agree that for a good shot concentrated armament was preferable.

Juha
 
On V./KG 40 Ju 88 fighters, they were effective against CC LR patrol planes but when CC got Mosquitos Ju 88s were in trouble.

Juha
 




Well I guess I should have also mentioned that the advantage in "single-engined" fighters of a wing only armament was in my opinion not a "huge" advantage just an advantage. I deliberately specified single-engine because the servicing advantage does not apply to fighters such as the P-38. I agree with center line armament having greater pinpoint accuracy at range, but opportunities for long range engagement were rare. A telling point is the Luftwaffe's greatest aces flying an aircraft with usually only center line armament most frequently practiced the "stick your nose in the enemies cockpit" style of attack.

With regard to Galland doing a better job training his pilots; the inherent skills and psychological qualities of the individuals you are training are the limiting factor of training. Studies show that in combat only a small percentage of individuals are cool and deliberate killers. Some individuals will not fire when under or engaged in attack, some will fire but in a random manner, and a small percentage will fire with deliberation and do most of the killing. The more you can depersonalize the act of killing the greater number of individuals who will engage in it. Granted air to air combat is frequently attested to as being impersonal, but still the inherent skills and psychological qualities of the pilots is a factor. Improved fire control equipment making killing more mechanical also is a big factor. Perhaps for the experten like Molders, Galland, and Hartmann, and some amazingly talent Allied Aces a centerline armament offers more advantage than disadvantage. That being said, Richard Bong by his own admission was a terrible shot and was of course using a P-38. While the P-38s guns could be adjusted to create some dispersion, perhaps the inherent dispersion qualities of wing mounted armament aided the many pilots that "flinched" or were just poor shots. Better a few lucky disabling hits than a complete miss of a devastating blow.

Steve

P.S. Apologies for the thread drift if needed.
 

I am guessing that most frequently with these "long range" shots even with centerline armament natural dispersion from range would result in only a few hits that fortunately hit small critical structures or in the case of the Pacific the lightly constructed and poorly armored japanese aircraft.
 
ctrian said:
The P-51 was a light aircraft ?
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can follow this logic. You said,
Then I said,
You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?
Click to expand...
And then you said?
The P-51 was a light aircraft ?
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out where the P-51 came in this line of discussion.

As a point of interest, the P-51 was indeed lighter than the Ta-152 by 1500 lbs. As a matter of fact, the Ta was closer to the weight of a P-47D than it was to the Bf-109K or even the P-51D.

I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.
Click to expand...



Since the Luftwaffe was investing in the Fw-190D-9 (heavier than the P-51D) and the Ta-152, already pointed out, it seems they did not agree with your assessment in late1944-45. I guess you think they were not very bright. Or maybe they knew something you don't.

My opinion is that they realized too late that they needed an aircraft with staying power in fuel and ammo to be most effective against hordes of bombers. The Ta could hover at high altitude above fighter escorts and swoop down rapidly and dispatch a bomber or bombers, and then climb up and repeat. The D-9 could protect the airfields longer. Also, I am sure that they realized that longer endurance reduced the landing and taking off frequency, thus lowering exposure to one of the most dangerous segments of flight, especially during the latter months of the war.

High endurance is a good thing. A couple of the most useless things to a pilot are runway behind you and fuel left on the ground.
 

I'd certainly agree with that,the examples I'm thinking of were operating in the Pacific. One lucky hit could bring down any aircraft,there are a couple of examples of this evidenced by crashed enemy aircraft reports (on Bf109s) from 1940.
Cheers
Steve
 

My thoughts exactly. Regarding the evolution of piston fighters in general, p-51 and Ta152H would push the limits, but the appearance of jet fighters -and the initial air combats of the Korean war- showed the way to the future..
 


Why did you cut out the last part of my answer? Never taught you apples and oranges at school? You're comparing a 1945 fighter with one designed in the 30's.Obviously it had superior performance armament and range how could it be otherwise(it was also heavier and had a much more powerful engine).
The P-51 was the premier allied long range fighter but it was also bigger and heavier than the Bf you see nothing in life is free ( provided technology is comparable)
The Bf also increased it's range in later versions plus it could use drop tanks.

