Bf 109F info

[gripen]

Battle of Kuban bridgehead was a rather long; while most air battles took place before the Battle of Kursk (April to July 1943), the operations continued until October when the Axis evacuated the Bridgehead.

[Viking]

No Humble, you are clueless and always have been. You claim to know this and that about the 109 and its history, but you always give your ignorance away by showing that you don't even know the simplest of things about the 109. Like here...

Originally posted by humble
The early 109 had mixed armorment and superior performance (neg G carb)...both later corrected in spitfire...

... you fail to realize that the 109's DB engines doesn't even have a carburettor. Everybody that has had even just a passing interest in the 109 knows this. It's even one of the few things Discovery Channel gets right!

[humble]

Originally posted by Viking
No Humble, you are clueless and always have been. You claim to know this and that about the 109 and its history, but you always give your ignorance away by showing that you don't even know the simplest of things about the 109. Like here...


 


... you fail to realize that the 109's DB engines doesn't even have a carburettor. Everybody that has had even just a passing interest in the 109 knows this. It's even one of the few things Discovery Channel gets right!

No what I have is a general understanding of realities...

So let me ask you this, can the 109D maintain fuel pressure during negative G manuevering?

My comment was functionally correct....

Even the 109 protype (109-V9) had 20mm cannon (initial production runs were 4 x 7.9mm due to jamming issues)...but the 109 was the 1st cannon armed fighter in the world if I'm not mistaken...

So factually my comments are correct on both counts and the 109 was significantly ahead of the spit 1 in two important area's

This is typical from you and your "friends". You simply ignore any and all real points of "debate" and look for trivial typo's or oversights to try and establish some false and childish one upmanship...

So big man since your "here" what are your thoughts regarding the luftwaffes own formal request to have the 109 replaced by the G.55? This is a pretty clear indication that even the luftwaffe knew the 109 was no longer capable as a front line fighter (in Feb of 43)....

I'd like your thoughts on that....

[humble]

Originally posted by gripen
Battle of Kuban bridgehead was a rather long; while most air battles took place before the Battle of Kursk (April to July 1943), the operations continued until October when the Axis evacuated the Bridgehead.

This is a pretty decent overview of the general action...

Kuban overview

This was probably the most intense prolonged "furball" of the war. The luftwaffe suffered such severe losses they actually issued a general stand down order on June 7, 1943 to regroup. Meanwhile the russians lost ~350 planes on May 26th alone (german claims). Losses on both sides were staggering, the claim the germans lost a total of 28 109's to combat over the time frame from early april to june 7 is laughable. Both sides lost hundreds of fighters during that time frame....

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
No what I have is a general understanding of realities...

No, what you have is an insatiable need to troll luftwaffe threads. This thread was started as an informative thread on the 109F ... not about Kuban, not about other model 109s and their supposed superiority or inferiority compared to other aircraft. You simply could not resist to demean 109 “affecionados” … I guess you mean ‘aficionados’ … and turn this thread into a flame fest.

You are pathetic.

[Angus]

Compared to the 1200+ of all sorts that the LW lost in the BoB on a 90(?) day scale?. That makes some odd 13 aircraft per day.

You have claims and you have losses. The LW loss recs are not complete, neither are their transfer recs. However, the biggest part of the Luftwaffe's fall did NOT occure in Russia.

And the 109 vs Russian aircraft in WW2? Well, from 1941 untill Lala a'la advanced the German Iron was normally faster, better armed and better used AFAIK. From a Huge margin down to a margin in the timescale.
And the numbers, not very favourable for the LW....

[Angus]

Oh, and to the 109F. The fighters facing it in the high-time in the fall of 1941 and into 1942 were:
P40
SpitV
(later Spit IX)
Hurry

I-16
LAGG-3?
Yak-1?

And some antiquities?

Please add. But the 109F is pretty much in the top there

[toonces3]

Originally posted by Laciner


Besides, German kit typically looked meaner than Allied equipment. The 109 looks nastier than a Spitfire. It has a little square welding mask porthole where the man looks out. German bombers looked like evil insects. A Tiger tank looks dangerous, whereas a Sherman looks like a child's toy. German equipment was typically more angular than Allied equipment. The logos and iconography were starker. The words sound threatening; "minengeschoss" and "rüstsätze" and "obersturmbannführer" have a certain ring to them. The German officers wore long leather trenchcoats and big boots, who could fail to be seduced by that?

