PDA

View Full Version : The G14



JugHead-usmc
07-11-2005, 11:35 AM
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same?

JugHead-usmc
07-11-2005, 11:35 AM
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same?

JG7_Rall
07-11-2005, 02:46 PM
Way too many 109 hater's on these boards. I do agree with the whiners about the Mk 108 cannon however...if we only had a 151 for the late 109's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LStarosta
07-11-2005, 02:56 PM
Psh. My policy? Fly it like you stole it.



Whatever that means.

Hristo_
07-11-2005, 03:00 PM
If you expect it to be a flying target from your favorite Hollywood movies, well, try again. It just wasn't.

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.

Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.

The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.

Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:

Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, 260 of which were fighters, flew the 109 exclusively. He started flying and scoring in October 1942, when 109 supposedly became obsolete. Apparently, he didn't want to trade his Me 109 for a Me 262 even in 1945, when 109 became "hopeless". Strange, eh ?

strelnik_Sipi
07-12-2005, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you think any model of BF 109 was slow and heavy? All where fast and quite nimble especialy in the vertical.

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by strelnik_Sipi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you think any model of BF 109 was slow and heavy? All where fast and quite nimble especialy in the vertical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he was speaking relatively to earlier variants.

alert_1
07-12-2005, 04:39 AM
Hmm..slow and heavy? At 1800hp output and 3250kg take off weight, I don't think so!

F19_Ob
07-12-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JugHead-usmc:
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it.
The only reason that allied planes could fight the 109 on almost equal terms was that allied planes became almost as fast as the 109 and more in number.
Before themost allied planes usually couldn't catch the 109.
If one looks on the specs on the competing fighters to the 109 u see that the 109 still do many things better than many of the allied planes.
the most dangerous planes to the 109 are the cannon equipped ones late in the war. Although they aren't as fast they are fast enough to throw a couple of shots at 109's and thats why for example the spit9, yak3 and La7 and La5fn can frequently bring down 109's at an equal rate as the 109. The other factor is that they have enough energy to turn away from an attacking 109.
Early planes like the hurricane can turn better than the 109 but for a limited time. When its energy is gone a 109 outurns the spit or the hurricane although by a small margin.

My online experience is uthat 20 late 109's are superior to 20 late spits. Not by much but the 30mm is the main contributor.
One or two 20mm hits are bad but one 30mm usually ends it immediatly.

One other factor that makes late allied planes more comparable with the 109 is that they are almost as fast wich makes them able to keep distance to an attacking 109 for a while wich forces the 109 to chase for longer periods wich is dangerous.

Not many planes could fight or disengage at will. The 109 could do that against the majority of early planes and to some later planes.

This is a good explanation why the 109 wins the majority of fights online.

So still in 1944 and 45 it was a winning design in many ways.
The germans at that time lacked experienced pilots and petrol and met greater numbers wich drained their resources further.
At the end there was no rest for the few axis pilots left and many compared this with the situation for the english during the battle of brittain.

One of the reasons that the 109's didn't score more during BoB was that they couldn't get afford being damaged since they wouldn't be able to get back over the channel wich was the fate of many 109's. also the fuelsituation allowed only a few minutes of combat before it was time to disengage. One german pilot sqaid he couldn't afford to BnZ a spitfire for many minutes and that he had to disengage because of lack of fuel.

So I belive an experienced pilot in the 109 can beat almost any plane while the opposit isn't likely, exept with a few very late allied planes.

a few thoughts

Tvrdi
07-12-2005, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JugHead-usmc:
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it.
The only reason that allied planes could fight the 109 on almost equal terms was that allied planes became almost as fast as the 109 and more in number.
Before themost allied planes usually couldn't catch the 109.
If one looks on the specs on the competing fighters to the 109 u see that the 109 still do many things better than many of the allied planes.
the most dangerous planes to the 109 are the cannon equipped ones late in the war. Although they aren't as fast they are fast enough to throw a couple of shots at 109's and thats why for example the spit9, yak3 and La7 and La5fn can frequently bring down 109's at an equal rate as the 109. The other factor is that they have enough energy to turn away from an attacking 109.
Early planes like the hurricane can turn better than the 109 but for a limited time. When its energy is gone a 109 outurns the spit or the hurricane although by a small margin.

My online experience is uthat 20 late 109's are superior to 20 late spits. Not by much but the 30mm is the main contributor.
One or two 20mm hits are bad but one 30mm usually ends it immediatly.

One other factor that makes late allied planes more comparable with the 109 is that they are almost as fast wich makes them able to keep distance to an attacking 109 for a while wich forces the 109 to chase for longer periods wich is dangerous.

Not many planes could fight or disengage at will. The 109 could do that against the majority of early planes and to some later planes.

This is a good explanation why the 109 wins the majority of fights online.

So still in 1944 and 45 it was a winning design in many ways.
The germans at that time lacked experienced pilots and petrol and met greater numbers wich drained their resources further.
At the end there was no rest for the few axis pilots left and many compared this with the situation for the english during the battle of brittain.

One of the reasons that the 109's didn't score more during BoB was that they couldn't get afford being damaged since they wouldn't be able to get back over the channel wich was the fate of many 109's. also the fuelsituation allowed only a few minutes of combat before it was time to disengage. One german pilot sqaid he couldn't afford to BnZ a spitfire for many minutes and that he had to disengage because of lack of fuel.

So I belive an experienced pilot in the 109 can beat almost any plane while the opposit isn't likely, exept with a few very late allied planes.

a few thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well said...

JG7_Rall
07-12-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JugHead-usmc:
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it.
The only reason that allied planes could fight the 109 on almost equal terms was that allied planes became almost as fast as the 109 and more in number.
Before themost allied planes usually couldn't catch the 109.
If one looks on the specs on the competing fighters to the 109 u see that the 109 still do many things better than many of the allied planes.
the most dangerous planes to the 109 are the cannon equipped ones late in the war. Although they aren't as fast they are fast enough to throw a couple of shots at 109's and thats why for example the spit9, yak3 and La7 and La5fn can frequently bring down 109's at an equal rate as the 109. The other factor is that they have enough energy to turn away from an attacking 109.
Early planes like the hurricane can turn better than the 109 but for a limited time. When its energy is gone a 109 outurns the spit or the hurricane although by a small margin.

My online experience is uthat 20 late 109's are superior to 20 late spits. Not by much but the 30mm is the main contributor.
One or two 20mm hits are bad but one 30mm usually ends it immediatly.

One other factor that makes late allied planes more comparable with the 109 is that they are almost as fast wich makes them able to keep distance to an attacking 109 for a while wich forces the 109 to chase for longer periods wich is dangerous.

Not many planes could fight or disengage at will. The 109 could do that against the majority of early planes and to some later planes.

This is a good explanation why the 109 wins the majority of fights online.

So still in 1944 and 45 it was a winning design in many ways.
The germans at that time lacked experienced pilots and petrol and met greater numbers wich drained their resources further.
At the end there was no rest for the few axis pilots left and many compared this with the situation for the english during the battle of brittain.

One of the reasons that the 109's didn't score more during BoB was that they couldn't get afford being damaged since they wouldn't be able to get back over the channel wich was the fate of many 109's. also the fuelsituation allowed only a few minutes of combat before it was time to disengage. One german pilot sqaid he couldn't afford to BnZ a spitfire for many minutes and that he had to disengage because of lack of fuel.

So I belive an experienced pilot in the 109 can beat almost any plane while the opposit isn't likely, exept with a few very late allied planes.

a few thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well said... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed.

Don't be hatin'

ImpStarDuece
07-12-2005, 08:46 AM
Unfortunately, the popular myth that seems to have been built up about the 109 is that it became 'obsolecent' or a 'second-rate' fighter by wars end. Its a hard one to overturn as its been repeated by so many sources.

The general argument put foward in potted 109 histories runs like this; the 109 was quite a 'mature' fighter by the outbreak of WW2. It had been blooded in Spain and then destroyed the Polish and French Air Forces in the BlitzKrieg victories. It then ran up against the Spitfire over England and recieved a bloody nose and shrank back in the winter of 40/41 to lick its wounds.

Messerschmidt next went for a wing and body redesign to make the 109 competitive with the Spitifre again. At the same time the British developed the Mk V. Germany deploys the 109F, which, according to popular history, was the 'best' 109. Nicest handeling, best turn, best relative performance compared to its opponents. Then as time progressed, the Germans demanded more and more performance, climb and armament out of the 109. So larger and larger engines were attached, weapon mountings were added, aerodynamics were changed and weight creep began to significantly affect the 109.

As a result the handeling was degraded and the 109 became less and less manuverable, was outpaced, out turned and out fought by the newer allied types (Spitfire IX, XIV, Mustang, Tempest, LA-5, Yak-3). It's slow speed, landing and take-off characteristics became dangerous to novice pilots and it was a poor aircraft to learn on compared to the 190. While the 109 retained its relatively good performance the margin (if there really was one) was closed on it, then opened up the other way, in favour of the later war Allied fighters.


Like I said, that is the 'popular myth' about the 109. That it was a design that didn't grow well during the war and was resultingly

While I don't think that is true in all respects there is a kernel of something in there. The Western Allies really did regard the 109 as the 'Number two dog' of the LW fighters. In the ETO, MTO and Italy Allied pilots seem more confident about going up against 109s than 190s. I have read wartime accounts which state that the British felt that the 109 was ouclassed as a fighter by the late 1943 period.

A lot of the changes to the 109 were not particularly kind to it in terms of aerodynamics and handling. Do I think they negatively affected its combat potential; not really, or at least not significantly. The 109 was still the king of the vertical in the ETO and ranked with the better turners. Maybe it lost a little in the turn and near stall behaviour but so did a lot of other planes of similar vintage (Spitfire, P-40, LaaGs) when up-engined.

For my money the 109 and the Spitfire tended to 'swap' positions as the better fighter, seesawing their dominance. I'd take a Mk I (particularly with a 100 octane Merlin III) over a 109E. But, I'd prefer a 190F over a early Spitfire V. Similarly, I feel that the 109G2 was outclassed by the Spitfire IX (particularly at altitude) but the 109G6/10 swapped the balance again until the IX was re-engined with the Merlin 66/71. Between the XIV and the K4 its really a coin toss, but I tend to think that the improved rate of roll and general rebalancing that the XIV underwent put it a nose ahead.

The 109 was generally faster than its historical opponents, with the major exception of the Spitfire and the MiG-3 at high alt, at least until 1942-43. By that time you start to see P-38s, La-5s, Typhoons and P-47s appear which do away with a lot of the historical advantages the 109 had. By early-mid 1943 the 109 has much stiffer competition than it did in the 39-43 period, when it scored the majority of its victories. By early 1944 its hard to say that the 109 is clearly better than any front line Allied type (Spit IX, XIV, La-5FN, Yak-9, P-47, P-38, P-51), not something that is the case in 1940.

249th_Harrier
07-12-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Unfortunately, the popular myth that seems to have been built up about the 109 is that it became 'obsolecent' or a 'second-rate' fighter by wars end. Its a hard one to overturn as its been repeated by so many sources.

The general argument put foward in potted 109 histories runs like this; the 109 was quite a 'mature' fighter by the outbreak of WW2. It had been blooded in Spain and then destroyed the Polish and French Air Forces in the BlitzKrieg victories. It then ran up against the Spitfire over England and recieved a bloody nose and shrank back in the winter of 40/41 to lick its wounds.

Messerschmidt next went for a wing and body redesign to make the 109 competitive with the Spitifre again. At the same time the British developed the Mk V. Germany deploys the 109F, which, according to popular history, was the 'best' 109. Nicest handeling, best turn, best relative performance compared to its opponents. Then as time progressed, the Germans demanded more and more performance, climb and armament out of the 109. So larger and larger engines were attached, weapon mountings were added, aerodynamics were changed and weight creep began to significantly affect the 109.

As a result the handeling was degraded and the 109 became less and less manuverable, was outpaced, out turned and out fought by the newer allied types (Spitfire IX, XIV, Mustang, Tempest, LA-5, Yak-3). It's slow speed, landing and take-off characteristics became dangerous to novice pilots and it was a poor aircraft to learn on compared to the 190. While the 109 retained its relatively good performance the margin (if there really was one) was closed on it, then opened up the other way, in favour of the later war Allied fighters.


Like I said, that is the 'popular myth' about the 109. That it was a design that didn't grow well during the war and was resultingly

While I don't think that is true in all respects there is a kernel of something in there. The Western Allies really did regard the 109 as the 'Number two dog' of the LW fighters. In the ETO, MTO and Italy Allied pilots seem more confident about going up against 109s than 190s. I have read wartime accounts which state that the British felt that the 109 was ouclassed as a fighter by the late 1943 period.

A lot of the changes to the 109 were not particularly kind to it in terms of aerodynamics and handling. Do I think they negatively affected its combat potential; not really, or at least not significantly. The 109 was still the king of the vertical in the ETO and ranked with the better turners. Maybe it lost a little in the turn and near stall behaviour but so did a lot of other planes of similar vintage (Spitfire, P-40, LaaGs) when up-engined.

