109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)

[Nomak]

I do of course respect your opinion on the matter.  

I strongly disagree........however if we all shared the same views what fun would the BB be anyway

I had alot of fun with this thread.

Dave

[GScholz]

Well, I just took a 109G10 and shot down 3 P-51’s 2 P-47’s and 2 B-17’s. It cost me 600 liters of gas, 47 30mm shells, and a few liters of oil (last B-17 pinged me). Landed 7 kills on my first sortie this tour. Against the first 3 Ponies and single Jug I initially had a buddy, but he crashed with a Ki61 so I was 1:4, but the superior climb rate of my 109 let me keep on top of the fight and knock them down one by one. After that 5 min battle I was getting close to bingo fuel and left, however I found a lone P-47 and a B-17 buff on the way home. Killed the Jug on the first pass, and killed two B-17's in two passes, but in the second one he pinged my engine oil and I saluted the survivor and left for home. Wish I had filmed it, it felt so good.

[gripen]

Hm... I'm pretty sure that the Germans would have been a lot happier with a bit larger airframe than the Bf 109. With a drop tank (typical for intercepting missions as Rall noted) and wing cannons (also quite typical) the Bf 109 was not so well performing plane. We also know that the Mustang airframe could carry four cannons and fuel for 3 hr mission in clean condition (about same as the Bf 109 with drop tank) and while still maintaining very good performance. BTW, the K-4 and the G-10 were more or less rarities (only several hunred reached service), the G-6 and the G-14 were the planes used in large numbers. IMHO the Bf 109 airframe could not combine required range and armament. In the terms of raw performance it still keep up with the competion pretty well.

gripen

[GScholz]

You mean like the 190D9 and Ta152?

The 109 was not designed, and never intended for anything other than short range intercepts. Much like the Spitfire in that regard, and both excelled in that capacity. The 110 was intended as the LW’s long range escort fighter, but was disappointing in that role.

The 109 is perfect as it is … leave it alone.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by gripen
BTW, the K-4 and the G-10 were more or less rarities (only several hunred reached service)

Uhhm no.  There were about 2600 G10 built in all. As for K4 there were 534 delivered by November 44 and at least 1200 more were built by the end of the war.

2600 G10
1700 K4

4300 in total...

Not a small number at all....

[Angus]

Comparing climb rates of the P51 and the 109 is a wee bit like apples and oranges.
109 climbs quicker to altitude. But the rugged 51, made for long distance flights is a good bit heavier, and heavier also for each hp.
It would be interesting to know how well a weighted-down, boosted up mustang could climb. Maybe time to bring the P51H into the discussion?
I did a climb comparison between the Spitfire MkI and the 109E, which are more similar planes regarding weight and power. Turned out that when the Spitfire finally had a decent airscrew, it outperformed the 109. Carry that to Newtons to alt per sec, and the difference was in the Spits favour, - both the airframe as a whole, or performance in NM pr hp.
Would perhaps be fun to compare the 51 to the 109 on that basis, but for that I may need more data, particularly on later models of 109.

[gripen]

GSholz,
I'd say that the Bf 109 was a good close support fighter (like it was used in east) but for high altitude intercepting it had too little internal fuel load. The Spitfire carried fuel for about 2 hr clean and could take four cannons. The Bf 109 was simply too small airframe for that mission.

Grunherz,
OK, I have no source books here.

gripen

[hogenbor]

Gscholz, your are too good in that G-10. Have been flying it for a tour (and died a lot). Best I ever got was a 6-kill sortie with two refuels. All fighters though and on 'seeking out' mission not lame defending. Was Fester's map though so a base is never far away there.

I love the challenge this plane offers and a fighter vs. fighter kills still feel like I've accomplished something, much different from the 'point and shoot' experience of the SeaFire (my main carrier plane for the last tour).

Back to the G-10/P-51 argument, I think it is a close match and pilot skill will be the deciding factor. If the P-51 bleeds to much speed, he is dead. If the G-10 allows the P-51 to gain angles, it is dead. The longer and lower the fight, the more the G-10 has the edge. Can finally say that I've flown both planes a lot and had many G-10/P-51 fights.  Which one would I choose? P-51 I guess, for the only reason it has .50's

One last remark: A while ago I wondered how anyone could have a 14% hit ratio in a 109... (like Gscholz had at the time). Now I've persevered with them for one tour I have already reached 13.5% and suddenly shooting with anything else is immensely easy. Only wish I could do deflection shots with that spud gun as good as Fester.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not a small number at all....

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305

That total includes the fighters of Kurt Tank(A-8, A-9, D-9).

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

I can't believe this is even an arguement.

Why are the numbers so heavily in favor of the 109K when this was not the case.

Here are a couple of facts to kick around.

1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.

2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.

3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.

4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads.

 

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305

That total includes the fighters of Kurt Tank(A-8, A-9, D-9).

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

Numbers can be a bit decieving can't they?

Paper strength vs operational in April 45 was a bit different I'd suggest.  How many planes did the Luftwaffe get airborne on that last big attempt to stop the Allied Air Forces on April 7, 1945 when the "Schuleungslehrang 'Elbe"" crowd went up to try and ram American bombers?  That crowd launched 120 of which 60 didn't make it to the bombers, upwards of 40 were killed with only 27 made it back to base after making contact with the bombers and fighter escorts.

The 8th AF contribution on that mission was over 2000 planes.  If you include all Allied sorties flown against the Germans that day the totals nearly 5000 sorties.

The day with the most 262 sorties was April 10 with 55 262s able to get into action resulting in the loss of 29 of those fighters with 6 pilots KIA,  5 WIA and 14 MIA.

Having servicable fighters parked all over Germany with little fuei and poorly trained pilots does not make it an effective fighting force at that large number, wheras those 5000 sorties flown by the Allies at that point were well maintained aircraft flown by well trained aircrew.

Go back to January 45 and Operation Bodenplatte.  How many Luftwaffe fighters involved?  A bit over 900.  Of course they lost 271 planes and 213 irreplaceable pilots while despite the setback, the Allies were easily able to replenish the aircraft destroyed and had more then enough pilots in the pipeline.

And keep in mind when using order of battle numbers that the Luftwaffe going back to the summer of 44 were unable to mount attacks of any significance against the Allied bombers on many occasions.  Galland had to martial his strength to try and make a stand which lead to very little resistance in September and October 44.  The Luftwaffe then managed to get 300 fighters into the air on November 2, 1944.

It's kinda like arguing whether the 109 or the 51 was the better aircraft.  You can find numbers and opinions to support both but in the end it's irrelevant beyond the final outcome

Dan/Slack

[MiloMorai]

Guppy, the OoB was posted in response to Grunherz'z post of 4300 in total(G-10, K-4) produced.

Why you typed so much, I don't understand.

operational = servicable, not 'on hand' or paper strength.

[GODO]

Thanks for that excelent link MiloMorai.
It seems 190A9 served in small numbers in a lot of units, probably totalizing more than 100 serviceable aircrafts between Nov and Dec 45.

[gripen]

Thanks for the link MiloMorai,
It's a pity that most units did not list Bf 109 version they had. Probably most of them were G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, possibly there were also some G-6s left too.

gripen

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by gripen
Thanks for the link MiloMorai,
It's a pity that most units did not list Bf 109 version they had. Probably most of them were G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, possibly there were also some G-6s left too.

gripen

Glad you and GODO liked the link. Here is a some more for you:

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/index.html

http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/feb45.html

change the month and year for more info

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/

http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Tactics.htm