Author Topic: The enigma of the Bf-109 (Read 10290 times)

humble · « **Reply #195 on:** February 22, 2005, 10:39:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
Milo, you did dig pretty much hidden agenda out of that "'tool' not being utilized" comment. Considering the success the 109 had in hands of capable and less capable pilots and strategic situation where that "inferior tool" was utilized until 1945 I tend to disagree with you.

"charge, Germany and the LW might be your love but please open your mind."

Now that is a bit too thick. I don't like BS may it come LW or RAF/USAF luvers.

I love WW2 aviation and like to have it without too much cream, ty.

edit: Pretty far fetched, Angus. What is your point?
-C+

I've provided both 3rd party opinion and some measure of data on everything I've said. Again you yet to provide anything meaningful. Please document any "success" you see the 109 as having. It's funny, but gameplay in AH actually creates a great lab enviornment. Yes a gifted pilot can "cherrypick" a kill or two (hartmanns style)...but he's not going to stop the "mission". Bottom line is simple....the British stopped the luftwaffe cold at BoB. THe Russians stopped them Cold at Kuban. The 109 led luftwaffe never stopped any allied air offensive on any front.

Crumpp · « **Reply #196 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:48:28 PM »

In the Bf-109G6 manual Milo posted it lists the turning times at various altitudes. You might find it interesting.

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/bf109g-6.html

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #197 on:** February 22, 2005, 02:25:59 PM »

Emm, not so good at Russian Crumpp, so could you perhaps provide a more accurate link.?

Charge · « **Reply #198 on:** February 22, 2005, 02:31:55 PM »

Angus, I mean this: "So there is not exactly bombing and stafing anything, and no territory bombing is possible."

Do you think (or know) that the Brits did or didn't strafe or bomb anything in lowlands or France (ie. "Ramrod" mission)? I'm pretty sure they did and unfortunately in the process caused casualties to locals too. But thats unavoidable. They were there to bomb something to force the fighters to take action and I believe they did.

Humble, that is once again one view to that matter. Eg. F4 was a remarkable a/c for its time and a true multirole fighter. Top Gun was there to teach navy pilots how to use best their weapon after that disastrous beginning: Not to turnfight MiGs but to use wingman tactics and the better speed the F4 had. The "engagement rule" was later effective to negate the BWR ability of F4, not that the Sparrow was very effective, but nevertheless it was a further handicap. Leading edge slats were also introduced to aid turning ability and later export models were all equipped with them. So it was a constantly developing airframe just as the 109 was and I think it did serve quite long in US and abroad just as the 109 did.

-C+

HoHun · « **Reply #199 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:11:41 PM »

Hi Charge,

>During BoB:

Don't fall for the trolling technique of distraction.

The outcome of the Battle of Britain has nothing to do with the qualities of the Me 109 as a fighter compared to its contemporaries.

If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #200 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:23:43 PM »

Hi Nashwan,

>The Luftwaffe had already lost the BoB by the time they switched their daylight attack to cities.

Good post!

I'd like to add that in my opinion the attacks on cities actually were no change in the Luftwaffe strategy, but actually the implementation of the German plan to force Britain to sue for peace by the application of air power coupled with the threat of a seaborne invasion - which was a bluff.

It was not the tactical blunder it's usually portrayed as. I'd rather see the Battle of Britain as a fully-fledged strategic air war conducted with insufficient resources against a well-prepared enemy.

As you already point out, I agree that it was attrition that decided the Battle in favour of the RAF.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Naudet · « **Reply #201 on:** February 22, 2005, 04:08:49 PM »

Quote

I'd rather see the Battle of Britain as a fully-fledged strategic air war

That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.

If you consider how "inefficient" the strategic campaign of the 8.USAAF and the RAF Bomber command was, beside the fact that these airforces were build up for a strategic airwar, who wonders that the LW had to fail in the BoB.

humble · « **Reply #202 on:** February 22, 2005, 04:11:41 PM »

If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same

I couldnt disagree more, had the germans had spitfires and the british 109's the germans would have fared much much better (IMO)....