For my money the 109 and the Spitfire tended to 'swap' positions as the better fighter, seesawing their dominance. I'd take a Mk I (particularly with a 100 octane Merlin III) over a 109E. But, I'd prefer a 190F over a early Spitfire V. Similarly, I feel that the 109G2 was outclassed by the Spitfire IX (particularly at altitude) but the 109G6/10 swapped the balance again until the IX was re-engined with the Merlin 66/71. Between the XIV and the K4 its really a coin toss, but I tend to think that the improved rate of roll and general rebalancing that the XIV underwent put it a nose ahead.

The 109 was generally faster than its historical opponents, with the major exception of the Spitfire and the MiG-3 at high alt, at least until 1942-43. By that time you start to see P-38s, La-5s, Typhoons and P-47s appear which do away with a lot of the historical advantages the 109 had. By early-mid 1943 the 109 has much stiffer competition than it did in the 39-43 period, when it scored the majority of its victories. By early 1944 its hard to say that the 109 is clearly better than any front line Allied type (Spit IX, XIV, La-5FN, Yak-9, P-47, P-38, P-51), not something that is the case in 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Production quality cannot be modeled in this game. Just like how Lagg-3 had good theoretical performance but suffered from manufacturing defects, so did Luftwaffe aircraft starting in mid '44. Late marks of the bf109 were built in hidden factories sometimes in open air in forests, mostly by slave labor, with no avgas for engine run-in. I can't find the source, but I have heard allied pilots did not notice appreciable performance increase of Luftwaffe aircraft after the G6. It was only after the war that the significant achievements of German engineers was discovered. For the top aces well built examples of these planes were procured, so these are not "fantasy planes". However there is a reason the historical record does not reflect the high performance potential of these late designs.

HoldSteady641
07-12-2005, 10:00 AM
Except for pure speed, and even that will be really noticable at high altitudes, I find the 109 better to fly than the 190. It handles better, turns quicker, flies more stable and just is a more pleasurable and forgiving aircraft.
Apart from the better high altitude speed and less-detoriating of handling at high altitude of the FW 190, it's scores better in armour and protection, a bit more durable when under fire and probably a larger load/weapon mount than the BF109, resulting in better firepower. But apart from this, BF109 rules! I'll trade any craft for it everyday for a dogfighter mission, except when it's allready burning of course..

3.JG51_BigBear
07-12-2005, 10:09 AM
As a pure dogfighter/point defence aircraft the 109 could be considered a superb aircraft all the way till the end of the war but it stopped being a truly useful implement of warfare even before the war began. It had extremely limited range, a small ammo load, poor rearward visibility, its control harmony was all wrong, and its performance suffered significantly when it carried bombs or an external fuel tank.

Planes like the P-47 and the Focke Wulf were excellent combat tools because they offered flexibility and safetly for their pilots. They may not have been the most nimble aircraft in the sky, but they were solid, heavily armed and armoured beasts with he range and stability to take on almost any aerial role.

In game the 109 makes for an excellent mount, especially online but I still prefer the Focke Wulf...its just cool.

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 12:04 PM
I will go out on a limb and play devil's advocate.



73H 109 $uXx0rZ 73h b1G 0n3 1111!1!!!!

darkhorizon11
07-12-2005, 12:23 PM
As an Allied flyer I still agree with all this.

Definetely one of the best fighters of the war to the end.

Its failures and shortcomings were mostly due to poor quality building and materials (later in the war) and pilot inexperience.

bolillo_loco
07-12-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If you expect it to be a flying target from your favorite Hollywood movies, well, try again. It just wasn't.

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.

Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.

The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.

Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:

Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, 260 of which were fighters, flew the 109 exclusively. He started flying and scoring in October 1942, when 109 supposedly became obsolete. Apparently, he didn't want to trade his Me 109 for a Me 262 even in 1945, when 109 became "hopeless". Strange, eh ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

competitive all the way into 1945 huh?

1,691 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the ETO
1,327 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the MTO

3,018 american fighters lost to enemy aircraft vs the Luftwaffe

7,422 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the ETO
3,300 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the MTO

10,722 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

6,796 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the ETO
1,364 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the MTO

8,160 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

grand totals

3,018 american fighters lost due to luftwaffe aircraft
18,882 aircraft destroyed by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

this excludes probably damaged and damaged aircraft and on this note many damaged luftwaffe aircraft were put out of action for good simply because the germans did not have replacement parts and were unable to repair them. ever seen captured luftwaffe bases? they are usually full of lightly damaged aircraft, reason.......no replacement parts to fix them thus they had to be abandoned. the above figures are not war time claims, they are figures from a study done well after the war ended. many war time claims were adjusted due to this investigation.

Bf 109s and Fw 190s were slower than american fighters save for a few late war types. Of these late war types many arrived unserviceable due to forced labor the germans employed committing sabotage. Many were also destroyed on the ground.

Bf 109s and Fw 190s were limited in their flexability for other missions such as long range ground attack missions. German bases were with in reach of american fighters while most american bases were well out of reach from german fighters. Their short range also meant that if they were not carefully vectored to their targets they would run out of fuel before reaching them. even when properly vectored their limited fuel supplies meant very short engagements and pilots often had to break off combat due to low fuel. A lot of peole down play the importance of range and a fighters ability to adapt to other important missions such as long range strikes on strategic targets. destroying enemy aircraft on the ground is by far more effective than destroying them in the air.

so apparently if the Bf 109 was shooting down a lot of planes it had to be in russia.

Hristo_
07-12-2005, 02:40 PM
Aircraft were competitive, only 16 y.o. kids flying them weren't.

Does US grand total include strafed airplanes as well ?

Slechtvalk
07-12-2005, 04:35 PM
It's all about the numbers.

faustnik
07-12-2005, 04:38 PM
Kill claims and reality are so far apart they aren't even in the same ball park. It doesn't matter which side makes the claims, using them in any sort of comparison is pointless.

JG7_Rall
07-12-2005, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If you expect it to be a flying target from your favorite Hollywood movies, well, try again. It just wasn't.

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.

Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.

The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.

Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:

Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, 260 of which were fighters, flew the 109 exclusively. He started flying and scoring in October 1942, when 109 supposedly became obsolete. Apparently, he didn't want to trade his Me 109 for a Me 262 even in 1945, when 109 became "hopeless". Strange, eh ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

competitive all the way into 1945 huh?

1,691 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the ETO
1,327 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the MTO

3,018 american fighters lost to enemy aircraft vs the Luftwaffe

7,422 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the ETO
3,300 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the MTO

10,722 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

6,796 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the ETO
1,364 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the MTO

8,160 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

grand totals

3,018 american fighters lost due to luftwaffe aircraft
18,882 aircraft destroyed by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

this excludes probably damaged and damaged aircraft and on this note many damaged luftwaffe aircraft were put out of action for good simply because the germans did not have replacement parts and were unable to repair them. ever seen captured luftwaffe bases? they are usually full of lightly damaged aircraft, reason.......no replacement parts to fix them thus they had to be abandoned. the above figures are not war time claims, they are figures from a study done well after the war ended. many war time claims were adjusted due to this investigation.

Bf 109s and Fw 190s were slower than american fighters save for a few late war types. Of these late war types many arrived unserviceable due to forced labor the germans employed committing sabotage. Many were also destroyed on the ground.

Bf 109s and Fw 190s were limited in their flexability for other missions such as long range ground attack missions. German bases were with in reach of american fighters while most american bases were well out of reach from german fighters. Their short range also meant that if they were not carefully vectored to their targets they would run out of fuel before reaching them. even when properly vectored their limited fuel supplies meant very short engagements and pilots often had to break off combat due to low fuel. A lot of peole down play the importance of range and a fighters ability to adapt to other important missions such as long range strikes on strategic targets. destroying enemy aircraft on the ground is by far more effective than destroying them in the air.

so apparently if the Bf 109 was shooting down a lot of planes it had to be in russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yawn

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wheres my copy of David Copperfield when I need it?

JG7_Rall
07-12-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wheres my copy of David Copperfield when I need it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At my house. I'm on page 400 out of 814 pages. Thanks Dr. Inger!

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 04:59 PM
Dr. Inger called me to tell you "Anytime".

JG7_Rall
07-12-2005, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Dr. Inger called me to tell you "Anytime". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell her I said thanks for the secret life of bees, mythology, and bible assignments as well.

[btw, we're reading the Bible in order to better understand literary allusions...I dont go to catholic school (anymore)]

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Dr. Inger called me to tell you "Anytime". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell her I said thanks for the secret life of bees, mythology, and bible assignments as well.

[btw, we're reading the Bible in order to better understand literary allusions...I dont go to catholic school (anymore)] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's an attempt by Christian fundamentalists to sabotage the Massachussets liberal public school system by introducing Christian propaganda and brain washing.

I saw it on Dr. Phil.

JG7_Rall
07-12-2005, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Dr. Inger called me to tell you "Anytime". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell her I said thanks for the secret life of bees, mythology, and bible assignments as well.

[btw, we're reading the Bible in order to better understand literary allusions...I dont go to catholic school (anymore)] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's an attempt by Christian fundamentalists to sabotage the Massachussets liberal public school system by introducing Christian propaganda and brain washing.

I saw it on Dr. Phil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm...no wonder that episode wasn't broadcasted in MA

I'm Dr. Phil's #1 fan, be sure

Gibbage1
07-12-2005, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 was also shot down more then any other fighter in history.

Abbuzze
07-12-2005, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If you expect it to be a flying target from your favorite Hollywood movies, well, try again. It just wasn't.

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.

Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.

The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.

Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:

Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, 260 of which were fighters, flew the 109 exclusively. He started flying and scoring in October 1942, when 109 supposedly became obsolete. Apparently, he didn't want to trade his Me 109 for a Me 262 even in 1945, when 109 became "hopeless". Strange, eh ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

competitive all the way into 1945 huh?

1,691 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the ETO
1,327 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the MTO

3,018 american fighters lost to enemy aircraft vs the Luftwaffe

7,422 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the ETO
3,300 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the MTO

10,722 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

6,796 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the ETO
1,364 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the MTO

8,160 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

grand totals

3,018 american fighters lost due to luftwaffe aircraft
18,882 aircraft destroyed by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe



so apparently if the Bf 109 was shooting down a lot of planes it had to be in russia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It´s right what Hristo said.
Hartman describes that when he flow back to germany to get a medall, he saw younger looking pilots (he was in the early 20´s at this time).
A short time later he was at the same airfield and ready to return to russia. He asked for this guys and noone of them were still alive, noone of them were shot down, all crashed cause of bad weather, do you real think such pilots would own a 109 if they would fly a P51?

for the numbers you postet, I just wonder why you didn´t mentioned the fighterkills by bombers.

18.000 planes destroyed incl. groundkills, so first I think groundkills don´t show any superiority of a plane or invferiority of another.

Another point, you are comparing the lost of american fighters(!) vs total losts(!) of LW planes, so including, Ju88, Me110(some of them even nightfighters in daymissions) and many other planes.

But lets take your numbers as pure fighter kills. 10700 lets say 11000.
33.000 109´s were build and 20.000 FW 190´s. So 38% FW´s and 62% BF´s for the optimistic number of 11000 fighters thats 6800 BF´s and 4200 Fw´s.

Now take a look at the productionnumbers of them. In 1944 in the best month 2000 BF´s were build so the USAAF destroyed nearly 3.5 month of 109 1944 production in the hole war.

Now we take a better fitting comparision, you said vs LW planes in general, so the number of all german LW planes build in WW2 was around 113.000.
You say 19.000 German planes are destroyed by US fighters in the air and at the ground thats glory 17% of all german planes...

At the end, Winston was right what he said about statistics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bolillo_loco
07-12-2005, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If you expect it to be a flying target from your favorite Hollywood movies, well, try again. It just wasn't.

The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.

Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.

The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.

Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:

Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, 260 of which were fighters, flew the 109 exclusively. He started flying and scoring in October 1942, when 109 supposedly became obsolete. Apparently, he didn't want to trade his Me 109 for a Me 262 even in 1945, when 109 became "hopeless". Strange, eh ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

competitive all the way into 1945 huh?

1,691 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the ETO
1,327 american fighter aircraft lost due to enemy aircraft in the MTO

3,018 american fighters lost to enemy aircraft vs the Luftwaffe

7,422 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the ETO
3,300 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters in the MTO

10,722 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

6,796 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the ETO
1,364 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters in the MTO

8,160 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe

grand totals

3,018 american fighters lost due to luftwaffe aircraft
18,882 aircraft destroyed by american fighters vs the Luftwaffe



so apparently if the Bf 109 was shooting down a lot of planes it had to be in russia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It´s right what Hristo said.
Hartman describes that when he flow back to germany to get a medall, he saw younger looking pilots (he was in the early 20´s at this time).
A short time later he was at the same airfield and ready to return to russia. He asked for this guys and noone of them were still alive, noone of them were shot down, all crashed cause of bad weather, do you real think such pilots would own a 109 if they would fly a P51?

for the numbers you postet, I just wonder why you didn´t mentioned the fighterkills by bombers.

