Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K) (Read 26458 times)

Ike 2K# · « **on:** October 30, 2003, 09:02:58 PM »

what was 109's K/D ratio from Spanish civil war to the end of WWII

Citabria · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:17:10 PM »

are we supposed to guess the answer or do you not know and want to know?

id say it was low, in fact very low as the war went on and the 109 was outnumbered almost always. the vets lived on all 22-300 of em but thousands of noobs fought and died with few kills.

even most vets that survived with 200 kill streaks had only a 8 to 1 k/d with all the bailouts they did.

so I would guess the 109 kill ratio was around 4 to 1 maybe less.

they had more stuff to shoot at before they got shot down but shot down they got.

Nomak · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:05:53 PM »

I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters.

I cant imagine it did very well in '44 '45

I seriously doubt it carried a 4 to 1. Probably far worse IMO

Batz · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:27:59 PM »

That's completely wrong nomak the 109g6/as the 109g10 and and k4 were all better then the d9 at altitiude.

The 109 wasnt some joke plane that the lw just kept using for no reason.

HoHun · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2003, 07:36:03 PM »

Hi Nomak,

>I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters.

Well, that's an often repeated statement :-)

However, don't underestimate the Me 109K-4 - it outpaced the Mustang below 20000 ft, it outclimbed the Mustang at all altitudes, and it was armed with a 30 mm cannon that could tear a Mustang into pieces with one or two hits.

I'd agree that the Mustang was the better overall fighter, but the Me 109 remained a dangerous opponent right to the end.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Nomak · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2003, 10:55:58 PM »

I will admit that was a statement that I do not have facts to back up.

I will also admit that Wotan knows alot more about LW stuff than I do.

I have alot of respect for the 109 series. I didnt mean to sound like I dont.

However.... The 109 goes all the way back before the Spanish civil war. In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft. Even though it did continue in service into the 60s.

The 109 could from what I know never match the firepower of the FW series. I know this is debateable but some would argue that the 109 could not match the FWs handling either. I mean really.......overall wasnt the FW a superior aircraft? Everything I have read or seen on TV (WWII Documentarys) says they were.

As for allied aircraft, the Mustang was an incredable aircraft in every aspect. There is no arguing that. So comparing a 109 to a Merlin powerd Mustang is not realistic in my opinion.

Batz · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2003, 11:20:12 PM »

Sorry Nomak I didn’t mean to be so short.

There’s no doubt that the 109 had its shortcomings but it never was as bad as some would say. In the west the LW tactics were all geared toward dealing with the allied bomber threat. Which for the most part was a failed strategy.

The LW took a massive beating and many of their experten were lost. But even so the 109 was a fine aircraft and preferred by many over the 190.

Which was the better aircraft? There’s no answer to that. The 190 was more new guy friendly. But an expert in a 109 was just as capable as an expert in any plane. Unfortunately many of those experten were killed and due to necessity newer pilots were rushed into combat without long training periods.

Units like JG53, JG52 and JG27 stayed in 109s through out the war.

Virage · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2003, 11:53:12 PM »

Quote

In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft.

This is a commonly held opinion. Yet the spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war.

Hooligan · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2003, 12:01:52 AM »

It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109. The airframe of a late model Spit bears a resemblance to a Spit I airframe, but it isn't really that close. On the other hand, a 109K airframe seems pretty close to a 109F airframe, except for the addition of the much more powerful engine. This lack of airframe advancement is probably why late model 109s are capable of entering compression at the top end of their level flight speed. I suppose Willy was too busy working on designs for the 410, 262 etc… etc… to give the 109 upgrades the attention they deserved.

To address the original question: Losing wars catastrophically is very bad for k/d ratios. Almost all of the 35,000 109s made were destroyed so their k/d ratio is undoubtably horrible.

Hooligan

Nomak · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2003, 12:07:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Sorry Nomak I didn’t mean to be so short.

.

No problem at all Wotan.....my statements were a little brash and perhaps unfounded.

Nomak · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2003, 12:33:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
This is a commonly held opinion. Yet the spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war.

I dont think the Spitfire had as many issues with the basic airframe design as the 109 did to begin with. Giving the Spitfire a better foundation to upgrade with.

HoHun · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2003, 05:22:16 AM »

Hi Nomak,

>However.... The 109 goes all the way back before the Spanish civil war. In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft.

Age doesn't make it outdated, lack of performance would - but as I pointed out above, it didn't lack performance.

>The 109 could from what I know never match the firepower of the FW series.

Neither could the Mustang :-) Was the Mustang outdated in 1945? No way!

>I mean really.......overall wasnt the FW a superior aircraft? Everything I have read or seen on TV (WWII Documentarys) says they were.

Don't believe everything you read (not to mention TV :-) The Focke-Wulf didn't have the altitude performance of the Me 109, not even the D-9. They were different aircraft, and the Me 109 held important strengths, too.

>So comparing a 109 to a Merlin powerd Mustang is not realistic in my opinion.

Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2003, 05:50:30 AM »

Hi Hooligan,

>It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109.

Actually, the opposite is true. New Spitfire versions were created by mounting a new engine on the original aircframe, with few changes (usually just an increase of the radiator size).

The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section.

So in 1945, the Me 109 had a much more modern airframe than the Spitfire, yet noone considered the Spitfire outdated (at least, not more than any other propeller fighter).

>This lack of airframe advancement is probably why late model 109s are capable of entering compression at the top end of their level flight speed.

Utter nonsense (or you greatly overstimate the Me 109's level speed :-) The Me 109 could dive to Mach 0.79, about the same as the Fw 190 and the P-51, and considerably better than the P-47 and the P-38.

>To address the original question: Losing wars catastrophically is very bad for k/d ratios. Almost all of the 35,000 109s made were destroyed so their k/d ratio is undoubtably horrible.

According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Nashwan · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2003, 05:58:23 AM »

Quote

Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)

I'm not so sure about that. According to Butch2k, the 109 wasn't cleared for 1.8ata until Feb 45, and 1.98 until March. In the meantime, most 8th AF and British Mustangs were running on 150 octane fuel, with boost up to 25lbs, and close to 2000hp (the 8th AF used a slightly lower boost, iirc), and had been since summer 44.

HoHun · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2003, 06:27:15 AM »

Hi Nashwan,

>I'm not so sure about that.

Nomak wrote:

"I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters."

So the comparison really should be with the Me 109K-4 at the peak of its development. OK, with 100/150 fuel the P-51D got faster, too, but with its heavier weight, the climb rate advantage still remains with the Messerschmitt.

The Me 109 hardly was "totally outclassed" if things are as close-run as this :-)

And your post brings up a very good point: The engines were much more decisive in the question whether an aircraft remained competitive or not.

The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? Not a bit! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)