PDA

View Full Version : German WW2 Aces Fighter aircraft



mynameisroland
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
Most of the high scoring Eastern Front Experten flew the Bf 109. This was due to the fact imo that there were never enough Fw 190's to go around to use this aircraft as a fighter on Western and Eastern fronts while using it as a Schlachtflieger aircraft on the Eastern front also.

Most aces when interviewed felt that the Bf 109 was like an extension of their own bodies and considered it to be excellent. However, when you see what capable pilots who had the opportunity to fly the Fw 190 for long periods could do its hard to argue that the Bf 109 was a superior machine for scoring kills in.

Most significantly, I read comments in Fw 190 over North Africa, concerning Erich Rudorffer. When he transferred to North Africa using Fw 190 A4's he quickly learned to adopt Marsielles famous techniques when dealing with Allied fighters forming defensive circles. These required high degrees of piloting and gunnery but also asked a lot from the aircraft in terms of vertical manuverablity and performance.

Do you think that Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall ect would have benefitted more from flying the Fw 190 series instead of the Bf 109?

I do, here are a few reasons.

1) Much greater firepower, even if flying the lightened 2 x 20mm cannon Fw 190 versions the Focke carried far more ammunition and was a better gunnery platform.

2) Greater performance. Forget the FM of the Fw 190 A series in IL2. In reality the Fw 190 was happy to manuver and the difference in turning circles between the Bf 109 and Fw 190 was hardly discernable. What the Fw 190 did clearly possess was greater speed and better performance below 25,000ft. All air combat occured below 20,000ft which was right in the Fw 190's arena.

3) Better visability. No explanation needed.

4) Greater resistance to damage, both from enemy aircraft and flak. More chance of making it back over German lines.

5) Better performer as Jabo aircraft. Even when equipped with a bomb slung underneath the Fw 190 was a good performer. There is an account where Barkhorn in his Bf 109 G6 had to escort a Fw 190 A5(or F8) carrying a bomb. The Fw 190 cruised and accelerated faster than his BF while carrying its bomb! Also, Aguste Lambert scored over 100 kills flying late in WW2 in the Fw 190 F8 Jabo role.

6) Fw 190 was better able to hold speed and energy through manuvers as well as being more manuverable at speeds enabling pilots to attack at greater speeds initially and hold their advantage for longer.

7) Wider undercarriage layout and more robust design would mean that there would be far less routine accidents.

mynameisroland
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
Most of the high scoring Eastern Front Experten flew the Bf 109. This was due to the fact imo that there were never enough Fw 190's to go around to use this aircraft as a fighter on Western and Eastern fronts while using it as a Schlachtflieger aircraft on the Eastern front also.

Most aces when interviewed felt that the Bf 109 was like an extension of their own bodies and considered it to be excellent. However, when you see what capable pilots who had the opportunity to fly the Fw 190 for long periods could do its hard to argue that the Bf 109 was a superior machine for scoring kills in.

Most significantly, I read comments in Fw 190 over North Africa, concerning Erich Rudorffer. When he transferred to North Africa using Fw 190 A4's he quickly learned to adopt Marsielles famous techniques when dealing with Allied fighters forming defensive circles. These required high degrees of piloting and gunnery but also asked a lot from the aircraft in terms of vertical manuverablity and performance.

Do you think that Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall ect would have benefitted more from flying the Fw 190 series instead of the Bf 109?

I do, here are a few reasons.

1) Much greater firepower, even if flying the lightened 2 x 20mm cannon Fw 190 versions the Focke carried far more ammunition and was a better gunnery platform.

2) Greater performance. Forget the FM of the Fw 190 A series in IL2. In reality the Fw 190 was happy to manuver and the difference in turning circles between the Bf 109 and Fw 190 was hardly discernable. What the Fw 190 did clearly possess was greater speed and better performance below 25,000ft. All air combat occured below 20,000ft which was right in the Fw 190's arena.

3) Better visability. No explanation needed.

4) Greater resistance to damage, both from enemy aircraft and flak. More chance of making it back over German lines.