18.000 planes destroyed incl. groundkills, so first I think groundkills don´t show any superiority of a plane or invferiority of another.

Another point, you are comparing the lost of american fighters(!) vs total losts(!) of LW planes, so including, Ju88, Me110(some of them even nightfighters in daymissions) and many other planes.

But lets take your numbers as pure fighter kills. 10700 lets say 11000.
33.000 109´s were build and 20.000 FW 190´s. So 38% FW´s and 62% BF´s for the optimistic number of 11000 fighters thats 6800 BF´s and 4200 Fw´s.

Now take a look at the productionnumbers of them. In 1944 in the best month 2000 BF´s were build so the USAAF destroyed nearly 3.5 month of 109 1944 production in the hole war.

Now we take a better fitting comparision, you said vs LW planes in general, so the number of all german LW planes build in WW2 was around 113.000.
You say 19.000 German planes are destroyed by US fighters in the air and at the ground thats glory 17% of all german planes...

At the end, Winston was right what he said about statistics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my figures are for fighters only. it does not include any german fighters destroyed by heavy bombers, medium bombers, nor light bombers.

your firgues for the "glory of 17% of all german planes" is also way off. most of the enemy aircraft destroyed by american fighters against the luftwaffe came during 1944 and 1945. A time when most of germany's production was fighter aircraft. And remember this is only figures for american fighters, it excludes any american bomber types and also excludes those figures for the rest of the allies. It is clear that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were much better strategic and tactical aircraft which were much better for gaining air superiority than the Bf 109 and Fw 190.

you stated quote "A short time later he was at the same airfield and ready to return to russia. He asked for this guys and noone of them were still alive, noone of them were shot down, all crashed cause of bad weather, do you real think such pilots would own a 109 if they would fly a P51?" end quote, I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

you stated quote "18.000 planes destroyed incl. groundkills, so first I think groundkills don´t show any superiority of a plane or invferiority of another." end quote, It clearly proves the superiority of american fighters vs luftwaffe fighters. the inability of luftwaffe planes to strike ground targets far from their base while remaining safe from enemy attack because enemy aircraft did not have the range to strike their bases.

you stated quote "Another point, you are comparing the lost of american fighters(!) vs total losts(!) of LW planes, so including, Ju88, Me110(some of them even nightfighters in daymissions) and many other planes." end quote, during 1944 and 1945 it is obvious that germany concentrated most of their production efforts into fighter production which means the vast number of aircraft encountered were bf 109s and Fw 190s both in the air and on the ground.

to further prove the superiority of american aircraft over the bf 109 and Fw 190 lets take a look at just one airforce, the 9th airforce. apart from shooting down enemy aircraft in the air and destroying enemy aircraft on the ground this particular group was responsible for a lot of disruption of german supplies to wage a war.

the 9th airforce destroyed:

53,811 motor transports
4,509 armored vehicles and tanks
5,753 locomotives
43,317 railroad cars
360 bridges
3,361 gun emplacements
582 dumps
135 hangars
11,073 factories and misc. buildings
6,072 rail road cuts
770 vessels and barges
6,312 horse drawn vehicles

9th airforce damaged

22,564 motor transports
3,751 armored vehicles and tanks
2,677 locomotives
51,269 railroad cars
328 bridges
1,649 gun emplacements
320 dumps
118 hangars
6,341 factories and misc. buildings
955 vessels and barges
1,362 horse drawn vehicles

these figures exclude the 8th airforce also operating in the area and they also exclude units operating in the MTO.

during WWII american fighters dropped 92,856 tons of bombs in the ETO and 61,429 tons of bombs in the MTO for a total of 154,285 tons of bombs against the germans, how many tons of bombs did the german fighters drop against american targets?

a lot of people only want to talk about late war german fighters. aircraft that saw very limited use due to a number of reasons. these were the only aircraft that germany produced that were as fast or faster than american aircraft. the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters during 1944 were the bf 109G6, Bf 109G14, and Fw 190A8. even during 1945 the G14 and 190A8 made up the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters, but for the sake of argument lets look at the late war luftwaffe fighters and how they performed. In 1945 Luftwaffe fighters managed to shoot down 227 american fighters in the ETO and 24 american fighters in the MTO for a total of 251 american fighters shot down during 1945 by the Luftwaffe.

and rall you can yawn all you want, but provide some statistics. I have never read anything which would lead me to believe that the bf 109 was as effective as american fighters.

Badsight.
07-12-2005, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Bf 109s and Fw 190s were limited in their flexability for other missions such as long range ground attack missions. German bases were with in reach of american fighters while most american bases were well out of reach from german fighters. Their short range also meant that if they were not carefully vectored to their targets they would run out of fuel before reaching them. even when properly vectored their limited fuel supplies meant very short engagements and pilots often had to break off combat due to low fuel. A lot of peole down play the importance of range and a fighters ability to adapt to other important missions such as long range strikes on strategic targets. destroying enemy aircraft on the ground is by far more effective than destroying them in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh so true

this with the 109s is that they stayed fast during 44/45 compared with allied planes due to MW50

it had major running issues , it wasnt an "always-on" soultion , & improperly used it destroyed your motors running condition

& that huge tank stuck in there had a major effect on manouverability in the air

249th_Harrier
07-12-2005, 07:30 PM
So far we agree:
1) Late war bg109 designs were very good dogfighters, competitive with allied designs.
2) bf109 range was always too short. This hurt in many ways.
3) bf109 had poor load carrying capacity, so it was not very useful as a jabo.
4) bf109 was difficult to land and take off (narrow track landing gear, high power-to-weight). This lead to more losses to accidents than the fw190.
4) late war bf109 production quality was terrible, so only a minority of aircraft achieved the potential of their designs.
5) late war pilots were trained on gliders (!) and were aquainted with powered flight en route to the dogfight.

Since in the context of IL2/PF online airquake, criteria 1) is the only one that matters, it is correct to say that late war bf109 are as good as the best prop fighters of WWII.

Abbuzze
07-12-2005, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
my figures are for fighters only. it does not include any german fighters destroyed by heavy bombers, medium bombers, nor light bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but you just wrote LW planes, beside, the numbers of kills by bombers were doubt even by the french and british.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
your firgues for the "glory of 17% of all german planes" is also way off. most of the enemy aircraft destroyed by american fighters against the luftwaffe came during 1944 and 1945. A time when most of germany's production was fighter aircraft. And remember this is only figures for american fighters, it excludes any american bomber types and also excludes those figures for the rest of the allies. It is clear that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were much better strategic and tactical aircraft which were much better for gaining air superiority than the Bf 109 and Fw 190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right for the 44/45 thing, so you dislike to count US kills in 43? And also 42/Africa?
If you want to compare US kills from 42-45 with production numbers from 44-45,
Then you have to do your own calculations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
you stated quote "A short time later he was at the same airfield and ready to return to russia. He asked for this guys and noone of them were still alive, noone of them were shot down, all crashed cause of bad weather, do you real think such pilots would own a 109 if they would fly a P51?" end quote, I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

you stated quote "18.000 planes destroyed incl. groundkills, so first I think groundkills don´t show any superiority of a plane or invferiority of another." end quote, It clearly proves the superiority of american fighters vs luftwaffe fighters. the inability of luftwaffe planes to strike ground targets far from their base while remaining safe from enemy attack because enemy aircraft did not have the range to strike their bases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First belongs to quality of german pilots, and the second clearly show the advantage of having fuel or not having fuel, it simply doesn´t matter if you have long, or short range fighters if you run out of fuel.
Beside noone tries to negotiate the ability of the P51 to fly long distances, it was and is still impressive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
you stated quote "Another point, you are comparing the lost of american fighters(!) vs total losts(!) of LW planes, so including, Ju88, Me110(some of them even nightfighters in daymissions) and many other planes." end quote, during 1944 and 1945 it is obvious that germany concentrated most of their production efforts into fighter production which means the vast number of aircraft encountered were bf 109s and Fw 190s both in the air and on the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm the often quoted guncams show even He111 under attack by P47´s and germany produced 30.000 fighters in 44/45 but also 18.000 other planes. So at least 1/3 of them were not real fighters....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
to further prove the superiority of american aircraft over the bf 109 and Fw 190 lets take a look at just one airforce, the 9th airforce. apart from shooting down enemy aircraft in the air and destroying enemy aircraft on the ground this particular group was responsible for a lot of disruption of german supplies to wage a war.

the 9th airforce destroyed:

53,811 motor transports
4,509 armored vehicles and tanks
5,753 locomotives
43,317 railroad cars
360 bridges
3,361 gun emplacements
582 dumps
135 hangars
11,073 factories and misc. buildings
6,072 rail road cuts
770 vessels and barges
6,312 horse drawn vehicles

9th airforce damaged

22,564 motor transports
3,751 armored vehicles and tanks
2,677 locomotives
51,269 railroad cars
328 bridges
1,649 gun emplacements
320 dumps
118 hangars
6,341 factories and misc. buildings
955 vessels and barges
1,362 horse drawn vehicles

these figures exclude the 8th airforce also operating in the area and they also exclude units operating in the MTO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows cleary that the allies got the airsuperiorty, it was never doubt, but also don´t show any performancedifference between allies and US fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
during WWII american fighters dropped 92,856 tons of bombs in the ETO and 61,429 tons of bombs in the MTO for a total of 154,285 tons of bombs against the germans, how many tons of bombs did the german fighters drop against american targets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never realised that the tons of bombs are an indicator of flightperformance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
a lot of people only want to talk about late war german fighters. aircraft that saw very limited use due to a number of reasons. these were the only aircraft that germany produced that were as fast or faster than american aircraft. the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters during 1944 were the bf 109G6, Bf 109G14, and Fw 190A8. even during 1945 the G14 and 190A8 made up the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters, but for the sake of argument lets look at the late war luftwaffe fighters and how they performed. In 1945 Luftwaffe fighters managed to shoot down 227 american fighters in the ETO and 24 american fighters in the MTO for a total of 251 american fighters shot down during 1945 by the Luftwaffe.

and rall you can yawn all you want, but provide some statistics. I have never read anything which would lead me to believe that the bf 109 was as effective as american fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The efficiency of a fighter are allways the result of the pilots skills and the flightperformance, many Hurricanepilots were real succsessfull, even in outdated planes, a good pilot in a worse plane will be allways more effective than a pilot who can barly start and land even in a superplane- undoubtable. Planes like the 109 who are difficult to fly made this situation even worse.

bolillo_loco
07-12-2005, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
my figures are for fighters only. it does not include any german fighters destroyed by heavy bombers, medium bombers, nor light bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but you just wrote LW planes, beside, the numbers of kills by bombers were doubt even by the french and british.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
your firgues for the "glory of 17% of all german planes" is also way off. most of the enemy aircraft destroyed by american fighters against the luftwaffe came during 1944 and 1945. A time when most of germany's production was fighter aircraft. And remember this is only figures for american fighters, it excludes any american bomber types and also excludes those figures for the rest of the allies. It is clear that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were much better strategic and tactical aircraft which were much better for gaining air superiority than the Bf 109 and Fw 190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right for the 44/45 thing, so you dislike to count US kills in 43? And also 42/Africa?
If you want to compare US kills from 42-45 with production numbers from 44-45,
Then you have to do your own calculations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
you stated quote "A short time later he was at the same airfield and ready to return to russia. He asked for this guys and noone of them were still alive, noone of them were shot down, all crashed cause of bad weather, do you real think such pilots would own a 109 if they would fly a P51?" end quote, I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

you stated quote "18.000 planes destroyed incl. groundkills, so first I think groundkills don´t show any superiority of a plane or invferiority of another." end quote, It clearly proves the superiority of american fighters vs luftwaffe fighters. the inability of luftwaffe planes to strike ground targets far from their base while remaining safe from enemy attack because enemy aircraft did not have the range to strike their bases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First belongs to quality of german pilots, and the second clearly show the advantage of having fuel or not having fuel, it simply doesn´t matter if you have long, or short range fighters if you run out of fuel.
Beside noone tries to negotiate the ability of the P51 to fly long distances, it was and is still impressive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
you stated quote "Another point, you are comparing the lost of american fighters(!) vs total losts(!) of LW planes, so including, Ju88, Me110(some of them even nightfighters in daymissions) and many other planes." end quote, during 1944 and 1945 it is obvious that germany concentrated most of their production efforts into fighter production which means the vast number of aircraft encountered were bf 109s and Fw 190s both in the air and on the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm the often quoted guncams show even He111 under attack by P47´s and germany produced 30.000 fighters in 44/45 but also 18.000 other planes. So at least 1/3 of them were not real fighters....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
to further prove the superiority of american aircraft over the bf 109 and Fw 190 lets take a look at just one airforce, the 9th airforce. apart from shooting down enemy aircraft in the air and destroying enemy aircraft on the ground this particular group was responsible for a lot of disruption of german supplies to wage a war.

