Jump to content
MechSauce

Are you a 190 guy or 109?

109vs190  

113 members have voted

  1. 1. 109vs190

    • 109
      49
    • 190
      64


Recommended Posts

I can only join Bremspropeller here. 

The Fw 190 production of the A2 was shortly afterwards (I think one month later) supplemented by the A3 with the D2 engine. Actually it is surprising that not the A3 was used for this test instead of the A2 with the "old" C-engine. Regardless of the fact that many A2's were later converted to the new engine during their service life. Besides this the view was much more pleasant than in the 109, which I also find in this sim. 

 

There is also a very nice report about the Fw 190 from a British point of view in the book "Focke Wulf: FW 190 in Combat" by Alfred Price. There they talked about the plans to steal a Fw 190 to reveal its secrets, after the British simply did not know how to react to the 190. And the only reason why this daring venture was not carried out is the fact that Armin Faber had accidentally landed a Fw 190 in England.

 

I think it is fair to say that the Focke-Wulf has spread terror with her introduction, regardless of the initial engine problems. And all in all it was a robust and reliable aircraft, which could take a lot of punishment to bring its pilot home. That and its many operational options made it a great multirole fighter. In the end it will depend on your personal taste which plane you prefer. However, I would not use lower production numbers (especially in the beginning) as a conclusion that the Fw 190 was a worse aircraft than the Bf 109.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most interesting takeaway of Mr. Beauvais' comments on the 190 vs 109 report by Gollob are the following (right at the top of Kurfy's link):

 

Quote

"We instinctively preferred the Fw 190 over the Bf 109 from the very start...."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The reason why the 190 attacked the bombers was because it could, while the 109 lacked the fire-power. Who believes the 190 didn't have the oompf to fight with allied fighters is quite mislead.

That is only one part of the story: Yes the 190's had the firepower and the staying power to better attack the American Bombers - very true. Especially the the radial engine still worked after much more punishment, than would have been neccessary to take out an inline engine.

 

But at the heith the Americans attacket - 6000 - 8000m - the same radial engine delivered not enough power anymore to mix it with allied fighters. The DB605 did.

 

So both is true: The FW190 was better suited for bomber attack AND worse for fighter combat in late war strategic bomber warfare.

 

1942 at the channel front the british attack at much lower altitude - here you are right and most Germans and British saw the FW190 as the better dogfighter compared to the Me 109.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that report is really in support of the 190, as its downsides are what you'd expect with an early series aircraft. The bottom line is still impressive and a huge step up from the 109. As @Bremspropeller says, it really didn't take that long to make a rather reliable plane out of what what they had at hands with the A2.

 

The only thing that could be a serious concern is the climb rate. In the field however, the 190 enjoyed a huge advantage in zoom climbing over the Spitfire MkV and was very well capable of maintaining the initiative. The 190 being as different from the 109 as the Tempest is from the Spitfire, controversy is expected as well as it is entertaining. ;) It's just that the Fw-190 pilots couldn't let the 109 drivers know that "we land at the speed you are cruising", so this controversy can be carried out longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

But at the heith the Americans attacket - 6000 - 8000m - the same radial engine delivered not enough power anymore to mix it with allied fighters. The DB605 did.

 

So both is true: The FW190 was better suited for bomber attack AND worse for fighter combat in late war strategic bomber warfare.

 

That seems to be the general wisdom. It is, however painting with a much too broad brush:

 

1) When somewhat equalized in firepower, the Bf 109G "Kanonenboot" lost it's performance-edge over the 190, despite lacking a 20mm gun in comparison (3x20mm vs 4x20mm). The 109 was the fighter that couldn't do the job, so it was relegated to "escort" duties. A hypothetical "DB603 190" fielded in late 1943 would have killed the performance-edge of the P-51 pretty much entirely.

 

2a) There was an easy mod available to boost FTH by about 700m and enhance hi-altitude speeds (at the cost of lo altitude speeds) for the 190A. It was the introduction of a ram air inlet for the supercharger. A mod that could be done in-field in about 20mins. Some aircraft in JG 2 recieved the mod, but it didn't stick around. Probably due to lack of interest.