5) Better performer as Jabo aircraft. Even when equipped with a bomb slung underneath the Fw 190 was a good performer. There is an account where Barkhorn in his Bf 109 G6 had to escort a Fw 190 A5(or F8) carrying a bomb. The Fw 190 cruised and accelerated faster than his BF while carrying its bomb! Also, Aguste Lambert scored over 100 kills flying late in WW2 in the Fw 190 F8 Jabo role.

6) Fw 190 was better able to hold speed and energy through manuvers as well as being more manuverable at speeds enabling pilots to attack at greater speeds initially and hold their advantage for longer.

7) Wider undercarriage layout and more robust design would mean that there would be far less routine accidents.

p1ngu666
01-25-2006, 09:01 AM
russians said 190s where shot down apon sight

funny world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Sintubin
01-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Not treu p1ngu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
01-25-2006, 09:56 AM
re. pt 5

During Bodenplatte, H. Bar, in a D-9, had to keep throttling back as the K-4s could not keep up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-25-2006, 10:03 AM
We'll never know.

mynameisroland
01-25-2006, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
re. pt 5

During Bodenplatte, H. Bar, in a D-9, had to keep throttling back as the K-4s could not keep up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D9 was and is a rocket, only real competition down low was Tempest and La 7.

Chuck_Older
01-25-2006, 10:07 AM
1) If guys like Marseiiles needed very little firepower anyway, and could get 15 kills in a day flying a 109, why would the extra damage potential of the 190 benefit a man like that? His targets would be broken up into even smaller bits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

2) More performance is always better, but all the performance potential in the world doesn't affect any one particular combat. What I mean is: greater roll won't benefit you if you're caught napping. I'd say that these Luftwaffe greats were always doing what they had to do, regardless of the planes they flew: using superior traits of the aircraft to their advantage while exploiting the enemy's disadvantages. To me, this is experience and skill, not the aircraft

3) Well sure

4) The goal is to not get shot at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

5) being a better fighter/bomber is a valid point, but how does this get Barkhorn more kills in the air?

6) this is part of performance

7) Sure. But the 109 had spindly undercarriage for a reason, and a great advantage too: a wing could be replaced while the aircraft was on it's own landing gear- no jigs or supports needed. Robust is good, of course

RegRag1977
01-25-2006, 10:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifHi there,

IMHO, i think Roland is right! FW190 is superior, that's all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sorry for 109 aces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slater_51st
01-25-2006, 10:12 AM
Pingu,

I think the idea behind the quote you're referring to is that they were to be shot down upon sight, but I could be wrong.

It's my opinion that the Fw-190 was one of the greatest fighter planes of WWII, and that the Bf-109 was sorely outdated and not a well-balanced aircraft after the F series(except for the G-2). The 190 provided everything a fighter pilot could ask for, high-speed, maneuverability, unprecedented armarment, excellent visibilty, great survivability, rugged design, and excellent adaptability to fufill any mission requirment(fighter, bomber, bomber buster, intrusion a/c, night fighter, torpedo bomber, and I'm certain there are more). It was also easily worked on by the black men. The main vice was obviously high-altitude performance, which was essentially solved by the Dora/Ta 152 varients.

Now, this is just my opinion, and looking at the acheivments of some Fw-190 pilots I think it holds true that the 190 was just as capable as the 109 for daring feats. Nowotny's amazing career really took off after switching to the 190, Kittel scored nearly all his victories in the 190, Priller scorred many victories in the 190 and got over 100 on the western front, Kurt Bühligen scorred 40 victories between November 42 and March 43 in 190s over Africa. Then again, Gerd Barkhorn did fly the Dora at the end of the war, but scored no kills in it.

Anyways, the German pilots flew what they were issued, and either liked it or didn't, hehe. It would be truly interesting how many victories could have been scored by Hartman or others if they flew the 190. I believe Galland tried to get 109 production shut down in favor of 190 and 262 production. My 2 cents, give me a 190 any day!