the 9th airforce destroyed:

53,811 motor transports
4,509 armored vehicles and tanks
5,753 locomotives
43,317 railroad cars
360 bridges
3,361 gun emplacements
582 dumps
135 hangars
11,073 factories and misc. buildings
6,072 rail road cuts
770 vessels and barges
6,312 horse drawn vehicles

9th airforce damaged

22,564 motor transports
3,751 armored vehicles and tanks
2,677 locomotives
51,269 railroad cars
328 bridges
1,649 gun emplacements
320 dumps
118 hangars
6,341 factories and misc. buildings
955 vessels and barges
1,362 horse drawn vehicles

these figures exclude the 8th airforce also operating in the area and they also exclude units operating in the MTO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows cleary that the allies got the airsuperiorty, it was never doubt, but also don´t show any performancedifference between allies and US fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
during WWII american fighters dropped 92,856 tons of bombs in the ETO and 61,429 tons of bombs in the MTO for a total of 154,285 tons of bombs against the germans, how many tons of bombs did the german fighters drop against american targets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never realised that the tons of bombs are an indicator of flightperformance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
a lot of people only want to talk about late war german fighters. aircraft that saw very limited use due to a number of reasons. these were the only aircraft that germany produced that were as fast or faster than american aircraft. the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters during 1944 were the bf 109G6, Bf 109G14, and Fw 190A8. even during 1945 the G14 and 190A8 made up the vast majority of luftwaffe fighters, but for the sake of argument lets look at the late war luftwaffe fighters and how they performed. In 1945 Luftwaffe fighters managed to shoot down 227 american fighters in the ETO and 24 american fighters in the MTO for a total of 251 american fighters shot down during 1945 by the Luftwaffe.

and rall you can yawn all you want, but provide some statistics. I have never read anything which would lead me to believe that the bf 109 was as effective as american fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The efficiency of a fighter are allways the result of the pilots skills and the flightperformance, many Hurricanepilots were real succsessfull, even in outdated planes, a good pilot in a worse plane will be allways more effective than a pilot who can barly start and land even in a superplane- undoubtable. Planes like the 109 who are difficult to fly made this situation even worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

even during 1942 and 1942 more german aircraft were destroyed by american fighters than american figthers were lost to german fighters. I clearly stated the over all statics and became specific for 1944 and 1945.

how do you come to the conclusion that 1/3rd of the enemy aircraft that american fighters destroyed were other than fighter types? simply because you have seen one or two gun cam films which show american aircraft destroying something other than a fighter? also the fact that german fighters sat on the ground due to a lack of pilots, fuel, spare parts, etc is a direct result of german fighters being inferior to american types. I have yet to read about german fighters destroying american infastructure to disrupt american fighter effectiveness like american fighters have done to german fighters.

lets take a look at the 8th airforce and what they shot down since some imply that american fighters shot down aircraft other than the bf 109 and fw 190, so many infact that it made up 1/3rd or 1/2 of all enemy aircraft destroyed. regardless of what types of aircraft american fighters destroyed, probably destroyed, damaged, both in the air on the ground as well as all the ground targets they destroyed and damaged it goes to show the bf 109 and fw 190 would never be able to achieve such sucess, especially from bases 300-800 miles away from the target.

8th airforce

4th fighter group

bf 109 263.5 destroyed air, 28 probably destroyed, 56 damaged, 27 destroyed on the ground, 23 damaged on the ground

fw 190 214 destroyed air, 24 probably destroyed, 77 damaged, 27 destroyed on the ground, 17 damaged on the ground

totals for 4th fighter group, 550 destroyed air, 60 probably destroyed, 154 damaged, 461.25 destroyed on the ground, 286.5 damaged on the ground.

20th F/G

bf 109 96 destroyed air, 7 probables, 30 damaged, 10 destroyed on the ground, 5 damaged on the ground

fw 190 71.5 destroyed air, 4 probables, 28 damaged, 36 destroyed on the ground, 5 damaged on the ground

totals for 20th F/G, 210.6 destroyed air, 12 probables, 77 damaged, 226.5 destroyed on the ground, 131 damaged on the ground.

55th F/G

bf 109 146.5 destroyed air, 16 probables, 48 damaged, 34 destroyed on the ground, 31 damaged on the ground

fw 190 85 destroyed air, 2 probables, 19 damaged, 52 destroyed on the ground, 29 damaged on the ground

me-262 16 destroyed air, 0 probables, 7 damaged, 17 destroyed on the ground, 3 damaged

totals for 55th F/G 302.5 destroyed air, 23 probables, 83 damaged, 266 destroyed on ground, 149 damaged on ground.

56th F/G

bf 109 264 destroyed air, 19 probables air, 85 damaged air, 30 destroyed on the ground, 30 damaged on the ground

fw 190 278 destroyed air , 29 probables air, 110 damaged air, 44 destroyed on the ground

totals for 56th fighter group 665.5 destroyed air, 59 probables, 242 damaged, 320.5 destroyed on the ground, 288 damaged on the ground.

78th F/G

bf 109 160 destroyed air, 7 probables, 55 damaged, 31 destroyed on the ground, 22 damaged on the ground

fw 190 132 destroyed air, 15 probables, 61 damaged, 49 destroyed on the ground, 23 damaged on the ground.

totals for 78th fg, 326 destroyed air, 25 probables, 123 damaged, 342 destroyed on the ground, 293 damaged on the ground.

339th F/G

bf 109 107 destroyed air, 7 probables, 17 damaged, 42 destroyed ground, 13 damaged ground

fw 190 99.5 destroyed air, 7 probables, 29 damaged, 71 destroyed ground, 22 damaged ground

totals for 339th f/g, 236.5 destroyed air, 17 probables, 68 damaged, 431 destroyed ground, 225 damaged ground

353rd F/G

bf 109 163 destroyed air, 18 probables, 70 damaged, 51 destroyed ground, 51 damaged ground

fw 190 122 destroyed air, 17 probables, 34 damaged, 106 destroyed ground, 37.67 damaged ground

353rd f/g totals, 328 destroyed air, 38 probables, 117 damaged, 404.5 destroyed ground, 234.67 damaged ground

355th F/G

bf 109 173 destroyed air, 15 probables, 65 damaged, 65 destroyed ground, 38 damaged ground

fw 190 106.5 destroyed air, 6 probables, 37 damaged, 52 destroyed ground, 38 damged ground

totals 355th f/g, 340 destroyed air, 23 probables, 124 damaged, 494.5 destroyed ground 412 damaged ground.

356th F/G

bf 109 81 destroyed air, 8 probables, 28 damaged, 13 destroyed ground, 19 damaged ground

fw 190 101 destroyed air, 8 probables, 28 damaged, 5 destroyed ground, 19 damgaed ground

totals 356th f/g, 200 destroyed air, 23 probables, 79 damaged, 77 destroyed ground, 113 damged ground

357th F/G

bf 109 325.5 destroyed air, 12 probables, 40 damaged, 29 destroyed ground, 7 damaged ground

fw 190 193.5 destroyed air, 8 probables, 35 damaged, 5 destroyed ground, 5 damaged ground

357th f/g total, 595.5 destroyed air, 21 probables, 107 damaged, 107 destroyed ground, 69 damaged ground

359th F/G

bf 109 121 destroyed air, 13 probables, 31 damaged, 14 destroyed ground, 7 damaged ground

fw 190 106 destroyed air, 10 probables, 28 damaged, 14 destroyed ground, 10 damaged ground

359th f/g totals 245 destroyed air, 24 probables, 72 damaged, 117 destroyed ground, 122 damaged ground

361st F/G

bf 109 113 destroyed air, 5 probables, 21.5 damaged, 10 destroyed ground, 11 damaged ground

fw 190 90 destroyed air, 6 probables, 31 damaged, 28 destroyed ground, 14.53 damaged ground

361st f/g totals 221 destroyed air, 11 probables, 66.5 damaged, 111 destroyed ground, 80.33 damaged ground

364th F/G

bf 109 102.5 destroyed air, 10 probables, 32 damaged, 19 destroyed ground 23 damaged ground

fw 190 147 destroyed air, 14 probables, 51 damaged, 34 destroyed ground 44 damaged ground

364th f/g totals, 262 destroyed air, 25 probables, 100 damaged, 191 destroyed ground 175 damaged ground

479th F/G

bf 109 89 destroyed, 3 probables, 22 damgaed, 26 destroyed ground, 20 damaged ground

fw 190 57 destroyed air, 9 probables, 13 damaged, 78 destroyed ground, 24 damged ground

479th f/g totals, 155 destroyed air, 13 probables, 39 damaged, 268 destroyed ground, 161 damaged ground.

as you can see the bulk and majority of aircraft shot down by the 8th airforce were fighters with bombers and liason aircraft making up relatively few aircraft destroyed in the air.

I am missing the point as to how effective the bf 109 was during WWII, the entire war not some specific battle.

Xnomad
07-12-2005, 10:08 PM
I'd like to add that a lot of people forget that near the end of the war there was very little airspace for a rookie to train in. The vast numbers of enemy aircraft hunting the skies of the Reich made going on training flights rather dangerous.

It's not like that Mustang behind you isn't going to shoot you down because you have an L plate hanging from the back whilst on a training flight.

Now add that to the fact that the 109 isn't a rookie friendly aircraft and imagine what you would have felt like being sent up to fight the hordes with little training and out numbered too.(and probably in a very badly built banger too)

No thanks.

faustnik
07-12-2005, 11:06 PM
Presenting kill claims is pointless except as a typing exercise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

faustnik
07-12-2005, 11:09 PM
Looking at it from another way, what possible advantage would the Bf109 hold over any of the USAAF fighters? Low speed turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, that's only good for computer DF servers.

Sorry, the Bf109 had its time from '39-'42, in '42-'43 the Fw190 was leader of the pack, after that the USAAF was looking pretty good.

Abbuzze
07-13-2005, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


even during 1942 and 1942 more german aircraft were destroyed by american fighters than american figthers were lost to german fighters. I clearly stated the over all statics and became specific for 1944 and 1945.

how do you come to the conclusion that 1/3rd of the enemy aircraft that american fighters destroyed were other than fighter types? simply because you have seen one or two gun cam films which show american aircraft destroying something other than a fighter? also the fact that german fighters sat on the ground due to a lack of pilots, fuel, spare parts, etc is a direct result of german fighters being inferior to american types. I have yet to read about german fighters destroying american infastructure to disrupt american fighter effectiveness like american fighters have done to german fighters.

lets take a look at the 8th airforce and what they shot down since some imply that american fighters shot down aircraft other than the bf 109 and fw 190, so many infact that it made up 1/3rd or 1/2 of all enemy aircraft destroyed. regardless of what types of aircraft american fighters destroyed, probably destroyed, damaged, both in the air on the ground as well as all the ground targets they destroyed and damaged it goes to show the bf 109 and fw 190 would never be able to achieve such sucess, especially from bases 300-800 miles away from the target.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The 1/3 is cause 1/3 of all produced planes where not pure fighters. They were shot down as well. And did I ever say your numbers are wrong? They are neither overwhelming me, nor they were sigificant larger than other kills from other countries, that´s it . The USAAF leadership did a good job, they did what they need to win the war.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 02:46 AM
In 1945, Me 109K-4 was still among top accelerating and top climbing planes with better than average slow to medium speeds maneuverability. It was also one of the fastest prop planes at most altitudes.

Not bad for a 1935 plane. Hurricane, which came into service later than 109, was long gone by then.

F19_Olli72
07-13-2005, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Not bad for a 1935 plane. Hurricane, which came into service later than 109, was long gone by then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire outlived 109s for years as i recall though, also a 1935 plane.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Not bad for a 1935 plane. Hurricane, which came into service later than 109, was long gone by then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire outlived 109s for years as i recall though, also a 1935 plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong !

Spitfire is more like 1937 plane.

Last 109s were in use in Spanish air force up to 1969.

F19_Olli72
07-13-2005, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Wrong !

Spitfire is more like 1937 plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends how you look at it, the Air Ministry issued a contract on the first Spitfires 3 January 1935. Prototype flew 5 March 1936. The first 109 prototype flew September 1935 with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine.

So isnt it fair to say that during 1935 both 109 and the Spitfire prototypes were developed?

I'd say they are contemporary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Last 109s were in use in Spanish air force up to 1969. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?

Also depends what you mean 'in use', they were hardly operational as fighters by then, only as trainers. And only because Spanish airforce were cheap and didnt want to buy more modern aircrafts, not because the '109' was still so good.

And thats the story of the other nations that used post war 109s, Romania etc. Israel finally converted to Spits and Mustangs pretty fast.

Hristo_
07-13-2005, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Wrong !

Spitfire is more like 1937 plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends how you look at it, the Air Ministry issued a contract on the first Spitfires 3 January 1935. Prototype flew 5 March 1936. The first 109 prototype flew September 1935 with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine.

I'd say they are contemporary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Last 109s were in use in Spanish air force up to 1969. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?