2b) A hi-altitude version of the Fw 190A (incorporating the above mod, stretched wings, less armament and armor) was planned and was to go about 700kph at 10000m. The overall engineering-effort was about equal to the 109G-1 which also lightened the airframe, but put a bulky pressurized cabin into the package.

 

3) The lesser 190 high-alt performance was of no concern to RLM and Luftwaffe-leadership, who spent most of 1942 and 1943 eyes wide shut in terms of improving performance and thinking out of the box when experimenting with both the DB603 and the Jumo 213. The DB603 version could have been fielded in 1943, but wasn't. Mostly because Goering thought american production-capabilities were a bluff and saw no urgency to act. This left the "european castle" without a roof.

 

4) While the 109 could just about fit the DB605 and reach it's max growth capability, the 190 could accept the larger DB603 with ease. The latter motor was earmarked for prestigious projects like the Me 410 (ole Willy striking again) and the hence underpowered He 219. I'm kind of wet-dreaming about what a Ta 154 with two 603s would have been able to do - another project that was killed by RLM not seeing the gravity of the night-fighter situation in '43 and '44 and allocating the right resources in time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That seems to be the general wisdom. It is, however painting with a much too broad brush:

 

1) When somewhat equalized in firepower, the Bf 109G "Kanonenboot" lost it's performance-edge over the 190, despite lacking a 20mm gun in comparison (3x20mm vs 4x20mm). The 109 was the fighter that couldn't do the job, so it was relegated to "escort" duties. A hypothetical "DB603 190" fielded in late 1943 would have killed the performance-edge of the P-51 pretty much entirely.

 

2a) There was an easy mod available to boost FTH by about 700m and enhance hi-altitude speeds (at the cost of lo altitude speeds) for the 190A. It was the introduction of a ram air inlet for the supercharger. A mod that could be done in-field in about 20mins. Some aircraft in JG 2 recieved the mod, but it didn't stick around. Probably due to lack of interest.

2b) A hi-altitude version of the Fw 190A (incorporating the above mod, stretched wings, less armament and armor) was planned and was to go about 700kph at 10000m. The overall engineering-effort was about equal to the 109G-1 which also lightened the airframe, but put a bulky pressurized cabin into the package.

 

3) The lesser 190 high-alt performance was of no concern to RLM and Luftwaffe-leadership, who spent most of 1942 and 1943 eyes wide shut in terms of improving performance and thinking out of the box when experimenting with both the DB603 and the Jumo 213. The DB603 version could have been fielded in 1943, but wasn't. Mostly because Goering thought american production-capabilities were a bluff and saw no urgency to act. This left the "european castle" without a roof.

 

4) While the 109 could just about fit the DB605 and reach it's max growth capability, the 190 could accept the larger DB603 with ease. The latter motor was earmarked for prestigious projects like the Me 410 (ole Willy striking again) and the hence underpowered He 219. I'm kind of wet-dreaming about what a Ta 154 with two 603s would have been able to do - another project that was killed by RLM not seeing the gravity of the night-fighter situation in '43 and '44 and allocating the right resources in time.

While the 109 is an aerodynamic marvel, the 190 is the better weapon of war - no doubt!

 

An expert might have gotten  better results with 109's but for the average pilot the 190 would have been a much better choice. 

 

And I now think to remember that what I read about the lacking anti fighter capabilities of the 190 at high altitude was especially about sturmböcke. 

 

And the D9 in '43 would have been a definite improvement over the G6. 

 

But the 109s very successfully attacked the fortresses as well - although they had to force land more often as the db605s didn't survive the counter fire. 

 

That high alt mod you mention is interesting - I've never heard of it. But why wasn't there widespread use, when the usual combat height in 43/44 was around 7000m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest axis plane to defeat in a dogfight is the D9, especially with the P51D its such a joy to blast them. The rest of the 190s are not much of a match alone either, especially in late war. In 1943 there is nothing more enjoyable than chasing down a 190 with the La5FN and watch him trying to get rid of you noticing he can't because his plane doesn't let it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The most important weaknesses of the 109 (awful handling on the ground), short range and bad armament don't really come to play in a game.

