Worst aircraft of WW2?

[FLYBOYJ]

That the F-190D series could only "hope" to match the P-51 ??. What is so great or outstanding about the P-51. It looks good – fantastic range, okay – so what else ? Do you have any statistics about F-190D's on P-51 kills or wise versa that makes you so sure to put up that statement?

The P-51 wasn't the best performer by any means. What made it great it was easily produced, competitive enough to combat the competition and was easy enough to fly that is made a mediocre pilot a good pilot and the end results were the final evidence of this.

 

[Wespe]

Hi Civettone,

let's hear what an expert had to say:

"Wolfgang Späte, ein guter Freund, flog die Me 163. Ich hörte, das Problem war, dass das Ding explodierte, wenn beide Treibstoffe zusammenkamen. Deswegen hatten sie hohe Verluste. Es konnte nur als, wie wir es nannten "Objektjäger" gebraucht werden. Sie konnten es erst aufsteigen lassen, wenn sie die Bomber bereits gesichtet hatten, und dann flog sie sehr schnell hoch. Die Haupttaktik, soweit sie mir bekannt ist, bestand darin, von oben anzugreifen, ohne Treibstoff, wenn möglich. Ich kenne keinen, der sie gerne geflogen hat, da sie ein verdammt gefährliches Ding zum Fliegen war. Ich würde sagen, es war eine verrückte Idee - das ist meine Meinung. Wenn du einen Jäger hast und zuerst den Treibstoff verbrauchen musst, dann angreifen und dann eine Segelfluglandung absolvieren musst, das scheint mir nicht besonders sinnvoll"
Luftwaffengeneral Walter Krupinski

Translation:
Wolfgang Spaete a good friend, flew the Me 163. I heard the problem was, that this Thing exploded if both propellants joint. That's why they had high losses. It could only just as we called it be used as a object interceptor. They could only go up once they had already sighted the bombers and then they flew up very fast. The main tactic as known to me was to attack from above if possible without the liquid propellant. I don't know anybody who liked to fly them, since they were a dam dangerous thing to fly. I would say it was a crazy idea – that is my opinion. If you have a fighter and you have to use up the propellant first, then attack and then to absolve a glider landing, then this doesn't make much sense to me.
Air force General Walter Krupinski

Interesting is also that he refers to the Me-163 as a "thing"

Below are two photos; 1st photo was taken 20 min before the 2nd photo. And in the right background of the 2nd photo you can see what the Lw really needed: Fw-190D-12 or Ta-152 - the best props of WWII.

 

[Civettone]

Wespe, that's a pretty good translation.
I am not calling Späte a liar but there are certain things which are simply not true. His main claim is that they had hohe Verluste but the I/JG 400 received more than a 100 aircraft in 1944. Do you know how many were lost to non-combat? 11! And 6 due to enemy action. It's all BS... and I'm fed up with it!

It looks good – fantastic range, okay – so what else ? Do you have any statistics about F-190D's on P-51 kills or wise versa that makes you so sure to put up that statement?

The Fw 190D wasn't better than the P-51D. You'll find dozens of discussions on the net which of the two was the best. But that in itself proves that both were rather close to each other performance wise.
I know the Dora quite well and think she was a great fighter. But based on official data I have to conclude that the P-51D still had the edge because it was faster, especially because the Dora still lacked the MW 50 system during 1944.

was easy enough to fly that is made a mediocre pilot a good pilot and the end results were the final evidence of this.

The problem was that the American pilots were the best trained and most confident pilots, and combined with the Mustang a far superior adversary to the average Luftwaffe pilot of 1944.

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

At what alltitudes are you talking about. There is more to the equation. Because the max speed obtained by a Fw-190D was 704kmh and the max speed obtained by a P-51D was 703kmh. That is fairly even rathre than the P-51 being faster.

The reason I ask is because at certain alltitudes I am sure the P-51 is faster and at certain alltitudes I am sure the Dora is faster.

There is more to what makes a great fighter than speed and numbers my friend.