Also depends what you mean 'in use', they were hardly operational as fighters by then, only as trainers. And only because Spanish airforce were cheap and didnt want to buy more modern aircrafts, not because the '109' was still so good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trainers are also part of an airforce. You didn't actually expect Spain to have 109s fielded as front line inteceptors, now did you ? Should they intercept France's Mirages or Soviet Tupolevs ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

USAAF was also cheap as it used F-51 in Korea instead of all out F-86 force.

So, an engine makes an airplane ? Than P-51 is also a Spitfire, as it uses a Merlin as well.
And F4U is actually a P-47, which is in fact an F8F http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Fact is, 109 outlived and outscored the Spitfire. Not necessarily because it was better, but I won't admit that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

csThor
07-13-2005, 06:34 AM
An engine doesn't make an aircraft type. Or would you see Merlin-engined Mustangs as Spitfires, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Olli72
07-13-2005, 06:39 AM
Ok since were splitting hairs then:

Spain did NOT use 109s. It used Hispano Buchons.

Gustavflyer
07-13-2005, 03:53 PM
The Buchon was the spanish version of the 109. During the war Spain acquired 25 or so G2 airframes but no engines. After several poweplants were used, Spain soon acquired the Merlin engine and mated it with their own built 109 airframes. Spain was just one of several countries who used the 109 airframe for years after the war. A true testimony to the 109 design.

darkhorizon11
07-13-2005, 05:16 PM
Just because the 109 saw service until 69 with the Spaniards doesn't prove anything. A trainer is a trainer, that doesn't make it a combat threat. Spain just so happened to have all those G2 airframes and decided to use them instead of buying new aircraft.

For crying out loud I did some of my private training is Cessna 152s and 172 which have their roots to the 1930s also. If we go by you guys' rules of retirement then technically the 172 is a MUCH more capable aircraft than the Spitfire or the 109!

So there!

AerialTarget
07-13-2005, 05:53 PM
Clearly, the Piper Cub is far superior. Of course, the Boeing Stearman is even more so.

mynameisroland
07-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Wow if the USAAF fighter force shot down 18000 LW planes then where did all the USA aces go to?

The top 100 Luftwaffe Experten destroyed over 10000 enemy AC at least 70000 kills have been credited to the Bf 109.

Now you will retort ' falsified Luft claims blah blah blah ' if thats the case then it applies for all airforces and the kills ratio if reduced remains the same if you half 70000 and half 18000 you get

35000 kills for the Bf 109

and

9000 kills for the entire USAAF fighter force when facing the Luftwaffe.

JG7_Rall
07-13-2005, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wow if the USAAF fighter force shot down 18000 LW planes then where did all the USA aces go to?

The top 100 Luftwaffe Experten destroyed over 10000 enemy AC at least 70000 kills have been credited to the Bf 109.

Now you will retort ' falsified Luft claims blah blah blah ' if thats the case then it applies for all airforces and the kills ratio if reduced remains the same if you half 70000 and half 18000 you get

35000 kills for the Bf 109

and

9000 kills for the entire USAAF fighter force when facing the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice post.

However, the allied fanboys will still shove BS speculation in your face because they can't accept the fact that the 109 was an excellent plane, even after it was considered outdated by many.

darkhorizon11
07-13-2005, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wow if the USAAF fighter force shot down 18000 LW planes then where did all the USA aces go to?

The top 100 Luftwaffe Experten destroyed over 10000 enemy AC at least 70000 kills have been credited to the Bf 109.

Now you will retort ' falsified Luft claims blah blah blah ' if thats the case then it applies for all airforces and the kills ratio if reduced remains the same if you half 70000 and half 18000 you get

35000 kills for the Bf 109

and

9000 kills for the entire USAAF fighter force when facing the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the Luftwaffe had 24,000 airmen in World War Two. Only about 3000 survived. Of course that includes bomber crews also.

I tried to find the number of USAAF and RAF airmen over Europe but had no luck. However, if you look at the sheer number of aircraft built, combined with the fact that after a certain number of missions (25 combat for B-17 crews) airmen were forced to come home, to train new pilots, the must have been almost double of the LW. Therefore those kills are spread over a much greater number of pilots. Perhaps the exception to this rule being Erich Hartmann.

Remember also, for the USAAF the war didn't really pick up until mid-1942. By this point many LW experten had been in combat since 1939, almost a three year head start.

Getting back to the tour of duty thing.

Gabreski: 28 kills, only saw combat from December of 42 until June 6 44 when he was captured

Johnson: 27 kills, April 43 to May 45?

Preddy: 26.8 kills, July 43, KIA Jan 1 1945


You guys get the idea I could go on and on. The LW had farrr more oppurtunity to down enemy aircaft than any of the Allies (except for maybe the Russians).

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 10:59 PM
the 109 was an excellent plane ?

yea pre 1943 it was fantastic

after that its only competative feature was the speed in climbs & level - & that was given it by running the MW50 which loaded the plane heavily & was a useable feature for no longer than 10 minutes . . . . . ever

seriously the LW need a better prop fighter design powered by a better motor , (the excellent DB603 , bigger than the DB605 - more powerfull - & more reliable) , to replace the 109 by 43

& bucketloads of high grade/quality fuel

or go 262 exclusivly for intercept

Gustavflyer
07-14-2005, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Just because the 109 saw service until 69 with the Spaniards doesn't prove anything. A trainer is a trainer, that doesn't make it a combat threat. Spain just so happened to have all those G2 airframes and decided to use them instead of buying new aircraft.

For crying out loud I did some of my private training is Cessna 152s and 172 which have their roots to the 1930s also. If we go by you guys' rules of retirement then technically the 172 is a MUCH more capable aircraft than the Spitfire or the 109!

So there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are saying the 109 was a "trainer". If you mean that then you are really showing your ignorance. It says alot that an airframe conceived in the 30's could still have practical value nearly 30 years later. No other plane type had the number of kills that the 109 had. Hell, JG52 had over 11,000 victory claims alone and produced the three highest scoring aces in history. JG52 flew the 109 exclusively. Not bad for a "trainer". Man some of you guys are funny.

mynameisroland
07-14-2005, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wow if the USAAF fighter force shot down 18000 LW planes then where did all the USA aces go to?

The top 100 Luftwaffe Experten destroyed over 10000 enemy AC at least 70000 kills have been credited to the Bf 109.

Now you will retort ' falsified Luft claims blah blah blah ' if thats the case then it applies for all airforces and the kills ratio if reduced remains the same if you half 70000 and half 18000 you get

35000 kills for the Bf 109

and

9000 kills for the entire USAAF fighter force when facing the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the Luftwaffe had 24,000 airmen in World War Two. Only about 3000 survived. Of course that includes bomber crews also.

I tried to find the number of USAAF and RAF airmen over Europe but had no luck. However, if you look at the sheer number of aircraft built, combined with the fact that after a certain number of missions (25 combat for B-17 crews) airmen were forced to come home, to train new pilots, the must have been almost double of the LW. Therefore those kills are spread over a much greater number of pilots. Perhaps the exception to this rule being Erich Hartmann.

Remember also, for the USAAF the war didn't really pick up until mid-1942. By this point many LW experten had been in combat since 1939, almost a three year head start.

Getting back to the tour of duty thing.

Gabreski: 28 kills, only saw combat from December of 42 until June 6 44 when he was captured

Johnson: 27 kills, April 43 to May 45?

Preddy: 26.8 kills, July 43, KIA Jan 1 1945


You guys get the idea I could go on and on. The LW had farrr more oppurtunity to down enemy aircaft than any of the Allies (except for maybe the Russians). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see where your coming from but have to disagree there were many LW aces who flew in the latter half of the war and scored highly. I will try get some names ofr you after work but try looking up Auguste Lambert - ground attack pilot in Fw 190 F series racked up 121 kills IIRC there is also a guy who scored 70 kills in 71 sorties then he bought it.

What you guys need to look at is that ok the LW flew for longer and had more oppertunities ( RAF flew from 39 to 45 also remember) but that means that there chances of being shoy down multiplied by the same factor. Every combat mission - Hartman flew over 1500 (not a particulary high score per sortie ratio compared to Rall ECT ) every time he took of he faced a numerically superior foe. Odds on he should have been shot down.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-14-2005, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gustavflyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Just because the 109 saw service until 69 with the Spaniards doesn't prove anything. A trainer is a trainer, that doesn't make it a combat threat. Spain just so happened to have all those G2 airframes and decided to use them instead of buying new aircraft.

For crying out loud I did some of my private training is Cessna 152s and 172 which have their roots to the 1930s also. If we go by you guys' rules of retirement then technically the 172 is a MUCH more capable aircraft than the Spitfire or the 109!

So there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are saying the 109 was a "trainer". If you mean that then you are really showing your ignorance. It says alot that an airframe conceived in the 30's could still have practical value nearly 30 years later. No other plane type had the number of kills that the 109 had. Hell, JG52 had over 11,000 victory claims alone and produced the three highest scoring aces in history. JG52 flew the 109 exclusively. Not bad for a "trainer". Man some of you guys are funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it.
The Spanish version of the 109 was used as a trainer not a combat aircraft.

darkhorizon11
07-14-2005, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gustavflyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Just because the 109 saw service until 69 with the Spaniards doesn't prove anything. A trainer is a trainer, that doesn't make it a combat threat. Spain just so happened to have all those G2 airframes and decided to use them instead of buying new aircraft.

For crying out loud I did some of my private training is Cessna 152s and 172 which have their roots to the 1930s also. If we go by you guys' rules of retirement then technically the 172 is a MUCH more capable aircraft than the Spitfire or the 109!

So there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are saying the 109 was a "trainer". If you mean that then you are really showing your ignorance. It says alot that an airframe conceived in the 30's could still have practical value nearly 30 years later. No other plane type had the number of kills that the 109 had. Hell, JG52 had over 11,000 victory claims alone and produced the three highest scoring aces in history. JG52 flew the 109 exclusively. Not bad for a "trainer". Man some of you guys are funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Gustav man, lay off the chronic... For one that post wasn't supposed to be THAT serious. But thats okay, I love being called out.

Second the 109 WAS a trainer. Used by Spain up until 1969! Haven't you been reading any of this thread or did you just jump and yell at me for saying that your blessed 109 is anything less than perfection...

And yes, it is great that the airframe built in the 30s has a practical value over 30 years later. But as a trainer? I mean thats wonderful and all but the whole point of a trainer is to train a pilot how to fly... Thats not that big of a deal. Like I said, 152s and 172s draw their roots from the 1940s, no one brags about how amazing they were or are now. If the 109 was still used in combat THEN I would be super impressed.

Actually the real wonders are the planes like the MiG 19, MiG 21, B-52, and the F-4 Phantom. All those aircraft first flew in the 50s and are still used on the front line roll in some countries today. I believe theres an Ilyushin bomber that made its first flight in 1946 thats still in use by some third world nations also.

Yes I know your beloved a/c has over 255 million enemy aircraft kills, the most of all time whatever, thats because it saw intense combat over an almost 6 year period. I don't doubt that it was a threat in the hands of a good pilot. But only a couple of British and Japanese aircraft saw this much use, and the Spit did keep right up with the 109 until the end of the war. I know you lufty boys really brag about all the planes it blew up? How about how many times it was blown out of the sky? Probably just as many, there were 35,000 produced, how many were still in one piece when the war was over?

By the early 50s the aircraft was completely obsolete for front line service, accept it. Everyone knows its the violinist not the violin.

And yes thank you, I am ignorant.

RedDeth
07-14-2005, 07:50 PM
what bolillo was alluding to is this....

given the choice which plane do you think adolf galland would outfit his airforce with late war?

the 109K4 or the P51 ? and im giving the germans the doubt by giving you their best 109...

if you have to think about that you know nothing of either plane.

galland would pick the P51 as a dogfighter alone.

not even mentioning range groundpounding etc.

the 109k4 was only slightly competitive when using mw50 and it only had a few minutes worth of that stuff!!! the mustang could stay in the air ALL DAY LONG.

the 109 was obsolete as soon as the P-51 appeared in europe. thats a fact and not arguable.

Abbuzze
07-15-2005, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
what bolillo was alluding to is this....

given the choice which plane do you think adolf galland would outfit his airforce with late war?

the 109K4 or the P51 ? and im giving the germans the doubt by giving you their best 109...

if you have to think about that you know nothing of either plane.

galland would pick the P51 as a dogfighter alone.

not even mentioning range groundpounding etc.

the 109k4 was only slightly competitive when using mw50 and it only had a few minutes worth of that stuff!!! the mustang could stay in the air ALL DAY LONG.

the 109 was obsolete as soon as the P-51 appeared in europe. thats a fact and not arguable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I allways thought that flightperformance or more the lack of possiblities to develop them further are making a plane obsolete.
Or was the Spitfire obsolete with the advent of the 190??