There's a reason why most pilots preferred the 190 - Germans and Allied - and why the 190A-2 was considered better than the 109F-4 in 1942.

 

The reason why the 190 attacked the bombers was because it could, while the 109 lacked the fire-power. Who believes the 190 didn't have the oompf to fight with allied fighters is quite mislead.

The 109 was still produced in large quantities because ole Willy had very good ties with the Nazi party leadership. That's the only reason why 1944 and 1945 saw large-scale 109 production. Well that and because ole Willy lobbied against newer and better fighters to be produced and tested. Such as the DB603/ Jumo 213-powered Fw 190, which could have been available in 1943. But ole Willy tried to wring more ca$h out of his 1935 race-plane, instead of providing a better airframe.

The Takeoff and Landing of the 109 wasn't good by any means. But alot of the failures are due to the pilot quality in Germany by 43 up to 45. Alot of the new guys had very little hours in a trainer and were plopped into a 109. So strictly I wouldn't give her to much fault here. 

 

Secondly it had fine range, contemporary aircraft had similar ranges (Spitfire for example). This notion that the 109 had bad range has be contextualized and "debunked" thoroughly. What was it meant todo? It was a interceptor and air superiority fighter. It wasn't designed for long range escort, and as such performed fine for its task. Now, what year was it designed through? from about 1935-1945. Thats a good decade of use and yea, by the end of the war it's range wasn't great compared to a 47, or a 51, but it didn't need range by that point anyway and these aircraft were much newer designs (In fact the 51 and 47 are about a half a decade younger!). The Spitfire had the same problem escorting bombers form Britain to France, and Germany you might recall.

 

As for firepower. You quite right. For most pilots the firepower of the 109 was a little on the weak side, especially for attacking bombers without the 30. But notable aces such as Marseille and Molders both thought it was quite satisfactory granted you could aim well. The 190 doesn't need you to aim quite as well so I'll give you that the 190 was a better gun platform for your average pilot. 

 

190, specifically the D9, had the ability to tackle allied fighters, but in areas of performance against allied aircraft it was arguably aged worse then the 109. I'm not sure if you'll understand what I specifically mean, but the main areas of strength of the 190 were over matched by the 51, 47 and such. The 109 however still maintained good maneuverability against most allied aircraft (spit pilots are laughing), and still had its incredible climb rate. Thats not to say the 190 was useless. Far from it, but I'm specifically mentioning how the aircrafts strengths didn't come into play nearly as much towards the end of the war while 109 still could exploit its strengths better. I will say against this all of this, that the d9 overall was better then the g6 late which were among the most common 109s in service at that point. If you take, G-14 G-14S, G-10, and K-4 this all applies. The D9 does actually give the 190 quite a performance boost were it was lacking in the Anton series so this is less apparent with the Dora. So I guess this point is mainly for the late Antons, but it can still be applied to doras as they still relied on their aforementioned, dive, firepower, high speed handling, and roll rate. 

 

109 production may have continued at the levels it did because of political shenanigans. I'm not to informed on the political show of Germany and production so I won't speak to it as I'm far to ignorant on the subject although I hear alot on it. But I would add that a good reason to continue 109 production that I think you might miss the point on is twofold. The Germans managed to produce the 109 in record numbers in record time. Even with all the Allied bombings, 109 production went up in 1944 (although poorer compared to a 1942 109 in terms of production quality), and the time to construct a 109 less then a 190. Also Engines. DB 605 engines were being pumped out as fast as possible. And to switch all 109 production to 190 and BMW would have meant worse production numbers and even more fighter shortages to the many Jagdgeschwaders across Germany at that time. It's simply not feasible. 

 

Lastly, the comment you made about Willy not designing better airframes... There were a few attempts at creating a 109 v2 if you will but they never were able to justify interrupting production to implement a slightly better air-frame design. You can see this with the Me-209 (2 attempts of which were made) and the Me-309. 

 

Although I would like a more realistic 109 for take off and landings, would be much more enticing and another thing to learn on the 109!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

The Takeoff and Landing of the 109 wasn't good by any means. But alot of the failures are due to the pilot quality in Germany by 43 up to 45. Alot of the new guys had very little hours in a trainer and were plopped into a 109. So strictly I wouldn't give her to much fault here. 