The reasoning is as follows, the germans were tied to the bombers to a high degree. This totally negated the advantages the plane had (primarily a hit & run style of plane). Since the defender always has the ability to pick the time of attack the british would have had no greater initial advantage but would have been less successful in prosocuting multiple attacks...as it was the germans were forced into a style of fight that didnt suit their equipment or tactics. Meanwhile the british were able to "mix it up" in the bomber stream. Since the spitfire retains E very well it's lower performance #'s were not an issue once the fights turned into a melee.

HoHun · « **Reply #203 on:** February 22, 2005, 05:04:36 PM »

Hi Naudet,

>That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.

Old myth. The Luftwaffe was centered on strategic warfare and had absolutely neglected tactical warfare.

Galland wrote the book on tactical warfare based on his Spanish Civil War experience just before the outbreak of WW2.

Good source on Luftwaffe doctrine: "Spearhead for Blitzkrieg" by ex-Luftwaffe General Deichmann, edited by Alfred Price. Cheap too, pick one up :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Charge · « **Reply #204 on:** February 22, 2005, 05:14:51 PM »

Well, if I'd run into enemy over his territory and we both had planes with identical performance I wouldn't "mix it up" but make one pass and bug out if things seemed to go bad, not to stay and figure it out whether or not he is better than me...

-C+

Crumpp · « **Reply #205 on:** February 22, 2005, 06:04:14 PM »

Quote

Emm, not so good at Russian Crumpp, so could you perhaps provide a more accurate link.?

Click on the blue Cyrillic writing with the "Bf-109G6" written in it Angus. It will download a .pdf file that contains the a translated version of the Finnish Pilots Operating Handbook.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #206 on:** February 22, 2005, 06:18:11 PM »

Quote

Since the spitfire retains E very well it's lower performance #'s were not an issue once the fights turned into a mele

Says who the Spitfire retains E very well? I think you are confusing energy retention with a lower sustained turn threshold.

The Spitfires Energy retention was unremarkable and rather poor in the vertical.

1. It was not a low parasitic drag design.
2. It was lightweight and lower on inertia. So it required a lot lower braking forces to stop its momentum.
3. It's induced drag efficiency was far from optimal and the differences in it and it's contemporary adversaries are miniscule at best.

Honestly do some calculations on the Spitfire. It was angle fighter pure and simple. There is a very good reason Merlin Powered Spitfire pilots did not fight their aircraft in the vertical.

That is NOT to say it was not a good fighter. Its strengths just did not lie in the vertical fight.

All the best,

Crumpp

humble · « **Reply #207 on:** February 22, 2005, 07:29:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
Well, if I'd run into enemy over his territory and we both had planes with identical performance I wouldn't "mix it up" but make one pass and bug out if things seemed to go bad, not to stay and figure it out whether or not he is better than me...

-C+

Which is why they lost...

humble · « **Reply #208 on:** February 22, 2005, 07:35:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Naudet
That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.

If you consider how "inefficient" the strategic campaign of the 8.USAAF and the RAF Bomber command was, beside the fact that these airforces were build up for a strategic airwar, who wonders that the LW had to fail in the BoB.

The key difference is in the evolution of the escort fighters...in 40 the Allies had the spitfire, the P-40, the hurricane and the P-39. Can you imagine any of those planes carrying the fight over berlin. Then came the P-47,P-38,P-51B & Typhoon. Also the F4F/F4U were available....finally came the P51D. Now in 4o the germans had the 109...and then the 109...and then the 109...finally the 190....and the 1o9....and the 109...and the 190.

Now had we stuck with the P-40V and the P-39Z the war might have been different....

spitfiremkv · « **Reply #209 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:02:08 PM »

Diablo

The Me109, when it appeared in 1935 I believe, was the best fighter of the world. It remained such until the Spitfire came along, I believe first flight in 1938.
Even so, early Spits, up to MKIX IMO ,were just equal to their contemporary 109 variants.
Basically, the 109 was updated with better armament and more powerful engines throughout its career, while handling deteriorated as weight increased.
STtill, up to the end of the war it remained better than the P40, P38,P47,Hawker Typhoon and many other fighters of WW2.
In conclusion, I don't agree with your evaluation of the 109 being of average quality.