Beside I fear you are wrong. If you would ask any WW2 figherpilot what plane he would like to fly in dogfights, nobody would choose a P51... they would take a Spit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sid Antin was a Jugpilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Gordon Levett had some kind words for the type:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303 machine guns (sic, actually, the Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (a.k.a. .50 caliber), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)

Syd Antin enjoyed his Mustang time:

Wonderful airplane. Great airplane. But for our situation there, not as good as the Spitfire. The reason? The Mustang was built for longer range, it was a heavier aircraft - it could not maneuver as tightly as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed and built as a short-range fighter. You gotta remember that all it had to was cross the English Channel and it was in a war zone. The Mustang was designed and built to escort long-range bombers and to defend them in the air. Consequently, it had to have more armament and more fuel capacity, so it was heavier and it couldn't maneuver anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.

The Mustang? Great, I loved that airplane. For our job over there, for combat, we only had to fly a few miles to get to it so we didn't need the long range.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
07-15-2005, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finns operated their original Bf 109Gs up to 1967, I belive.

F19_Olli72
07-15-2005, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finns operated their original Bf 109Gs up to 1967, I belive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bf 109 G-6/Y (Tikkakoski museum/Finland)

"This Bf 109 (serial number 167271)was delivered to the finish Airforce on 24th August 1944 and put into service as MT-507. Because Finland made armistice with the UdSSR on 4th September, the MT-507 just flew for 10 hours, before it was storaged. In June 1949 it was reactivated and stayed in service until 13th March 1954. This made her to be the last Messerschmitt Bf 109 in active service."

http://www.adlertag.de/heute/static.htm

geetarman
07-15-2005, 09:22 AM
I don't know what the big debate is about? It seems pretty clear from a variety of available info (charts, stats, pilot accounts)that, on balance, the 109 was a better fighter at lower speeds than a Mustang. It was better at a close-in dogfight, assuming the pilots were of equal skill. As one noted Warbird flyer has pointed out though, at high speed, a Mustang was safe from a 109. I think IL2 shows that pretty well.

Also, my (admittedly) meager research shows that the Mustangs chief opponents during 1944-1945 were either standard G6's, G-14's and a sprinkling of K4's. On the FW side, most seemed to be A5 through 8's and the Dora's. It seems that a lot of A-8's were around in 1944. I would say the Mustang is the better plane than most of those except the Dora, which matches it pretty well. In total, I would say it's slightly inferior to a K-4 unless at very high speed.

Both planes are great and deserve their places in history.

Xiolablu3
07-15-2005, 12:42 PM
I know we are going a bit off topic here but I would rather take an 109F4 109G** 109K 190A8 or D9 (obviously) than a P51D in the game.

I'm not sure if it really was that bad but I cant fly the p51D well at all, even on the off chance you do get a flash shot at a enemy plane, you arent gonna knock it down because it takes so much 50cal fire to get him.

Xiolablu3
07-15-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the 109 was an excellent plane ?

yea pre 1943 it was fantastic

after that its only competative feature was the speed in climbs & level - & that was given it by running the MW50 which loaded the plane heavily & was a useable feature for no longer than 10 minutes . . . . . ever

seriously the LW need a better prop fighter design powered by a better motor , (the excellent DB603 , bigger than the DB605 - more powerfull - & more reliable) , to replace the 109 by 43

& bucketloads of high grade/quality fuel

or go 262 exclusivly for intercept </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats what the FW190 was supposed to be, a REPLACEMENT for the 109, but problems with it lead to the 109 being upgraded again and again, long after it should have been withdrawn.

Its not the 109's fault the FW190 had troubles. The 109 was an excellent plane - period.

geetarman
07-15-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I know we are going a bit off topic here but I would rather take an 109F4 109G** 109K 190A8 or D9 (obviously) than a P51D in the game.

I'm not sure if it really was that bad but I cant fly the p51D well at all, even on the off chance you do get a flash shot at a enemy plane, you arent gonna knock it down because it takes so much 50cal fire to get him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 51 is a bit more of a handful to fly since 4.01. It did require constant attention in RL however. Once you get used to it, it becomes easier to manage, although can still be a royal PITA to shoot with. I now know what Bud Anderson meant he said shooting and hitting with a WWII fighter was not an easy thing to do.

And yeah, things aren't made easier with .50's.

Xiolablu3
07-15-2005, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Looking at it from another way, what possible advantage would the Bf109 hold over any of the USAAF fighters? Low speed turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, that's only good for computer DF servers.

Sorry, the Bf109 had its time from '39-'42, in '42-'43 the Fw190 was leader of the pack, after that the USAAF was looking pretty good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm which US fighter was better than the Me262 or FW190D? I cant think of one which is close.

1944-45 Me262 and FW190D then.

So we have it, the LW generally had the best plane right up to 1945, its just the NUMBERS and number of pilots which was the problem.

faustnik
07-15-2005, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Errm which US fighter was better than the Me262 or FW190D? I cant think of one which is close.

1944-45 Me262 and FW190D then.

So we have it, the LW generally had the best plane right up to 1945, its just the NUMBERS and number of pilots which was the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dora was equal to the latest Allied fighters, but superior, only in low level speed. The Me262, it was of course an advanced design, but, operational difficulties limited its effectiveness. I disagree with your "LW had the best planes" assertion.

Xiolablu3
07-16-2005, 04:59 AM
Yes I disagree with my own statement actually :P, the Me109E was probably equal to the Spitfire, not superior.

But the LW could hold its own with any of the top fighters all thru the war.

I definitely disagree that the US had superior planes in 1944-45.

We arent talking about production difficulties or fuel shortages here, we are talking the best plane thru combat effectiveness, this is clearly the Me262.

Hristo_
07-16-2005, 05:25 AM
1939/40 - Bf 109E is the best fighter

1941 - Bf 109F is thebest fighter

1942-43 - Fw 190 is the best fighter

1944/45 - Me 262 is the best fighter

What a pattern http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Interestingly, such historical record is matched in current WarClouds stats, where 9 of 10 top scorers are flying Blue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

249th_Harrier
07-16-2005, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Looking at it from another way, what possible advantage would the Bf109 hold over any of the USAAF fighters? Low speed turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, that's only good for computer DF servers.

Sorry, the Bf109 had its time from '39-'42, in '42-'43 the Fw190 was leader of the pack, after that the USAAF was looking pretty good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm which US fighter was better than the Me262 or FW190D? I cant think of one which is close.

1944-45 Me262 and FW190D then.

So we have it, the LW generally had the best plane right up to 1945, its just the NUMBERS and number of pilots which was the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just not true. In late '44, most 109s were still G6 models, with very poor manufacturing standards. Fuel quality was poor also. What few G14s there were, which were not sabotaged by the slave labor that build them, probably were superior to the Mustangs they faced in low-speed low-alt dogfights. In the average air-to-air combat in '44 - '45, the 109 pilot was at a disadvantage in equipment as well as numbers. Not to say that the 109G14 was not a great design for its time, it was, and IL2/PF reflects this. Why is it sacriledge to suggest that this did not translate into an advantage for the average Luftwaffe pilot?

Hristo_
07-16-2005, 06:20 AM
Just as AVERAGE Allied plane wasn't superior to best Luftwaffe plane. LOL

Xiolablu3
07-16-2005, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Looking at it from another way, what possible advantage would the Bf109 hold over any of the USAAF fighters? Low speed turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, that's only good for computer DF servers.

Sorry, the Bf109 had its time from '39-'42, in '42-'43 the Fw190 was leader of the pack, after that the USAAF was looking pretty good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm which US fighter was better than the Me262 or FW190D? I cant think of one which is close.

1944-45 Me262 and FW190D then.

So we have it, the LW generally had the best plane right up to 1945, its just the NUMBERS and number of pilots which was the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just not true. In late '44, most 109s were still G6 models, with very poor manufacturing standards. Fuel quality was poor also. What few G14s there were, which were not sabotaged by the slave labor that build them, probably were superior to the Mustangs they faced in low-speed low-alt dogfights. However, the AVERAGE Luft plane was not superior to the Mustang at any point in the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I'm sorry m8, u are rightly following the thread whereas we are talking baout the LW in general not just the 109. You are correct in saying the 109 had its day between 1937 and 1942. After that the FW190 should have taken over in full but teething troubles led to the 109 being upgraded again and again.

We are talking LW in general not just 109.

F19_Olli72
07-16-2005, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
1939/40 - Bf 109E is the best fighter

1941 - Bf 109F is thebest fighter

1942-43 - Fw 190 is the best fighter

1944/45 - Me 262 is the best fighter

What a pattern http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Interestingly, such historical record is matched in current WarClouds stats, where 9 of 10 top scorers are flying Blue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong Hristo: compare the k/d ratio of Brewster and 109G in finnish airforce of REAL life. You will see Brewster is the better plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1941 Brewsters had a k/d ratio of 67.5 - 1.

AnaK774
07-16-2005, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:

Interestingly, such historical record is matched in current WarClouds stats, where 9 of 10 top scorers are flying Blue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And u know how much those stats are worth of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-16-2005, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the same logic you can't call late war Spitfires Spitfires because they use the Griffon engine and not the Merlin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
07-16-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AnaK774:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:

Interestingly, such historical record is matched in current WarClouds stats, where 9 of 10 top scorers are flying Blue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And u know how much those stats are worth of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anywhere from 15-25 $, last I heard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-16-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
that was given it by running the MW50 which loaded the plane heavily & was a useable feature for no longer than 10 minutes . . . . . ever </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

10min at a time - then you had to let the engine cool down a bit. After that you could go for another 10mins, and another 10 min,...

But tell me: I dont think the late Spitfires and P51B/C/D Mustangs could run at full power any longer than that timespan too

F19_Olli72
07-16-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s, the last Buchons were powered by Merlin engines, so you decide, is it a 109 or more of a Spitfire?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the same logic you can't call late war Spitfires Spitfires because they use the Griffon engine and not the Merlin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, Spain used Hispano Buchons NOT Bf109s in the late 60s. That was what my probatio was, do you really think i was suggesting that it was literally a Spitfire?

Because correct me if im wrong, serial produced bf109s only had Daimler Benz engines...nothing else.

Read the first part again "I wouldnt count Buchons as 109s".

Kurfurst__
07-16-2005, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
This is just not true. In late '44, most 109s were still G6 models, with very poor manufacturing standards. Fuel quality was poor also. What few G14s there were, which were not sabotaged by the slave labor that build them, probably were superior to the Mustangs they faced in low-speed low-alt dogfights. In the average air-to-air combat in '44 - '45, the 109 pilot was at a disadvantage in equipment as well as numbers. Not to say that the 109G14 was not a great design for its time, it was, and IL2/PF reflects this. Why is it sacriledge to suggest that this did not translate into an advantage for the average Luftwaffe pilot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly you are wrong. By late 1944, there were only a handful of G-6s remaining in service, G-10, g-14 and K-4 being the dominant types (95%).

Noteworthy that 65% of the planes were of high alt types (G/AS, G-10 and K-4) with a max speed ranging from 680 to 715 kph.


From : RL2III/1158


On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in Bf109 types. These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time. (combat/Erganzungs):

Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)
Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)

Total (1435/527)

Kurfurst__
07-16-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
that was given it by running the MW50 which loaded the plane heavily & was a useable feature for no longer than 10 minutes . . . . . ever </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

10min at a time - then you had to let the engine cool down a bit. After that you could go for another 10mins, and another 10 min,...

But tell me: I dont think the late Spitfires and P51B/C/D Mustangs could run at full power any longer than that timespan too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Karaya X is right. From K-4 handbook :

"Der mitgeführte MW-Stoff (75 Ltr.) reicht für 26 Flugmin.-Sondernotleistung aus. Es kann also 2 x 10 min Sondernotleistung entommen werden, oder eine andere Zeitaufteilung; auf keinen Fall mit Sondernotleistung über 10 min fliegen. Weiteres über Bedienung siehe L. Dv. T. 2109 K-4/Fl.

Zwischen zwei Sondernotleistungen muss eine Betriebszeit mit geringer Motorleistung von mindestens 5 min liegen."

Which translates to :



"The amount of MW booster fuel being carried (75 liters) is sufficient for 26 minutes of flight while using the Sondernotleistung. Therefore Sondernotleistung can be used for two 10 minute periods, or in any other subdivision; in no case should one fly with Sondernotleistung for over 10 minutes. For further servicing instructions, see L. Dv. T. 2109 K-4/Fl.

Between two uses of the Sondernotleistung the engine must be run at a lower power output for ca. 5 minutes."


Ie. 26 minutes running a 2000 HP.... you will never EVER use WEP that much in a single sortie.

Platypus_1.JaVA
07-16-2005, 03:38 PM
Well, I hate to say it but, some historians think that the 109 was obsolete. The airframe was too small and the landing gear too narrow. After the 109F series, there was not much improvement anymore in the performance.

Badsight.
07-16-2005, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
10min at a time - then you had to let the engine cool down a bit. After that you could go for another 10mins, and another 10 min,...