I don't understand the rest of your argument late'44-45 fighters had superior performance compared to older ones and that proves that the Germans wanted a long range fighter comparable to allied ones? Then why did they invest so much on jet fighters whose main advantage was speed?

High endurance is indeed a good thing but ceteris paribus it comes at a cost to other variables ,the Germans and the Brits ( when searching for a long range escort) understood it you don't .
Try to make a more coherent argument next time.
 
both the Spit and Me109 were designed as interceptors rather than escorts or long range fighters?
and both suffered from range issues as a result, to say the me109 had adequate range is contradicted by the complaints of the german pilots over thier inability to loiter over the UK during the BOB, a number of 109's were also lost through running out of fuel over the channel!
and the spitfire had no ability to escort bombers very far into france or undertake longer range fighter sweeps!

both of these aircrtaft were limited by thier range, and to argue that they needed no more is pure folly, you can always short fill a plane with good fuel range, you cannot overfill a plane without it!

and it's the ability of the P51 to do all the same jobs the others could do and fly much further that made it , in my opinion at least, the most accomplished fighter of the war!
 
1 Spitfire v Bf 109
I think both planes were fairly evenly matched and both should perhaps have been replaced sooner. The question is what with. From the British side the Typhoon should have taken over and for a while it did against Jabos. It took the tempests arrival to substantially improve on the Spitfire and then not in all departments. Replacing the Bf109 with something substantally better would have involved a loss of production which Germany could not accept.

2 Central gun mounting obviously has some advantages which have been stated by others. I see some disadvantages also. The armament must be part of the original design, changing it must change the design and weight distribution. The synchronization gear must add some weight and is something else to "go wrong". Putting guns and ammunition around the engine must increase the frontal area. Having all guns on one axis may be preferable against some targets but not all. When straffing a column maybe a spread of fire is better.

3 The Mustang P51 benefitted from 2 major advances. The first was the aerodynamics of the wings and cooling system both inlet and outlet but overall the plane was cleaner. NAA paid huge attention to joints fastenings fitting tolerances etc. The second was in the engine. In 1940 the next generation of engines were being developed to produce 2000 BHP I dont think anyone in 1940 thought the Merlin would ever come close to that but it did with the added advantage of a low frontal area.

4 The Mustang wasnt an offensive fighter capable of taking the fight to Berlin. The offense came from the bombers it protected. It couldnt bomb Berlin from the UK, only a fool would suggest staffing the rooftops with 4 or 6 MGs was a good use of a plane and pilot. With extra internal tanks and drop tanks it had a prodigeous range but it had to ensure the rear tank was almost empty before combat and drop the tanks before engaging. The range therefore depends on the opposition as much as the plane itself. If the LW had the planes to fight the bomber formation from when it was first detected to when it left German airspace the results would have been much different. Thankfully they didnt, by the time the the P51D arrived in numbers Germany was also having to fight in Normandy and the east, and had already suffered heavy losses against P47s P38s. Some say that the P51D stole the glory of other marques that did the hard yards which is a bit unfair but they have a point. The chief advantage of the P51D is it looks so damned good even today and it performed as good as it looks. Would it be the same icon if it looked like a Blackburn Skua?

In hindsight which is what all of us use it is obvious what qualities of the P51 were especially with a Merlin engine but it wasnt obvious in 1941 when it first flew, the P41 didnt have a real impact until 1944 it could/should have been appearing in huge numbers from 1942.
 

You have been already told the reason. Why you ignore like you do not know?

You repeat that story of " specialist torpedo force". Please give mission particulars. Base of bombers, their target, distance to target. Nearest LW fighter base. We see then if true - reason was lack range.
But I am starting not believe you. You told reason, you ignore reason, say same. I do not like arguing like this. No respect to other - why you ask question, if you do not care of answer..? It took me time find you the reason.
 

The absence of range was one major flaw of the BF 109 at the defending of the Reich. With the Bf 109 you can't concentrate a huge mass of fighter to built a focal point to achieve air supermarcy at the time you attack. That was a major flaw of the Bf 109 besides other.
I disagree that the loss of production is the major factor, the real reason was the slumber of the engine development from 1937 to 1941.
1943 was the realy first production year of the Jumo 213 and DB 603. And at this year you see the first prototypes of the FW 190D and Tank 152. That was much too late because there was no proper engine befor this timeline.