 

This is a great quote.  I've tried to put the...asthetics...of German equipment into words before, but this is far more eloquent.

Nice job.

[humble]

Originally posted by Angus
Compared to the 1200+ of all sorts that the LW lost in the BoB on a 90(?) day scale?. That makes some odd 13 aircraft per day.

You have claims and you have losses. The LW loss recs are not complete, neither are their transfer recs. However, the biggest part of the Luftwaffe's fall did NOT occure in Russia.

And the 109 vs Russian aircraft in WW2? Well, from 1941 untill Lala a'la advanced the German Iron was normally faster, better armed and better used AFAIK. From a Huge margin down to a margin in the timescale.
And the numbers, not very favourable for the LW....

German losses at kuban were roughly 1000 of all types, russian losses probabably more....

There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two.

As a general rule all sides overclaimed, I'm sure this was true for both the russians and germans at kuban. As a general rule russian claims were a bit stricter since they had similiar guidelines to the german in WW1 where you needed infantry confirmation for a kill....

most significant case of overclaiming was actually luftwaffe in BoB where they were very exagerrated...which actually influenced some bad decisions on the germans part....

No question that 109F was dominant bird thru mid 1942. P-39 was clearly superior to the 109 at the lower altitudes where combat occured in the east. Once P-39 equipped VVS units got up to speed luftwaffe was facing a plane that was more then equal to the 109...

[humble]

Originally posted by Viking
No, what you have is an insatiable need to troll luftwaffe threads. This thread was started as an informative thread on the 109F ... not about Kuban, not about other model 109s and their supposed superiority or inferiority compared to other aircraft. You simply could not resist to demean 109 “affecionados” … I guess you mean ‘aficionados’ … and turn this thread into a flame fest.

You are pathetic.

So your conceding that the luftwaffe itself recognized the 109 had reached its development apex with the 109F and lobbied for the g.55 instead....

I've got nothing at against any "affectionado's"...what I got a laugh out of was a site thats comparing the 109 favorably vs the 190A2 and trying to discount everything that pointed to the 190's dominance. There's a big difference between being an "affecionado" and being delusional.


The 109 was a fine plane, clearly ahead of its time....in 1935. It held up well and was a fine plane. Even in 1944/45 in the hands of an experienced pilot it could more then hold its own in a fight. It was not however competative overall. It was progressively harder to fly (damm near unlandable with less then a seasoned pilot) had comparativly shorter legs, less effective (fighter to fighter) armorment and very poor visability compared to its counterparts.

The bottom line is that as early as Feb 1943 the luftwaffe wanted its production stopped. In fact had they succeeded in getting the g.55 produced instead the entire course of the war could have changed. The G.55 would have been a much more formidable foe for the allied fighters and potentially devestated allied bomber streams. The G.55II was already on the books with 5 x 20mm and could have been in production by 1944...

[Viking]

I'm not conceding anything because I haven't been arguing anything; you're simply not worth the effort. You can spew your simpleton logic and rewrite history all you like. You're nothing but a troll, and everyone can see it.

[Karnak]

Keep in mind Viking is as biased pro-Luftwaffe as they come, and merrily trolls RAF threads.

An example of his bias is the ridiculous claim that the 2,000 Me410s had a greater impact on the war than the 7,000 Mosquitos while posting horribly erroneous views on Mosquito service.  He claimed that 418 Squad's record was dismal and proof of how bad the Mosquito was.

In short, he is a troll of the first category.

[Viking]

Liar. Quote me if you can. I've never said those things.

[-pjk--]

Hmm..
Let it go dwn what comes to 109f and open new thread to pissin contest.
Seems to be personal for most eager posters;)
Nothing new or interesting, same old ...

[Viking]

Here Karnak, I'll even help you. Here's the thread in question:

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=209700&perpage=25&pagenumber=1


Quote me ... liar.