But tell me: I dont think the late Spitfires and P51B/C/D Mustangs could run at full power any longer than that timespan too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the point is that MW50's speed boost helped keep the Bf109s competitive with the uber fast allied planes

but that speed boost had dire limitations

it Couldnt be used for longer than 10 minutes , EVER & pilot account recall running it for much shorter spans than the full 10 minutes

unlike water injection which actually is good for the high boosted motor , MW50 was destructive

to get this speed boost the 109 had to be loaded down with 2 tanks , the injector device & all the plumbing , & take a look at the water tank , its Huge

a bad way to get more speed , a really bad compromise

109s were outta their league after 42 , the RLM should have had a new fighter for 43 , something like the Me-209 with its excellent Db-603 motor , & if they were going to be running piston/prop planes they badly needed high grade fuel

the 109 was sub-par for the job it was required to do , & feels way better than it should in FB compared to its RL counterpart

Hristo_
07-16-2005, 06:41 PM
Water was the main part.

Methanol was only to prevent freezing of water.

Mix was 50/50.

Xiolablu3
07-17-2005, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
10min at a time - then you had to let the engine cool down a bit. After that you could go for another 10mins, and another 10 min,...

But tell me: I dont think the late Spitfires and P51B/C/D Mustangs could run at full power any longer than that timespan too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the point is that MW50's speed boost helped keep the Bf109s competitive with the uber fast allied planes

but that speed boost had dire limitations

it Couldnt be used for longer than 10 minutes , EVER & pilot account recall running it for much shorter spans than the full 10 minutes

unlike water injection which actually is good for the high boosted motor , MW50 was destructive

to get this speed boost the 109 had to be loaded down with 2 tanks , the injector device & all the plumbing , & take a look at the water tank , its Huge

a bad way to get more speed , a really bad compromise

109s were outta their league after 42 , the RLM should have had a new fighter for 43 , something like the Me-209 with its excellent Db-603 motor , & if they were going to be running piston/prop planes they badly needed high grade fuel

the 109 was sub-par for the job it was required to do , & feels way better than it should in FB compared to its RL counterpart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did have a replacement, it was called the FW190. It was just teething troubles which caused the 109 to be upgraded again and again.

The FW190 should have taken over completely between 1942 and 1944, only bad luck (or hardships facing germany at the time) meant that it didnt.

I also disagree that teh Me109 in FB is 'better' than its real life counterpart.

If I come up against a 109 (any model) in a Spit, KI84 or FW190D for example , I sort of feel they are easyish to deal with unless they have the height and speed advantage, which is the way it should be. BUT they can still be very dangerous if they are on your tail.

Ruy Horta
07-17-2005, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

it Couldnt be used for longer than 10 minutes , EVER & pilot account recall running it for much shorter spans than the full 10 minutes

unlike water injection which actually is good for the high boosted motor , MW50 was destructive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MW 50 is nothing more than 50% water and 50% methanol, the latter is used as anti-freeze to enable the system to be used at any altitude (although there is no gain above the rated altitude - see manual 6km for AM and 8.5km for ASM).

If you count replacing/cleaning up sparkplugs, cleaning the oil filter and filling up the oil as destructive...

Now if you consider the fact that the aicraft might be written off due to combat before the engine ever reached to point of being worn off, it doesn't appear to be a real issue.

Logistically it was cheap way to get more performance.

I've got an original document by DB which discusses competativeness, the main issue it touches is high octane vs available fuel and the fact you can compare the two on an equal basis. The issue isn't one of lack of knowledge or faulty design, but what can be achieved with the means available.

Would the Luftwaffe have wanted a more competative design and abundant levels of high octane fuel, certainly, but they didn't have either.

So Messerschmitt produced a relatively cheap fighter design en masse, which taken objectively remained competative throughout the war.

The germans also produced a second fighter, the Fw 190 in as high a number as they could, and they worked on its increased high altitude performance, until the technology matured enough - JUMO 213 and DB 603 engines, the Fw 190D and Ta 152 series of fighters.

The replacement designs by Messerschmitt for its 109 either failed to outperform the current types or competative designs (Bf 109 and Fw 190D/Ta152), finally being surpassed by maturing jet technology with the Me 262.

Again Messerschmitt continued to produce a competative fighter, which suffered more under the general conditions of war than basic design inferiority (the Soviets regarded the Bf 109 as superior to the Fw 190).

One can post claims stats made by the US AAF during these last 2 years of the war and make all kinds of assumptions from that in terms of aicraft quality, which will only proof that figures taken out of context provide for only the most basic answers (win or loose for example).

Certainly the US AAF made impressive claims, does that really mean that the claim ratio is an exact reflection of a/c quality?

That would indicate that the Brewster was the best design of WW2...silly, right?!

MW 50 was a simple boosting system, which could mean the difference between life and death. Call it an inefficient design, but explain how it could have been improved upon from the vantage point of the German aircraft industry and the current conditions of the war raging over Europe...

F19_Olli72
07-17-2005, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I also disagree that teh Me109 in FB is 'better' than its real life counterpart.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All planes are better than its real counterpart in FB.

For Bf109 this means;

No engine unreliability, engines never fail or starts to burn spontaneously.

No BF109 is ever sabotaged by forced labour workers. Examples mentioned by finnish pilot: cockpit canopies were spontaneously ejected and undercarriage did not work.

No Bf109 is ever grounded for lack of fuel.

Bf109 doesnt have the cramped uncomfortable cockpit, the pilot can stand and stretch anytime.

Range doesnt affect flying in the game, in reality that was a weak spot for Bf109.

Late war, there isnt enough newbies flying BF109.

Late war, the Bf109 isnt faced with large bomber formations with adequate 'defensive boxes' or escort. Only a single bomber or a pair.

So there you have it, bf109 is a lot better than its real counterpart. Along with all other planes in the game.

F19_Olli72
07-17-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
but that speed boost had dire limitations

it Couldnt be used for longer than 10 minutes , EVER & pilot account recall running it for much shorter spans than the full 10 minutes
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, Franz Stiegler says there was a 2 minute limit. Even if it could practically used for 10 minutes, Franz Stiegler (and other pilots i assume) used it for tops 2 minutes.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
but that speed boost had dire limitations

it Couldnt be used for longer than 10 minutes , EVER & pilot account recall running it for much shorter spans than the full 10 minutes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to mention that allied planes had even more dire limitations, 5 minutes at max power. And of course it could be used above 10 mins, but it would overload the engine by then, or at least, exceed the limitations.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
unlike water injection which actually is good for the high boosted motor , MW50 was destructive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but you got it all wrong. Mw50 WAS water injection. Same thing as water injection on the P-47. same thing as on the P-51H. Same thing as in the F4U etc. So as you said, it was actually good for the motor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It was the very same composition, water + alcohol (important only as anti-freeze) and a bit oil. EXACTLY the same components and ratio as Allied ADI. And mind you... MW50 , if not available, could be replaced by PURE WATER, if that gives you a hint about it`s nature.

You probably mistaken it with GM-1, which, being nitrous-oxide, was highly corrosive.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">to get this speed boost the 109 had to be loaded down with 2 tanks , the injector device & all the plumbing , & take a look at the water tank , its Huge a bad way to get more speed , a really bad compromise
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no two tanks, just one behind the pilot. And it`s a light one, what can be the weight of a 118 liter aluminium tank, 10-20 kg at best? Plumbing, yeah, 2-3 pipes that another... say 3 kg. And most of this weight increase as balanced out by taking out 32kg of equipment from the back of the plane to make space for the tank. Effectively it was only the weight of the booster fluid.

And as how bad it was for getting speed, well, the late, MW50 carrying 109s were generally faster than their allied counterparts, look at the K-4.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the 109 was sub-par for the job it was required to do , & feels way better than it should in FB compared to its RL counterpart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well actually we don`t even have the full powered versions in FB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As for sub-apr on the job... depends. The 190 was a better bomber destroyer. But then again, look at ploesti. It`s largely the work of LW/Rumanian 109s.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2005, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Correct, Franz Stiegler says there was a 2 minute limit. Even if it could practically used for 10 minutes, Franz Stiegler (and other pilots i assume) used it for tops 2 minutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if any of you complaining about the 'only' 2x10min limit at WEP would actually count how long you use the WEP on any plane in FB... ure time, I guess it would be a total of less than half of that.

Badsight.
07-17-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I also disagree that teh Me109 in FB is 'better' than its real life counterpart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you have got to be kidding , they out-perform the RL versions in every way , especially climb & turn , how good does it have to get before you would think otherwise !

& Kurfurst sure the 1.98 ATA K4 did well in speed tests , but find some evidence that squadrons ran them at that boost level

it was cleard for that boost absolutly but evidence of them run in service at that boost is HARD to come by , evidence of 1.90 ATA in service is Much eaiser to find

how bad can having a 1.80 ATA K4 be when it reaches 6K Fifty seconds faster than the RL 1.98 ATA/2000 Hp K4 was able to do it in !

the 109 wasnt a wonder plane , it was bearly competitive against the planes the Allieds ran during WW2 , it needed replacing by 1943

F19_Olli72
07-17-2005, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Correct, Franz Stiegler says there was a 2 minute limit. Even if it could practically used for 10 minutes, Franz Stiegler (and other pilots i assume) used it for tops 2 minutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if any of you complaining about the 'only' 2x10min limit at WEP would actually count how long you use the WEP on any plane in FB... ure time, I guess it would be a total of less than half of that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is posting facts complaining? Exactly what am i complaining about in your opinion? I was referring to what a real 109 pilot stated about limits of WEP. If thats complaining, im not the one whos doing it, its Franz Stiegler.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

you have got to be kidding , they out-perform the RL versions in every way , especially climb & turn , how good does it have to get before you would think otherwise </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf 109s were famous for being good climbers and turners. See my sig.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
& Kurfurst sure the 1.98 ATA K4 did well in speed tests , but find some evidence that squadrons ran them at that boost level it was cleard for that boost absolutly but evidence of them run in service at that boost is HARD to come by , evidence of 1.90 ATA in service is Much eaiser to find </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Visit my site at kurfurst.atw.hu , there`s a quote from March 1945 German order for two wings from each the JG 27 and JG 53 regiments to convert to 1.98ata. ca 140 aircraft. Personally, I think official clearance and order two a considerable number of units to run on it is enough evidence.

But mind you, our current K-4 only runs at 1800 HP / 1.8ata, not the full power.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
how bad can having a 1.80 ATA K4 be when it reaches 6K Fifty seconds faster than the RL 1.98 ATA/2000 Hp K4 was able to do it in </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like P-51, Spitfire, La-7, all climb too fast.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the 109 wasnt a wonder plane , it was bearly competitive against the planes the Allieds ran during WW2 , it needed replacing by 1943 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn`t a wonder plane but it was more than competitive against Allied planes... just look at the specs, it`s GOOD, in every timeframe. It`s no wonder the type had so many victories..

Badsight.
07-17-2005, 06:45 AM
gah im afraid i cant get to it

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/

i get the "The page cannot be displayed" message . id love to see that order tho as it would be the first proof besides your typical internet website stating the 1.98 figure as the max for the DB motor that i would have seen

Ruy Horta
07-17-2005, 07:04 AM
Badsight, just buy Japo's books on the Bf 109G-10...

Kurfurst__
07-17-2005, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
gah im afraid i cant get to it

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/

i get the "The page cannot be displayed" message . id love to see that order tho as it would be the first proof besides your typical internet website stating the 1.98 figure as the max for the DB motor that i would have seen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad, many have problem accessing that stupid atw provider.

Otherwise, it`s from Nr. 937/45 gKdos.m issued 20.03.45. It can be found in Kobel/MAthman`s 109 book.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2005, 07:35 AM
Here`s a copy paste from the site (and from the book) :



OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

"The development in the equipment status of day fighter units is based on the standard types laid down in the emergency program and anticipates :



for Bf 109 units : K-4

for FW 190 units : D-9, D-12 with changeover to Ta 152 H and C



The arrival of the Ta 152 and it`s assignment to FW 190 units will result in an improvement in the equipment status of these units.

Essentially Bf 109 development will conclude with the K-4 an will inevitably lead to the conversion of Bf 109 units - those not scheduled for disbandment - to TL (jet fighters). Homogeneity of the equipment is to be strived for, combination of similar types is temporary and to be accepted based on levels of production."


The proposed changes to units equipped with Bf 109 were as follows :


OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -



This order, apart from ordering 90% of the existing 109 units to convert to the Bf 109 K-4 as soon as deliveries permit, also notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase the maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure. It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98ata before that order came, but it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe.

249th_Harrier
07-17-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
This is just not true. In late '44, most 109s were still G6 models, with very poor manufacturing standards. Fuel quality was poor also. What few G14s there were, which were not sabotaged by the slave labor that build them, probably were superior to the Mustangs they faced in low-speed low-alt dogfights. In the average air-to-air combat in '44 - '45, the 109 pilot was at a disadvantage in equipment as well as numbers. Not to say that the 109G14 was not a great design for its time, it was, and IL2/PF reflects this. Why is it sacriledge to suggest that this did not translate into an advantage for the average Luftwaffe pilot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly you are wrong. By late 1944, there were only a handful of G-6s remaining in service, G-10, g-14 and K-4 being the dominant types (95%).