S! Slate

horseback
01-25-2006, 10:27 AM
There are plenty of where the weapon just fit the warrior's hand perfectly. Some guys are just better suited to a certain style of aircraft. Don Gentile was an adequate fighter pilot in a P-47, but when they gave him a Mustang, he started scoring in bunches. Walter Nowotney was a pretty good fighter pilot in a 109, but when he was issued the FW 190A, he became a scoring machine.

Others who had been effective in one aircraft were just as effective in another, and some moved to a different type stagnated.

Sometimes, it is the man, not the machine, and sometimes it is the man and the machine, but it's never been just the machine.

cheers

horseback

SweetMonkeyLuv
01-25-2006, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
1) If guys like Marseiiles needed very little firepower anyway, and could get 15 kills in a day flying a 109, why would the extra damage potential of the 190 benefit a man like that? His targets would be broken up into even smaller bits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

2) More performance is always better, but all the performance potential in the world doesn't affect any one particular combat. What I mean is: greater roll won't benefit you if you're caught napping. I'd say that these Luftwaffe greats were always doing what they had to do, regardless of the planes they flew: using superior traits of the aircraft to their advantage while exploiting the enemy's disadvantages. To me, this is experience and skill, not the aircraft

3) Well sure

4) The goal is to not get shot at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

5) being a better fighter/bomber is a valid point, but how does this get Barkhorn more kills in the air?

6) this is part of performance

7) Sure. But the 109 had spindly undercarriage for a reason, and a great advantage too: a wing could be replaced while the aircraft was on it's own landing gear- no jigs or supports needed. Robust is good, of course </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post. 100% agree.

Its much less true in our virtual skies, but in real life, it was the pilot, not the machine, that decided most of the encounters. The vast majority of aerial kills came about without the victim ever putting his plane into defensive manuevers.

MLudner
01-25-2006, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
re. pt 5

During Bodenplatte, H. Bar, in a D-9, had to keep throttling back as the K-4s could not keep up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in maximum speed. The cruising speed of the 109 was slower than the D9's and during the flight out he had to reduce his cruise speed. Fuel consumption is why. The 109K's, G10's, G-14's and G-6AS's were flying at their rated cruise speeds to keep fuel consumption at predicted rates, if they speeded their cruise speed to match the D9's they would use their fuel too quickly.

Slater_51st
01-25-2006, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
1) If guys like Marseiiles needed very little firepower anyway, and could get 15 kills in a day flying a 109, why would the extra damage potential of the 190 benefit a man like that? His targets would be broken up into even smaller bits? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

2) More performance is always better, but all the performance potential in the world doesn't affect any one particular combat. What I mean is: greater roll won't benefit you if you're caught napping. I'd say that these Luftwaffe greats were always doing what they had to do, regardless of the planes they flew: using superior traits of the aircraft to their advantage while exploiting the enemy's disadvantages. To me, this is experience and skill, not the aircraft

3) Well sure

4) The goal is to not get shot at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

5) being a better fighter/bomber is a valid point, but how does this get Barkhorn more kills in the air?

6) this is part of performance

7) Sure. But the 109 had spindly undercarriage for a reason, and a great advantage too: a wing could be replaced while the aircraft was on it's own landing gear- no jigs or supports needed. Robust is good, of course </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points Chuck,

It is especially true that a good pilot should never be shot at, but even the best were occasionally shot at or shot down. Besides other mechanical issues resulting in a forced landing, the Wulf was highly regarded because the big ol' radial would absorb most of the impact, keeping the pilot safe.

Along the same line, it is very interesting to me how many of the leading fighter pilots were not lost to enemy fighters, but to collisions, faulty aircraft, flak, bomber fire, or on some occassions radio misdirection(into huge fighter formations).In most/all of these situations it would make little difference which aircraft the pilot was in.

I still think the Wulf was a better aircraft for many reasons, and I think no matter the aircraft, Barkhorn, Hartmann, Rall and others would still have had the same phenomenal kill tallies.

S! Slate

Xiolablu3
01-26-2006, 03:01 AM
Hi Boemher

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
2) Greater performance. in turning circles between the Bf 109 and Fw 190 was hardly discernable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this?

Everything I have read about the FW190 states the only thing it did poorly was turning circle where it was easily bested. Can you post some quotes/evidence ???