 

[Wespe]

Hi Civettone

Well if you think the 163 would have brought any advantage to the Lw, I think you would still be wrong. Let's face it the Me163 was just a "desperate" solution like Natter and Co.
Regarding Fw better then P51 and all these competitive discussions, I think they lead nowhere since it is still the pilot that makes the difference. And taking some off Germanys best pilots, put them in a Bf 109K and let them compete against a P51 flown by Americas best, would certainly still have ended in favor to the German pilots.
The Fw 190D-12 which my uncle flew had as you surly know a MW 50 charger and he didn't have a problem to outrun or out fly a P51 or whatever. It comes back to what you pointed out very correctly, the inexperienced Lw pilots from 43 onward.
Quote my uncle; it was ridiculous to put those young pilots into the cockpits with a mere 2-6 hours flying experience. More of them crashed there planes whilst starting then flying. And there was no chance for a non experienced pilot to survive in face of being additionally outnumbered no matter how good the plane was. It was a crime what they did to those young pilots. It took experienced pilots 2-3 engagements to figure out practically (not based on the theory in Flying school) on how to keep the nerves and flight maneuver under control in order to attack a B-17 effectively. And those especially young pilots already got shot down during their fist combat or lost there nerves (understandably) shocked and shaking when they made it back to base. I had 3 years flying experience before the war broke out including the glider experience from the Flieger HJ. And in 44 those young fellows where put into High tec planes such as the Fw and Me 262's which they could barley bring of the ground. Hitler and his gang never took into account that this war would go on for so long and therefore never paid attention to the flying schools and senior pilots who where demanding a drastic change in pilot recruitment and training procedures. Many times it was also proposed in 43 to rather retrain existing bomber and Zerstoerer pilots into fighter pilots allowing the new pilots to receive a proper basic training. We would have lost the war anyway but at least the lives of many young pilots would not have been wasted for nothing.
Quote my uncle: In the middle of 44 most German planes where shot down by the Americans whilst trying to land, start or being already damaged trailing smoke and being hunted down by 5-6 American planes. There was no honor amongst those cowboys; they just loved to shoot at anything that moved including civilians on the road. It was not comparable to the engagements we had with the English or French earlier, where most engagements were based on one to one and sometimes no shots where exchanged but pilots just flew and even waved at each other. It was just like this Assho…… Goebels proclaimed – total war, for which the Lw was not in a position to do.

Well so much for citing a veteran, so which was the worst plane in WW2?, how about the Gloster Meteor after 4 years of development – fast as a prop, not better then a Mossy and I think didn't shoot down a thing (besides some V1's), only the Meteor F.4 in 1947 (thanks to all the German know-how) managed to close in on the performance of the Me-262. And 6 years later in Korea it lost just as many in air combat as it shoot down (6).

Wespe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

so which was the worst plane in WW2?

The Breda 88....

 

[Civettone]

Wespe, what is your uncle's name. He's spot on! It was ludicrous that the high brass wanted to put pilots in the air before properly trained.
But there's definitely a flaw in your own reasoning: if you only put the best pilots in the best aircraft, it will lead to nothing. Remember JV 44? And enough of these Experten were shot down, so your claim that they will be victorious against American pilots is simply wrong. Don't think the German pilots like your uncle were superhuman, they were damn good pilots, but all sides had men like these!

The reason I ask is because at certain alltitudes I am sure the P-51 is faster and at certain alltitudes I am sure the Dora is faster.

I don't think so Adler, 704 kmh? Perhaps you're talking about the D-12? The D-9 had a max speed of around 685 km/h, and that's with MW 50.
Even with MW 50 the Fw 190D-9 was not faster than the P-51D, at any altitude!

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

There is more to what makes a great fighter than speed and numbers my friend

You want to talk about that too? Like I said, there are more than enough discussions on the net about which was the best, but the only conclusion is that there is not enough difference between them to say that one is definitely better than the other. In any case, the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D. But the Mustang was there in great numbers and flown by the best trained pilots in the world. So that's why I'm saying the Fw 190D wasn't the solution. And because the Bf 109K was at least as good as the Dora but easier to produce, I don't see any reason for the Dora. But that last bit is just my opinion. My main point was to prove that the "Dora could only hope to match the P-51D".