 

No. Wilhelm Heinz, who used to fly the 109 "Rote 7" and now flies his own P-51D told me the 109 is about comparable to the handling of a Pitts S-1 on the ground, while the P-51 is a total pussycat. A handling like the Pitts is totally unacceptable for an airplane handed over to the average Joe military pilot. Even in peacetime conditions.

The 109 being "different" is shared by pretty much anybody who has flown it - including warbird pilots of today.

 

12 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Secondly it had fine range, contemporary aircraft had similar ranges (Spitfire for example). This notion that the 109 had bad range has be contextualized and "debunked" thoroughly. What was it meant todo? It was a interceptor and air superiority fighter. It wasn't designed for long range escort, and as such performed fine for its task. Now, what year was it designed through? from about 1935-1945. Thats a good decade of use and yea, by the end of the war it's range wasn't great compared to a 47, or a 51, but it didn't need range by that point anyway and these aircraft were much newer designs (In fact the 51 and 47 are about a half a decade younger!). The Spitfire had the same problem escorting bombers form Britain to France, and Germany you might recall.

 

No, it blew butt. The fact that other, contemporary fighters were just as bad is no remedy. It's a direct consequence of it's design-principles (which were shared by the Spitfire, for example) of speed over anything else. They'd just mate the biggest V12 available to the smallest possible airframe concievable. The result is a hotrot with limited growth-potential and in the case of the 109, unacceptable handling on the ground.

The 109 was not an interceptor, but a fighter in terms of supporting a tactical air war. It needed the range, when it counted:

Across the Channel and over the vast steppes of the Soviet Union.

 

The Spitfire is just as much an overrated airplane as the 109. The fact the both the 47 and 51 were newer designs, shows that the Luftwaffe would have been better off, sending the 109 to the scrapyard and procuring newer better aircraft.

 

17 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

As for firepower. You quite right. For most pilots the firepower of the 109 was a little on the weak side, especially for attacking bombers without the 30. But notable aces such as Marseille and Molders both thought it was quite satisfactory granted you could aim well. The 190 doesn't need you to aim quite as well so I'll give you that the 190 was a better gun platform for your average pilot. 

 

Notable pilots isn't what 99% of your fighter force consists of. If the weapon-load isn't enough for the average pilot, who'd have trouble hitting a barn-door if he tried, it blows butt.

 

19 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

190, specifically the D9, had the ability to tackle allied fighters, but in areas of performance against allied aircraft it was arguably aged worse then the 109. I'm not sure if you'll understand what I specifically mean, but the main areas of strength of the 190 were over matched by the 51, 47 and such.

 

The Dora climbed almost as good as any late-war 109s, yet cruised faster and had much better range and loiter. It also retained the 190's much better high-speed performance.

It also dived quicker and had a higher factual q-limit (none) than the 109. There are no reports of any 190 that I know of where the airframe failed by itself and on it's own.

The 109, however...

 

21 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

The 109 however still maintained good maneuverability against most allied aircraft (spit pilots are laughing), and still had its incredible climb rate. Thats not to say the 190 was useless. Far from it, but I'm specifically mentioning how the aircrafts strengths didn't come into play nearly as much towards the end of the war while 109 still could exploit its strengths better. I will say against this all of this, that the d9 overall was better then the g6 late which were among the most common 109s in service at that point. If you take, G-14 G-14S, G-10, and K-4 this all applies. The D9 does actually give the 190 quite a performance boost were it was lacking in the Anton series so this is less apparent with the Dora. So I guess this point is mainly for the late Antons, but it can still be applied to doras as they still relied on their aforementioned, dive, firepower, high speed handling, and roll rate. 

 

The 109 had elevator-force issues and couldn't roll with the P-51. The 51 couldn't climb quite fast enough, but with 10° of flaps could turn with the 109 with ease. It could leave any 109 standing still in a dive. It would also go much farther (project airpower) and have a higher ordnance-load (roughly double the 109's).