Perhaps a FW 187 could achieve other performances with a DB 605, but I don't want to rise this issue again, it is only an advice.
 
Last edited:

Thanks Donl, there were of course many sides to the issue. Many have posted that the Bf 109 was an interceptor, I thought it was designed as an air superiority fighter to be used supporting Ju 87 and He111 planes on tactical missions ahead of advancing troops. I may be wrong though.
 

First, let me a say a good post. The I will add few comments.

As you say the early planes were fairly evenly matched. There were a few differences that impacted later development (or potential development) that might not have been planned. Both planes were designed to use what , in a few years, would be considered rather small airfields. The Spitfire used a big wing the 109 used a high lift device on a small wing. The Spitfire was designed to use 8 rifle caliber machine guns which could only be mounted in the wing which also helped govern it's size. The 109 was designed to mount either two rifle caliber machine guns (RCMG) OR a cannon through the propeller or perhaps both. The Spitfire was a bit larger from the start, a bit of a penalty if both planes had equal power. Which they almost never did have. who's engine had more power and at what altitude swapped back and forth a number of times. I will get back to this.

Most designs stuck with 2 or 3 guns in the fuselage for very good reasons. Guns were almost never put "around" an engine but but behind it with blast tubes extending from the muzzles of the guns to the exit point of a particular aircraft design. For all the hoopla about the frontal area of a V-12 the defining dimension of the height of a fighter fuselage was the pilot. This meant you could get two guns, either over an engine or under it(never really happened) without much trouble and a 3rd through the propshaft with a lot of trouble. Any more guns than that and frontal area would go up and ammo storage was going to be a problem. 2000-2400 rounds of rifle caliber ammo takes up a fair amount of space. The Germans did manage 2000rounds for the 109Es without and engine cannon but may have been a tad excessive for two guns. Ammo has to be at least close to the center of gravity or large trim changes come into play as ammo is used up.
This means that the armament options start to become self-defining. You can't put 6-8 RCMGs in the fuselage, or 4-6 HMGs. But if you want a heavy weight of fire you need at least one big gun (cannon) and preferably two HMGs for the central mount battery. This also means you need both engines and guns suitable for such use available at the same time. Considering it can take 4-6 years to bring either a new engine or a new gun from drawing board to service use it should be obvious that many times the desired combination did not always happen at at given point in time. As heavier batteries of guns became desirable and suitable guns were not available within the 3 gun 'limit' some countries tried 5 guns ( 3 fuselage and one in/under each wing), Russia and Italy in addition to Germany. With greater or lesser success. once 50% of the batter is out in the wings ( counting a cannon as twice a HMG) is the 5 gun fighter really that much more effective than a 4 cannon fighter with 2 in each wing?

Agree

Some good points there, except for the Skua

Not really, large scale production of the two stage Merlin simply didn't start until 1943, in either the US or England.
 
@ Mustang nut

You are totally right that the Bf 109 was designed as as an air superiority fighter.

The flaw of range comes direct from the design philosophy of Willy Messerschmidt, because he believes in small and "fragile" fighters like the Spit and the Bf 109.
As he saw a P 47 for the first time, he was saying this plane is crap and looks like a "fliegendes Scheunentor"/ "flying barn door" and can't be a good fighter.

Sometimes reality can be very hard.
 
Last edited:

I disagree. Sorry. Range is coming from order from Air Ministry. Ministry specify what data should new fighter fullfill. If only short or medium range is presribed, fighter will designed for short or medium range. If long range presribed, fighter will designed with long range. Simple.

P-47 bad example. Very bad. P-47 - same role as Spitfire, 109. Interceptor. Range no better than 1939 Spitfire or 109. Later improved, but only by putting extreme amounts of fuel. Still not very long range for task.. Very stupid plane IMHO. But it is not fault of designer... designer was told to design such plane.. it is fault of planner. Why would US need interceptor - like if there were serious bomber threat to US...? In 1939..? No bomber had range.. until post war.
 
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