The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
and also we didn't just attack factories, we attacked the links between them, if you have different parts being assembled at different plants before having to be transported for final assembly, it's nice to have something to transport them on, that's a mistake the LW made, but we didn't.........
 
this thread I see is getting way off topic but I will add my own off topicness.........the RAF blasted everything whether a town/city that was industrial or not. The facts remain and are very hard to take to this day.

Pforzheim and Dresden being two ugly examples, the industry had already been broken down and moved elsewhere at the time of the evening attacks and the carnage to civilian life was incredible.

ok I have opened an pandoras box...........sorry
__________________________________________________________

back on topic, best variant : Bf 109G-10

maybe this thread needs to be closed I think it has been exhausted beyond limits

E ~
 
Iwill go for the 109G-10 also but I must admit that I like the clean 109G4...

Udet, I agree that the VVS did take a lot of losses but if you factor the combat sorties with them they are not surprisingly high (comparde to RAF or USAAF). I personnally think the VVS got the edge over the Luftwaffe in mid 1944, not sooner. However they had to fight for a long time on a very high intensity grade (much higher than the intensity over northafrica or western France in 1941,42 or 43, Plan_D), making this theatre extremely important for the allies as well as for the whole european air war.
I do believe that several VVS pilots were well trained in 1941 (because of lessons learned in the spanish civil war) and the beginning of 1942 (additional far eastern reinforcement of airwar experienced VVS-units). From that time on the training degree was considerably low, improving at late 1944 thanks to reduced losses in 1944 and better tactics. I will never go to say that the VVS was kind of a eliteforce (as it is sometimes readable in russian sources, I know), maybe a few pilots, call them Experten are elite but not the whole airforce. I do try to neglect the propaganda of both sides by taking losses and combat sorties only into account.
And again: More sorties=more losses, not that surprising.
This soviet phrase is funny: had he been heard talking that way he would have been shot in seconds (just on of a few myths). -

Okey, the 109K6 would be my second choice: great weaponry! But best? 109K14? How about this?
 
The only reason, in your mind, that the VVS had a harder time than the RAF is because the Luftwaffe was on the offensive in the Soviet Union. The RAF was on the offensive over Europe.

The RAF did more damage to the Luftwaffe than the VVS did for the simple reason that the RAF was bombing the German production facilities. The RAF was also a superior force both defensively and offensively than the VVS.

If the VVS had to strike against the RAF, who would win? The RAF and why? The Spitfire was superior to anything the VVS could field in a dogfight and the VVS had no strategic bombers.

The RAF on the offensive had several heavy bombers with the Mosquito capable of defeating almost anything the VVS had. Especially if it was night raids.

The VVS being a poor force is not a myth, it's a fact.
 
Prioritys varie much if you factor general circumstances, Plan_D.
take the heavy bombers for example:
1.) They are extremely important if you have safe bases to operate from and big targets to hit (cities). However if you add a land bridge to britain I am sure that VVS would crush RAF and Britain. Sure. However, this is as stated a geographical advantage, not a quality one the RAF had and the VVS did not.
2.) The VVS did more damage ( Luftwaffe losses, both crewman wounded and crewman killed and Luftwaffe planes destroyed (if you neglect damage by US air forces)) to Luftwaffe and the whole Whermacht than did the RAF. It is true that the RAF did more damage to Kriegsmariene and to cities. However, it´s wrong to say that the destruction of Airplane factories was so decisive, esspeccially for the RAF nightattack which seldomly hit precisely enough. AlsoSpeers dispersal program prevented a lot of damage, productivity was high during the whole bombing camapign and reduced more because of facilities have been captured by ground troops than destroyed by bombers. I have numbers to proove this.
3.) The VVS would not be able to bring the war to Britain. True (thanks to a geographical advantage), but the RAF would have been defeated by the VVS in central europe with a very high probability (just keep the numbers in mind).
4.) Spitfire and La-7FN and Yak-3U are comparable planes.
I would suggest to shift the discussion to Erichs "Reichsverteidigung" thread in order to bring this thread back on course.
 
the factors you mentioned, whilst valid, do not change the fact however that the RAF held many advantages over the VVS, the onlyt major advantage the VVS had was their numbers, but numbers do not always win, against superior tactics as used by the RAF, and you don't make a big thing of it but without a heavy bomber in widespread service, the VVS would have got nowhere, you can't win a war with fighters and medium bombers, you need heavy stuff, and what was the Russian RADAR system like?? i'm willing to bet it was not up to the standard of the British Chain Holme system...............
 
Although as someone said in a previous topic, the VVS didnt need heavy bombers for what they were doing. They built the right type of planes for the time. They would have needed a major heavy in order to go on some kind of onslaught though, and also more controlled tactics and better pilot training.
 
I agree this is getting off topic however I will add some of my points also 8)

As for the defensive and offensive plan_D I will agree with you by the ways that you put it.

As for the Battle of Britain, I disagree. Had the Eastern Front never happened and the Luftwaffe continued to attack the factories and airfields the RAF never would have been able to last.

The best 109 in my opinion is either the G-6 or the G-10.
 