 

The D-9 is faster than the G-14, about as fast as the G-10 and only slower than the K-4, because it lacks a proper high-alt supercharger. The D-13 (Jumo 213F) left any 109 standing in the dust. The plain-Jane D-13 went out to 730-740kph, while equipped with the Jumo 213EB (intercooler and better radiator for a flush cowl-flap setting) it would go out as far as 770kph.

 

The DB603-powered 190s (as in the D-14 and D-15 versions) were better than the D-13 with the Jumo 213F.

 

The A-9 and projected A-10 190s were actually pretty good. The BMW801F engine was about to give the Anton a very substantial performance boost (comparable to strapping a Jumo 213 onto it...) but only parts were ready for serial production by mid-late August. The lackluster performance of the Antons for most of 1944 was a direct result of not earmarking more capable engines (read: superchargers) to the 190-project early on.

 

DB603 rial-aircraft (V13, V15 and V16) were pushing and exceeding 700kph in early-mid 1943.

 

The 190 was actually preferred due to it's handling throughout the speed-range. It was a much nicer flying aircraft than the 109 with the exception of it's high-speed stall.

 

31 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

109 production may have continued at the levels it did because of political shenanigans. I'm not to informed on the political show of Germany and production so I won't speak to it as I'm far to ignorant on the subject although I hear alot on it. But I would add that a good reason to continue 109 production that I think you might miss the point on is twofold. The Germans managed to produce the 109 in record numbers in record time. Even with all the Allied bombings, 109 production went up in 1944 (although poorer compared to a 1942 109 in terms of production quality), and the time to construct a 109 less then a 190. Also Engines. DB 605 engines were being pumped out as fast as possible. And to switch all 109 production to 190 and BMW would have meant worse production numbers and even more fighter shortages to the many Jagdgeschwaders across Germany at that time. It's simply not feasible. 

 

That is a point, but proper planning in the earlier years, when production just slowly ramped up could have easily made up for that. It was the lack of forward thinking and arrogance by the RLM/ Goering that killed a valuable 109-successor - even without Willy's dirty tricks. DB would have been able to crank up DB603 production instead of building more 605s. When they actually considered, it was already too late.

 

33 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Lastly, the comment you made about Willy not designing better airframes... There were a few attempts at creating a 109 v2 if you will but they never were able to justify interrupting production to implement a slightly better air-frame design. You can see this with the Me-209 (2 attempts of which were made) and the Me-309.

 

Both the 209 and 309 were lame ducks for the same reason as the 109: Small airframe, big engine, little consideration for anything else. The only aircraft worth looking into was the 209V5, which lost against the design(s) by Focke-Wulf fair and square.

 

Then there was ole Willy building the contraption called Me 210 and it's successor, the 410, which then blocked DB603-procurement for airframes that needed them more. He also readily wasted ressources by B$-projects like the "Amerikabomber".

 

He also played a side-role during the Starfighter-crisis.

His protégée, Ludwig Bölkow, was a much better project-manager and engineer IMHO.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

you 190 guys are just mad because you don't fit in the 109 cockpit!  😂 (JUST KIDDING!)

Well, while you might need a seat cushion to be able to see through the gunsight and platform shoes to reach to the pedals, I might need the seat removed to fit in the cockpit:P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 3 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

But notable aces such as Marseille and Molders both thought it was quite satisfactory granted you could aim well.

 

That is true, and notable aces liked the 109.

 

BUT...

 

Few of them had a chance to compare it to other aircraft in a meaningful way, except trainers of course. Günther Rall for example never thought the 109 was inferior... until he got to sit in a Mustang. It was only then he realized how outmatched his plane actually was. He was an expert pilot, and very lucky, so he never experienced being outmatched like most Luftwaffe pilots did in 1944.

(This kind of bias is not limited to 109 pilots of course.)

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That is a point, but proper planning in the earlier years, when production just slowly ramped up could have easily made up for that. It was the lack of forward thinking and arrogance by the RLM/ Goering that killed a valuable 109-successor - even without Willy's dirty tricks.

 

That is true and did not just hurt the fighter force. Ju 87s should have been replaced earlier, too, e.g.