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wespe, what is your uncle's name. He's spot on! It was ludicrous that the high brass wanted to put pilots in the air before properly trained.
But there's definitely a flaw in your own reasoning: if you only put the best pilots in the best aircraft, it will lead to nothing. Remember JV 44? And enough of these Experten were shot down, so your claim that they will be victorious against American pilots is simply wrong. Don't think the German pilots like your uncle were superhuman, they were damn good pilots, but all sides had men like these!

He is doing what Lanc does and let national pride get in the way.

I don't think so Adler, 704 kmh? Perhaps you're talking about the D-12? The D-9 had a max speed of around 685 km/h, and that's with MW 50.
Even with MW 50 the Fw 190D-9 was not faster than the P-51D, at any altitude!

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

I am going to have to look more into that and look at that site you just posted more later because I have never heard of a D-9 flying only 685kmh in optimum conditions. However I am willing to look it up some more, and be proven wrong it is so. We are all here to further our knowledge.

Eitherway the P-51 could not fly 703kmh at every altitude. 703kmh was at its optimum altitude. The P-51 did not fly at its optimum altitude most of the time, because Combat never happens in favorable conditions all the time...

...I know this first hand...

You want to talk about that too? Like I said, there are more than enough discussions on the net about which was the best, but the only conclusion is that there is not enough difference between them to say that one is definitely better than the other. In any case, the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D. But the Mustang was there in great numbers and flown by the best trained pilots in the world. So that's why I'm saying the Fw 190D wasn't the solution. And because the Bf 109K was at least as good as the Dora but easier to produce, I don't see any reason for the Dora. But that last bit is just my opinion. My main point was to prove that the "Dora could only hope to match the P-51D".

Kris

The Dora was never meant to be the "solution". It was only a stop gap until the Ta-152 came on board.

 

[Gimmeacannon!]

Worst aircraft? Manchester.

 

[Gimmeacannon!]

The best fighter is the one with best manauverability, take the Falklands for instance where supersonic Mirage were useless because of lack of the abilty to manauvre effectively and were shot full of holes by the subsonic Harrier.
The Harrier has the ability to manauvre unlike any other aircraft and can even fly backwards, I would put a Mustang up against a Pitts Special anyday to see who would servive and I know which one my money would be on because you have to keep the enemy aircraft in your sights to shoot it down.

 

[Civettone]

Gimmeacannon, if manoevrability is the most important, how come the countries with the most manoeuvrable fighters got beaten by countries with power fighters: Japan, Russia and Italy.

I think what you say was true in WW1 but was outdated in WW2. I think the outcome of the air battles near the Falklands was more a matter of superior training, tactics and electronics. It's also my understanding that the Argentinian AF didn't engage the Harriers but focused on attacking the ships and that most Neshers didn't carry the AA missiles to save fuel. But this is getting off-topic... I'm sure there has been a dedicated topic to the Falkland campaign in the appropriate sub-forum.
Kris

 

[Wespe]

Hi Civettone,

Come on don't put words in my mouth and spread and change in all direction for arguments. It was you who initially stated the Fw D could only "hope" to match the P-51.
Therefore I stated that the FwD's didn't need to "hope" because they were actually a match to the P-51.
Then you bring up this "super trained US pilots" against helpless Lw kids.
Even it was so, it doesn't give any indication on those two planes matching each other or not.
So as an example, I forwarded that if you take an experienced (5 years lw pilot) against an super trained US pilot to combat in a Me-109F against a P-51 that most certainly the lw pilot would have won.
This has nothing to do with national pride or JV 44. Since not all the JV 44 pilots where experts or veterans your assertion also limps. And where most of the shot down Me-262 downed in Air combat? Or whilst trying to land, or with only one turbine running? Or being hit by defensive bomber fire?
It took highly qualified pilots to handle the Me-262, that is the reason why Galland collected the experienced (experten) around him, that these experts partially possessed high kill scores is obvious, but it doesn't indicate that these pilots automatically are "immortal", "superhuman" or invulnerable to combat.
Since the Me-262 and the FwD's where not operational in numbers at 43 which they could have been, we will have to stick to the historic facts, which are, that the US industry out weight the German by far and that in 43 onwards the US pilots where well trained and in total superior numbers. But again this gives no indication about the FwD's not being able to match any allied plane.