I cant believe that wide body and stubby wings with a lot of weight (think of all the ammo) outturned a tiny 109.

Remember the quote from Gunther Rall which someone had in their sig? Something like :

'The FW190 was a heavy Sabre, and the 109 a floret or foil used in the precision art of fencing'

- This suggests right away that the 109 was better suited to dogfighting. You bring a heavy sabre straight down thru your target (using its heavy weight/firepower).

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 03:54 AM
slater, it was http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

just russians had much more respect for 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

guderian_ente
01-26-2006, 04:04 AM
€Do you think that Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall etc would have benefited more from flying the Fw 190 series instead of the Bf 109?€

Not necessarily. Here€s why:

€1) Much greater firepower, even if flying the lightened 2 x 20mm cannon Fw 190 versions the Focke carried far more ammunition and was a better gunnery platform.€

One thing that characterized aces was that they were highly experienced and knew the importance of getting in close before shooting. Thus, greater firepower was probably more important to average pilots than aces.

€2) Greater performance. What the Fw 190 did clearly possess was greater speed and better performance below 25,000ft. All air combat occured below 20,000ft which was right in the Fw 190's arena.€

All air combat on the Eastern front, that is. In the West high-altitude performance was important.

You€re also forgetting acceleration and rate of climb. The aces mostly relied on hit-and-run tactics (which was one of the reasons they survived to become aces). This depended on gaining altitude over the enemy, which puts a premium on climb performance.

Acceleration is also extremely important, but people tend to focus on max speed and forget that a lot of the time in combat the aircraft is not at max speed but accelerating. The 109 was fairly lightweight and always had excellent climb and acceleration.

€5) Better performer as Jabo aircraft.€

This only makes the 109 pilot more likely to survive since he can avoid the very dangerous ground attack missions! Many of the American aces were shot down while strafing airfields.

€6) Fw 190 was better able to hold speed and energy through maneuvers as well as being more maneuverable at speeds enabling pilots to attack at greater speeds initially and hold their advantage for longer.€

I€m not so sure about this. See above about rate of climb and acceleration.

€7) Wider undercarriage layout and more robust design on the 190 means far less routine accidents.€

Totally agree. Landings killed thousands of German pilots who could have survived to become veterans. Not changing the undercarriage on the 109 was possibly the biggest mistake the Luftwaffe ever made. But we can assume that the aces knew how to land, making this factor again more important to would-be aces than existing ones.

Abbuzze
01-26-2006, 04:25 AM
You like the plane you are used to. The 190 was the newer and better design, offered more space for futher developments, but all this is not related to combatperformance.

Firepower, yes an average Pilot would need alot of it and many guns to make hits more possible, aces who flew the 109 and shot at short distances usually said that a burst of the 20mm was devasting at this ranges, vs fighters if your aiming skills are good the single 20mm is more then enough!

Roughness- if you are hit in combat, you are in troubles, better to stay away from this. Many 109 aces where shot down several times, some of them more than 10 times but they didn´t like to bail, because they rated this as dangerous. And belly landed their BF´s. If you are realy hard hit no 190 and P47 will save you.

Jabo, yes the 190 is much better, but keep in mind german fighter pilots rated Jabo missions as a kind of punishment, and in fact many times it was orderd as a kind of punishment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Such missions were disliked...
Therefore the SG´s with 190´s.
I would say 190 was the better choice at the westernfront up to 6000m and the 109 was better at the eastern front.

Another point for the 109 in the east, the maintance crew for a 109 were 3 men. I have no number but I think the 190 would need more.

cawimmer430
01-26-2006, 05:03 AM
I'm more of a BF-109 supporter, particularly the BF-109F-2 / F-4 (weapons are a bit weak though) because it's so balanced and feels light and maneuvrable. The G series are ok, particularly the A/S version is my sweetheart. The G-10 / G-14 and K variants feel heavy and less maneuvrable, despite powerful engines.

When I fly the FW-190, I'm, not in my element. I guess I am used to the 109's, simple as that. I have to concede though that the 190 feels a little more agile, and clearly has a better roll rate and higher speed over the BF-109.