Noteworthy that 65% of the planes were of high alt types (G/AS, G-10 and K-4) with a max speed ranging from 680 to 715 kph.


From : RL2III/1158


On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in Bf109 types. These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time. (combat/Erganzungs):

Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)
Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)

Total (1435/527) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Information like this is readily available in print and on the internet:

quote:
German fighter production continued to increase during the summer of 1944, and acceptances reached a peak of 3,375 in September. Although it has studied the problem with considerable care, the Survey has no clear answer as to what happened to these planes; the differences of opinion between German air generals, it might be added, are at least as great as between those who have searched for the explanation. Certainly only a minority of the planes appeared in combat. Possibly the remainder were lost in transit from factory to combat bases, destroyed on the fields, or grounded because of a shortage of gasoline or pilots. Conceivably some are part of an inflation of German production figures. The answer is not clear.
unquote

source: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tdotgaf

I call this the myth of the G14. According to Luftwaffe records, thousands were built and delivered. The question is, where did they go? Apparently not into combat. I am a bit skeptical of the list of Luftwaffe fighters in '45, the traditionally high standard of German record keeping started to break down about this time. I think the answer to this mystery may never be known for sure, but the most reasonable explanation is this: after the defeat of the army in France, everyone in Germany knew total defeat was coming, and the point was to save yourself and your buddies. If Hitler knows how few servicable aircraft you REALLY have, those extra mechanics and pilots (now classified as "rear area swine") will be drafted into infantry divisions. Some of the new infantry divisions thrown into the battle of the bulge were such unfortunate former members of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine.

Whatever the real number of G14s actually available, they certainly faced the same issues the Japanese faced late in the war (and the Soviets in '41-'42): poor fuel quality, poor aircraft production quality, lack of spare parts, shortage of mechanics and skilled support staff.

Allied military commanders were surprised when they learned the capabilities of late war Luftwaffe prop fighters. There was a wide gulf between what the design was capable of, and what the Luftwaffe was able to get out of it.

JG52_wunsch
07-17-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JugHead-usmc:
Man I have'nt flown much since I download 4.1 but man the G14 is a menace in the skies.Took on a couple of 25's and instead of being slow and heavy I ran right through thier box formation hitting not 1 but 3 and I zoomed up and bnz them.This rocks.Any others witness the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it.
The only reason that allied planes could fight the 109 on almost equal terms was that allied planes became almost as fast as the 109 and more in number.
Before themost allied planes usually couldn't catch the 109.
If one looks on the specs on the competing fighters to the 109 u see that the 109 still do many things better than many of the allied planes.
the most dangerous planes to the 109 are the cannon equipped ones late in the war. Although they aren't as fast they are fast enough to throw a couple of shots at 109's and thats why for example the spit9, yak3 and La7 and La5fn can frequently bring down 109's at an equal rate as the 109. The other factor is that they have enough energy to turn away from an attacking 109.
Early planes like the hurricane can turn better than the 109 but for a limited time. When its energy is gone a 109 outurns the spit or the hurricane although by a small margin.

My online experience is uthat 20 late 109's are superior to 20 late spits. Not by much but the 30mm is the main contributor.
One or two 20mm hits are bad but one 30mm usually ends it immediatly.

One other factor that makes late allied planes more comparable with the 109 is that they are almost as fast wich makes them able to keep distance to an attacking 109 for a while wich forces the 109 to chase for longer periods wich is dangerous.

Not many planes could fight or disengage at will. The 109 could do that against the majority of early planes and to some later planes.

This is a good explanation why the 109 wins the majority of fights online.

So still in 1944 and 45 it was a winning design in many ways.
The germans at that time lacked experienced pilots and petrol and met greater numbers wich drained their resources further.
At the end there was no rest for the few axis pilots left and many compared this with the situation for the english during the battle of brittain.

One of the reasons that the 109's didn't score more during BoB was that they couldn't get afford being damaged since they wouldn't be able to get back over the channel wich was the fate of many 109's. also the fuelsituation allowed only a few minutes of combat before it was time to disengage. One german pilot sqaid he couldn't afford to BnZ a spitfire for many minutes and that he had to disengage because of lack of fuel.

So I belive an experienced pilot in the 109 can beat almost any plane while the opposit isn't likely, exept with a few very late allied planes.

a few thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well said... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed.

Don't be hatin' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i ll third that.well said,indeed.

Ruy Horta
07-17-2005, 01:29 PM
249th

You should get either:

La Luftwaffe face au débarquement Allié 6 juin au 31 aot 1944
Jean-Bernard Frappé
Editions Heimdal, 1999
2-84048-126-X
Laminated
352 p.

or (which is not as good, but in English)

Angels Eight
Normandy Air War Diary
David Clark
1stbook, 2003
1-4107-2242-2
Hard Cover
391 p.

Other good books following the numbers of fighters available in the West include:

Six Months to Oblivion
The Defeat of the Luftwaffe Fighter Force Over the Western Front 1944/1945
Werner Girbig
Schiffer Publishing, 1991
0-88740-348-4
Hard Cover
228 p.

Bodenplatte
The Luftwaffe's Last Hope
The Attack on Allied Airfields New Year's Day 1945
John Manrho & Ron Pütz
Hikoki Publishing, 2004
1-902109-40-6
Hard Cover
304 p.

The Last Year of the Luftwaffe
May 1944 to May 1945
Alfred Price
Arms & Armour Press, 1991
1-85409-189-1
Softcover
188 p.

To Win the Winter Sky
Air War over the Ardennes, 1944-1945
Danny S. Parker
Greenhill Books, 1994
1-85367-176-2
Hard Cover
528 p.

2nd Tactical Air Force Volume Two
Breakout to Bodenplatte July 1944 to January 1945
Christopher Shores & Chris Thomas
Classic, 2005
1-903223-41-5
Hard Cover
186 p.

Add a number of unit histories by Prien and Caldwell and you'll gt a pretty full picture.

These books really are better in explaining the situation than some of these monographs which were not always written by those who had best knowledge of the situation.

Also don't forget that those who wrote that report were doing so just after the war, so without the benefit of thorough research.

It is up to you what you prefer to believe...

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2005, 03:16 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
The 109 shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.
Conceived in 1935, it gave Allied planes a run for their money all the way into 1945. From the steps or Russia, the deserts of Africa and fjords of Norway - it ruled the skies.
The 109 was the mount of greatest aces the world has ever seen.
Top 3 aces who flew 109 exclusively or almost exclusively:
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Basically US Aircraft designs were built to win wars and air battles. Luftwaffe designs--just to win local air battles. Luftwaffe fighter designs were not well disposed for strategic offensives. Their relatively short combat range did not allow them to take the fight to the enemy's homeland. The 109 had severe designs limits in these areas.

Looking at the Battle of Britain for example, some historians called the 109E a "strategic failure" as it had insuffient range to cover the bombers over Great Britain. Also the 109E did not overwhelm or defeat the RAF with technical superiority commonly associated with fighter combat performance.

According to historians the 109E was a failure during the Battle of Britain because of 2 main reasons.

The 109E failed to defeat the RAF and attain Air Superiority over England.
The 109E failed to protect german bomber forces which would of destroyed vital infrastructure.

This does not mean the 109E was not a good fighter, it was. But as noted above had limitations and was not technicaly superior to the Spitfire.

Forcast that scenario to Fortress Europe from 1943 to 1945.
The 109G-K series failed to defeat the RAF/USAAF and attain Air Superiority over Europe.

The 109 was a competive aircraft to the end of WW2 but it was far from ruling the skies. It must also be noted that the 109 was shot down more than any other aircraft and that 1/3 of all 109 production was lost to operational accidents, mostly landings and take offs. The 109 was not a simple plane to master and did not have many standard features as other aircraft such as rudder/airleron trim.

As for manueverability, Gunther Rall said his favorite model of 109 was the 109F series. Rall called those a dream to fly and it was his perfect 109 model. However Rall and many other Luftwaffe Experten called the late model 109s; overloaded, heavy, humps and bumps. Stielger said, eveytime we get into the 109 now there is a new hump or bump, an attempt to put as much equipment as possible on an already to small airframe.

Rall went as far as to call for a new 109 wing design because he felt the 109 was too highly wing loaded. Rall wanted the 109 to have a wing with the same square foot area as the Spit. You can read the whole Gunther Rall's interview at the Fin's 109 web site.

Some people here think that all models of 109s turned well. Well Rall and many of the experten thought differently. They thought the late model 109s were heavily overloaded and had high wingloading. Still competitve aircraft but they didnt turn or handle like 109F's.


___

faustnik
07-17-2005, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Some people here think that all models of 109s turned well. Well Rall and many of the experten thought differently. They thought the late model 109s were heavily overloaded and had high wingloading. Still competitve aircraft but they didnt turn or handle like 109F's.


___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't that be shown just by looking at the wingloading?

Bf109F2 - 5,960 lbs
Bf109K - 7,440 lbs

That's a 25% weight gain without an improvement in lift or wingloading.

249th_Harrier
07-17-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Some people here think that all models of 109s turned well. Well Rall and many of the experten thought differently. They thought the late model 109s were heavily overloaded and had high wingloading. Still competitve aircraft but they didnt turn or handle like 109F's.


___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't that be shown just by looking at the wingloading?

Bf109F2 - 5,960 lbs
Bf109K - 7,440 lbs

That's a 25% weight gain without an improvement in lift or wingloading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wingloading increased, but it is my uderstanding a lot of improvements were made to the airframe to improve maneuverability. One that I am pretty sure of is metal control surfaces. The fabric ones "ballooned" at high speeds. Maybe a better statement would be: F model is best for low speed stall fight. Anyone have info on other improvements?

Slickun
07-17-2005, 04:00 PM
Refinements may have done a bit of good.

But, there is no way it alleviated all of the problems a 25% increase in wingloading dealt the design in turning.

C'mon. Powerloading was better, wingloading was much worse.

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2005, 04:05 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
faustnik Posted Sun July 17 2005 14:22
quote:
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Some people here think that all models of 109s turned well. Well Rall and many of the experten thought differently. They thought the late model 109s were heavily overloaded and had high wingloading. Still competitve aircraft but they didnt turn or handle like 109F's.


___


Can't that be shown just by looking at the wingloading?

Bf109F2 - 5,960 lbs
Bf109K - 7,440 lbs

That's a 25% weight gain without an improvement in lift or wingloading.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



There is other aerodynamic considerations such as powerloading also which helped with the high wingloading. But the more you read what many of the experten were saying about the late model 109's is a common saying---"overloaded".

Rall heavily lobbied Willy Messer to change the 109 wing to accomodate the extra 109 weight. Rall described some of these dicussions as heated. Just like the War Production Board in the US being short sighted and canceling improvements, there was a comment from Willy about 109 production cannot be slowed as in changing wing designs.


__

Slickun
07-18-2005, 04:34 PM
Put 25% more wingloading on ANY design, and the amount of G's one can pull across the speed range withouf stalling drops significantly.

stathem
07-18-2005, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There are no two tanks, just one behind the pilot. And it`s a light one, what can be the weight of a 118 liter aluminium tank, 10-20 kg at best? Plumbing, yeah, 2-3 pipes that another... say 3 kg. And most of this weight increase as balanced out by taking out 32kg of equipment from the back of the plane to make space for the tank. Effectively it was only the weight of the booster fluid.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

90Kg for the tank and mixture (30kg tank, 60kg fluid)... Or like making it a two seater. Seems strange that you don't know the exact figure Kurfurst. And which equipment was taken out? There was 30kg of equipment in the back of G6 they didn't need? Or were the wooden tails lighter?

Hristo_
07-18-2005, 11:40 PM
Of course a 10 year old design had a lot of compromises built into it. That it was even competitive was a miracle by itself.

And Me 109 really was competitive late in the war. Remember Hartmann shooting down 4 P-51s in one sortie ? That's what happens when a capable 109 pilot faced opposition on even terms.

By 1944, though, Messerschmitt was not only aware of 109 getting old, but he had a solution ready for quite some time:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap11.jpg

Too bad there is one valid WW2 fighter consistently banned from the servers. And it is Messerschmitt. Edgar Schmued sounded a little silly when he said "...there is no aerodynamics with Messerschmitt...". I guess he never saw the 262.

CUJO_1970
07-19-2005, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Too bad there is one valid WW2 fighter consistently banned from the servers. And it is Messerschmitt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, the best fighter of the war stays banned, can't say I blame the reds for not wanting it included (from their standpoint)

It sure would be fun to fly it every now and then though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

stathem
07-19-2005, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Too bad there is one valid WW2 fighter consistently banned from the servers. And it is Messerschmitt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, the best fighter of the war stays banned, can't say I blame the reds for not wanting it included (from their standpoint)

It sure would be fun to fly it every now and then though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But chaps, there is a very major flaw with the flight modelling of that aircraft which gives it capabilities it didn't have IRL. If there was a red plane with such a flaw, you'd scream the house down.