In the meantime you changed your "hope" to "the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D" which I never forwarded or claimed in our discussion.

So I will still stick to my opinion that the FwD certainly was capable of matching and taking on the fight with a P-51 or any other allied plane.

Wespe

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree though. The Fw-190D was a match for anything that was in the sky. Was it the end all aircraft and solution to the Luftwaffes problems. Absolutly not though.

 

[Civettone]

Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth?

I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51.
I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem.
So that's why I said that the Fw 190D could only hope to match the P-51, as it is not superior. You can say it matched the P-51 but it's my opinion that it didn't even manage to do that. This is partly because it doesn't have an answer to the main weapon of the Mustang: speed! I provided a link that shows that the Dora was too slow. Only in 1945 with MW 50 enabled overboosting could the Dora get to a speed of 685 kmh at an altitude at which the Mustang was still faster. So the Dora can not run from the Mustang, which is a huge disadvantage.

So then you can start talking about the D-12 or D-13, D-14 or D-15 for all I care, that only appeared in 1945. At that time the Americans were producing the P-47N and P-51H. And they also had the even faster P-47M and P-51F/G available at the end of 1944, but decided there was no need to interrupt production for them because there was no need for better fighters.

Then, you can start discussing how Luftwaffe veterans with 5 years experience are better than the best trained USAAF pilots. I agree with that, though I don't know what that's worth. Better to have a steady flow of well trained pilots than a bunch of Experten who were getting killed one by one...

But back to my main point, you don't need a Fw 190D that can "handle" a P-51D. The Dora appeared a year later than the P-51D. Dann brauchst du keine Zwischenlöschung mehr. Even the Ta 152 wouldn't have been made a difference in 1945, only jet fighters were able to clearly outmatch the P-51H, Spitfire F.21, Tempest II, Fury, Spiteful, ... and then there are the P-80, Vampire, ...

Or am I missing something about the Dora??
Kris

 

[Wespe]

Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth?

I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51.
I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem.
So that's why I said that the Fw 190D could only hope to match the P-51, as it is not superior. You can say it matched the P-51 but it's my opinion that it didn't even manage to do that. This is partly because it doesn't have an answer to the main weapon of the Mustang: speed! I provided a link that shows that the Dora was too slow. Only in 1945 with MW 50 enabled overboosting could the Dora get to a speed of 685 kmh at an altitude at which the Mustang was still faster. So the Dora can not run from the Mustang, which is a huge disadvantage.

So then you can start talking about the D-12 or D-13, D-14 or D-15 for all I care, that only appeared in 1945. At that time the Americans were producing the P-47N and P-51H. And they also had the even faster P-47M and P-51F/G available at the end of 1944, but decided there was no need to interrupt production for them because there was no need for better fighters.

Then, you can start discussing how Luftwaffe veterans with 5 years experience are better than the best trained USAAF pilots. I agree with that, though I don't know what that's worth. Better to have a steady flow of well trained pilots than a bunch of Experten who were getting killed one by one...

But back to my main point, you don't need a Fw 190D that can "handle" a P-51D. The Dora appeared a year later than the P-51D. Dann brauchst du keine Zwischenlöschung mehr. Even the Ta 152 wouldn't have been made a difference in 1945, only jet fighters were able to clearly outmatch the P-51H, Spitfire F.21, Tempest II, Fury, Spiteful, ... and then there are the P-80, Vampire, ...

Or am I missing something about the Dora??
Kris

The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
9 mm Parabellum or what ?
And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine

Wespe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
9 mm Parabellum or what ?
And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine

Wespe

There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.

 

[Wespe]

There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.

Yes, absolutly correct,

and I never stated anything else in contra.

 

[Civettone]

An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.

It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly. I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.

And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.

It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly.

Not for a well trained pilot and Germany had thousands of those at the beginning of the war.

I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.

Again, see the above The Geman and Finn account of flying the aircraft come from guys with ample training under their belts.

And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
Kris

It might of been - I could tell you from experience it is very unnerving taxing , taking off or landing an aircraft where you can't see over the nose

 

[Civettone]

So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right?

Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?

Kris