 

To be fair though making that decision would have required a level of foresight even a competent leadership rarely had, much less the RLM. This decision would have had to be made in 1942 at the latest to rearm the Luftwaffe before the allies dropped the hammer in mid 1944. And in 1942 things were not looking too bad for the 109, as its opposition was not overly formidable... yet. Sure, the 190 was better and would have been the better choice in the long run for sure, but the 109 was still good enough.

Also, Germany was not exactly looking for the long run in 1942. They wanted quick knock-out blows and needed all the stuff they could get ... now. In such a situation it is hard to justify dropping production numbers significantly to from 'good enough' to 'better'. And it was easly to get in a lull, especially if you have no idea what the US was capable of both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of quality. 

 

Of course, the RLM was not competent and the German fighter force of 1944 was woefully ill-prepared for what came at them. By that point they had lost the initiative anyway and had little idea what to do.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Then there was ole Willy building the contraption called Me 210 and it's successor, the 410, which then blocked DB603-procurement for airframes that needed them more. He also readily wasted ressources by B$-projects like the "Amerikabomber".

 

He was not the only one  🤣

The Nazis wanted to bomb the US and everybody with more than half a brain (including Messerschmitt) knew it was nonsense, yet they all wanted the money and party favour. It is fascinating how ideology can dictate certain developments even if they are dead ends and only waste resources. And that's not limited to WW2...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks FliegerAD for a substantive response. I think you kinda hit it on the head there. For your average pilot, and even your average sim pilot, the 109 is a rather hard plane to fly and use in combat. Shes got a lot of tricks and hidden secrets that you really don't get in other aircraft.

 

Like the camel from World War 1, it means while being hard to use, she also gives you alot of ways to exploit the airframe once you become familiar and master everything. Most pilots I know for example don't know how to use the 109s "small airframe big engine" design to dogfight effectively utilizing torque to increase roll rate and such. Shes got problems, but underneath those problems lie some beautiful exploits against your opponent by using them as an advantage. The dogfighting aces of the war used these to great effect against superior aircraft like the 51 among other aircraft. While not an ideal aircraft towards the end of the war she still held out with the small amount of experienced pilots left. 

 

Even as a 109 fanboy I can still appreciate the many advantages and benefits of the 190. Simply put its an easier plane to use, and learn to use and I think that's a large part of the appeal. The 109 takes alot of time and energy to really learn unless your a natural, hell it took me 3 years to get to the point I'm at now and still I have lots to learn. 

7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I think that report is really in support of the 190, as its downsides are what you'd expect with an early series aircraft. The bottom line is still impressive and a huge step up from the 109. As @Bremspropeller says, it really didn't take that long to make a rather reliable plane out of what what they had at hands with the A2.

 

The only thing that could be a serious concern is the climb rate. In the field however, the 190 enjoyed a huge advantage in zoom climbing over the Spitfire MkV and was very well capable of maintaining the initiative. The 190 being as different from the 109 as the Tempest is from the Spitfire, controversy is expected as well as it is entertaining. ;) It's just that the Fw-190 pilots couldn't let the 109 drivers know that "we land at the speed you are cruising", so this controversy can be carried out longer.

Quite so, the 109 and the 190 are quite a bit different. And its really like comparing apple and oranges. They were designed with different ideas in mind and for different objectives. Kurt Tank said it best when comparing the 109 to a race horse (ie interceptor, air superiority), to a work horse such as the 190 (jabo, escort, ground attacker, air superiority, etc). If you will the 190 is a different type of fighter plane and so comparing it to the 109 doesn't make the most of sense. The 109 simply put was very good a few things, and the 190 was ok to good at many things. The 109s was flexible in her performance as a fighter, but the 190 was flexible in its role as a plane. Context is key!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the year.

 

1941: 109

1942-3: 190

1944-5 109

 

Edited by -332FG-Ursus_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

 

That is true, and notable aces liked the 109.

 

BUT...

 

Few of them had a chance to compare it to other aircraft in a meaningful way, except trainers of course. Günther Rall for example never thought the 109 was inferior... until he got to sit in a Mustang. It was only then he realized how outmatched his plane actually was. He was an expert pilot, and very lucky, so he never experienced being outmatched like most Luftwaffe pilots did in 1944.