I think you are wrong, dear Lancaster. Heavy bombers does not ensure winning a war (without a nuke). Indeed the soviets won against Germany without them. (please don´t say that the RAF did all the work for them, it´s obviously false. There are multiple reasons for the succes of the allies, and monocausal explenations doesn´t have high probability) Cheese is right, they crushed the Whermacht with planes useful for them. The main advantage the RAF had over VVS are
1.) generally better high altitude capabilities
2.) technology (radar)
no doubt. You may add the jet technology but this wouldn´t take into effect in a probable timeframe.
The VVS had also advantages:
1.) pure numerical advantage
2.) more fighterpilots (and more capabilities for their training)
3.) factorys and production plants far beyond RAF bomber range (..so what´s here the benefit of the heavy bombers?)
4.) combat prooven tactics for low level ground support/attack sorties
but back to the topic.
 
Delcyros:

To some extent i agree with you.

The points where my thoughts and yours appear to concur are:

(1) Heavy bombers (all by themselves) do not ensure winning a war. RIGHT.

(2) Monocausal explanations do not have a high probability in making a point. RIGHT!

There comes the part of the path when you and me follow different directions though:

The soviets defeated Germany without them (heavy bombers?). That deserves some special treatment.

Not having to build and tool facilities for building heavy bombers to fight an enemy like Germany during WWII is certainly a great advantage when you have a powerful and professional army in your own territory.

Laborforce and raw materials get focused on producing a more narrowed catalog of war items which can be put into massed production. THAT is an advantage.

How many IL-2s could have been made with the raw materials, parts and laborforce used for assembling a B-17?

Undeniable is the fact the consequences of the strategic bombing raids carried out by both RAF and USAAF paid juicy dividends for the soviet side as well.

How many hamburguers could i serve if i have to run the burguer post all by myself? Chop onions, slice tomatoes and lettuce, make the fries, grill the beef, bake the bread, beverages... There would be some real pissed off clients.

What if i focus only on the grill and the bread and have others in charge of preparing lettuce, onions, pickles, fries, etc. and of adding the ingredients to the "pre-built" burguer?


Delcyros if you think i am wrong why dont you just let me know?

From where did you get the information telling the soviets had "more capabilties for training their fighter pilots"?

Have you met VVS veterans? If so what have they told you? I might be interested in knowing the opinions you could have collected for the ones i have the chance of meeting admited -naively if you will- that the training they received for both fighter and ground attack missions was a joke and the ordeals they went through -1944 a year of soviet victories- at the hands of both their own commanders and of the enemy flak batteries.

Several of them could not tell who they hated the worst, the Germans or their own leaders and politicians.
 
yes to say that the fact that the VVS had no heavy bombers and the RAF and USSAF did all their bombing for them was no advantage to the VVS is plain stupid, yes there are many reasons the allies won, heavy strateigic and tactical bombing was one of them...........

and what if the RAF come at night?? what then??

and you mentioned about the VVS being able to train more pilots?? well as udet said, the training was rubbish, and remember, the RAF was training pilots in canada and even australia, where they get lots of training, and what happens to the number of fighter pilots you have when you make the bombing force you'd need to take on the RAF and the potential fighter pilots man the bombers insted..........
 
The 300. Airvictory of Erich Hartmann

Russia -24th August 1944


Erich Hartmann, yet the most succesful pilot of the history scored his 290th victory the day before. The whole squadron is waiting for the historical moment - the 300. kill of Erich Hartmann, the first pilot to achieve this figure.

Just after lunch Oberleutnant Hartmann flew his first mission of the day. The squadron members are waiting in front of the radio.

13.07: Hartmann is reporting for the first time on the radio

13.15: Hartmann has contact with the enemy and is instantly scoring his first kill of the day

13.18: Abschuß ! (victory!). He orders his wingman to move to the opposite side.

13.19: Look out for enemies from above ! Attention ! Abschuß!

13.25: Abschuß !

13.27: Abschuß ! Reprimands his wingman to fly better. Watch above !

Silence

13.40: Abschuß ! Burns near the street. Another pilot: Bombers over O.

13.44: Do you have contact ? Another formation

13.45: Airacobras. Watch above !

13.48: Watch above !

13.57: Land, I will rock my wings six times.

Nearly two hours later, Hartmann is preparing for another mission.

15.44: Question to ground control: Do you have a bogie ? No ? Why are we then airborne ?

15.50: Ground control: Enemies over Sandowiez.

15.51: Watch out ! Airacobras !

16.00: Abschuß !

16.03: Abschuß !

16.06: Watch the rear and above ! Abschuß !

16.10: Abschuß ! (Airacobra/300.)

16.19: Ordering to attack an Pe 2 formation

16.20: Abschuß !

16.37: Hartmann is landing

His victories on that day included 3 Pe-2, 2 Jak fighters and 1 Airacobra

As ever in the case of such occasions he was handed flowers and champagne to celebrate the event. Only that the flowers were picked from the fields nearby and the champagne was warm."Bimmel" Mertens, his mechanic was the first to congratulate him, but soon the whole group followed and the next morning the was far from being in a "ready" condition. But it did not matter as the news came through that he had been awarded the Diamonds.

Bf-109G-6 U/2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
25K
Lighthunmust
L
F
  • Locked
were the tuskegee airmen the most skilled pilots in the war?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
20K
FLYBOYJ
  • Locked
The Battle Of Kursk - the air battle
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
29K
parsifal
J
Romanian Aeronautics in the Second World War 1941-1945
Replies
0
Views
4K
Jjr
J
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
Menu
Log in
Register