(This kind of bias is not limited to 109 pilots of course.)

 

 

 

That is true and did not just hurt the fighter force. Ju 87s should have been replaced earlier, too, e.g.

 

To be fair though making that decision would have required a level of foresight even a competent leadership rarely had, much less the RLM. This decision would have had to be made in 1942 at the latest to rearm the Luftwaffe before the allies dropped the hammer in mid 1944. And in 1942 things were not looking too bad for the 109, as its opposition was not overly formidable... yet. Sure, the 190 was better and would have been the better choice in the long run for sure, but the 109 was still good enough.

Also, Germany was not exactly looking for the long run in 1942. They wanted quick knock-out blows and needed all the stuff they could get ... now. In such a situation it is hard to justify dropping production numbers significantly to from 'good enough' to 'better'. And it was easly to get in a lull, especially if you have no idea what the US was capable of both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of quality. 

 

Of course, the RLM was not competent and the German fighter force of 1944 was woefully ill-prepared for what came at them. By that point they had lost the initiative anyway and had little idea what to do.

 

 

 

He was not the only one  🤣

The Nazis wanted to bomb the US and everybody with more than half a brain (including Messerschmitt) knew it was nonsense, yet they all wanted the money and party favour. It is fascinating how ideology can dictate certain developments even if they are dead ends and only waste resources. And that's not limited to WW2...

 

Some very good points you're making!

 

The main problem for Germany was it's make-or-break mindset. They HAD to go to war or else the bubble-economy would collapse under their butts. Then they planned their war like a bully would plan a bar-fight: Rely on the irrational assumption that everybody can be defeated by a quick blow and that there'll be nobody flooring you with a bar-stool that you hadn't been watching and considered as a minor threat.

Their intelligence-services were bad and people that were ringing alarm-bells were cut-off.

When the soviets re-shuffled their factories beyond the range of german tactical bombers, the numbers-game was up.

 

9 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

They were designed with different ideas in mind and for different objectives. Kurt Tank said it best when comparing the 109 to a race horse (ie interceptor, air superiority), to a work horse such as the 190 (jabo, escort, ground attacker, air superiority, etc). If you will the 190 is a different type of fighter plane and so comparing it to the 109 doesn't make the most of sense. The 109 simply put was very good a few things, and the 190 was ok to good at many things. The 109s was flexible in her performance as a fighter, but the 190 was flexible in its role as a plane. Context is key!

 

They were designed with the same purpose: Fighter.

Tank was far-sighted enough to implement his experience as soldier in the First World War and the requirements that were asked from equipment in the field. He knew that building "racehorses" (fast and performant at the cost of everything else) was not the right solution for service-aircraft*. He was right and and he was so far ahead with his thinking that it impressed everybody investigating a captured 190 (well, except for the Soviets, but they never grasped the concept of Air Power).

 

If you have 100 190s, you can do more with them than having 100 109s.

Flexibility is key - funny the RLM never recognized that when they were the idiots that required medium bombers to be divebombers as well.

 

* The Hellcat vs Corsair debate is somewhat similar, even though the Corsair was a much better all-round fighter for the mission asked of it than the 109 ever was.

In that debate, the Corsair tuned out to have greater growth-potential, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a technical flyer.

I don't pay much attention to anything but which airplane gets me home in one piece --more or less.

Having flown most of the 190s and most of the 109s, just give me my old 109 G2,

that seems to have nothing going for it except I nearly always survive my missions.

Why that should be I do not know.

Which aside from the excellent Macchi 202, is the only Axis plane I have any affection for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

They were designed with the same purpose: Fighter.

Tank was far-sighted enough to implement his experience as soldier in the First World War and the requirements that were asked from equipment in the field. He knew that building "racehorses" (fast and performant at the cost of everything else) was not the right solution for service-aircraft*. He was right and and he was so far ahead with his thinking that it impressed everybody investigating a captured 190 (well, except for the Soviets, but they never grasped the concept of Air Power).

 

 

Bomber has many connotations. A stuka and a He 111 are both bombers... yet both fulfill very different duties. Context matters. A 109 and a 190 are two very different fighters for different purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...