One thing about ww2 this sim taught me...

[Gamington]

I never really realized how many upgrades all the planes went through and how many variants all of them have I found myself the last hour just reading about all the specifications all of them have. I wonder though what happened to the surviving older models did they still use them or did they become trainer planes ? Before getting into this sim a 109 was just a 109 and a p-51 was just a p-51.

[Enceladus828]

Same here. Before I got this game the only Bf-109s I knew of where the E-7, G-14, and K, despite playing IL-2 1946 for over 10 years; I thought they were kind of the same plane.

[Gamington]

I honestly just decided one day on a whim to try a flight sim and it was rise of flight united. Ive seen war movies and documentaries and all that. But I never really paid attention to the technical parts just battles and what not. So while it may seem silly just saying I never realized HOW many variants of each plane there where.

[Jaws2002]

2 hours ago, Gamington said:

I wonder though what happened to the surviving older models did they still use them or did they become trainer planes ?

 

 

It depends on many factors. If they could afford it and had enough new planes, old ones were turned to training, or scrapped for the raw materials. Some were doing patrols in less dangerous areas, or against weaker enemies.  Many fighters were switched to ground attack. A lot of them were sent back to the factory to be upgraded, or got upgrade kits and were converted in better versions at the unit. Many were used until they were lost to attrition.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Jaws2002

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, Gamington said:

I honestly just decided one day on a whim to try a flight sim and it was rise of flight united. Ive seen war movies and documentaries and all that. But I never really paid attention to the technical parts just battles and what not. So while it may seem silly just saying I never realized HOW many variants of each plane there where.

 

I suspect most of us have had a similar experience, if we got interested in aviation through sims, movies and Biggles rather than from a technical background. 

 

Next you can find out some of the complexities of aerodynamics, engines, ballistics, measurement problems, pilot physiology.......but you do not have to. Just find the level of knowledge that allows you to enjoy the game for now.  You can level up gradually.    

[[CPT]Crunch]

Dumped on allies, P-39's to the freshly switched Italian's and such.

[SJ_Butcher]

One thing this sim taught me is that nobody could see enemy contacts.

[ShamrockOneFive]

On 6/13/2020 at 6:32 PM, Gamington said:

I never really realized how many upgrades all the planes went through and how many variants all of them have I found myself the last hour just reading about all the specifications all of them have. I wonder though what happened to the surviving older models did they still use them or did they become trainer planes ? Before getting into this sim a 109 was just a 109 and a p-51 was just a p-51.

 

There's plenty of nuance and detailed histories behind each aircraft. That provides for nearly endless research that you can do to understand it all. It's part of the reason why aviation is so fascinating in this part of history.

 

Usually surviving older aircraft were moved to secondary roles or they were lost through attrition. Accidents, combat losses, engine failures, and all manners of things happened. These aircraft didn't tend to last long and those that did were frequently stripped for spare parts or sent into second line duties. On the eastern front it was even more brutal on the airplanes.

[cardboard_killer]

1 minute ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Accidents, combat losses, engine failures, and all manners of things happened. These aircraft didn't tend to last long and those that did were frequently stripped for spare parts or sent into second line duties.

 

In the PTO it was very bad, especially for the Japanese as they often were isolated and couldn't get spare parts that were rare to begin with due to their lack of industrial base. When Clark Field was recaptured they found a remarkable bone yard of planes that only needed a few parts to fly but that were grounded for lack of parts, even when parts were available in the same boneyard, due to lack of mechanics and systemic problems.

 

I think it was this failure of the Japanese system that led to their 1970s revolution in car manufacturing. The US experience in the war was to keep lines moving no matter what, so that the GM factory bone yard in 1970 had many many franken cars that got through the line, while in Japan all the line personnel had the authority to stop the line to fix a problem before a car got to the end of assembly.

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

There's plenty of nuance and detailed histories behind each aircraft. That provides for nearly endless research that you can do to understand it all. It's part of the reason why aviation is so fascinating in this part of history.

 

Usually surviving older aircraft were moved to secondary roles or they were lost through attrition. Accidents, combat losses, engine failures, and all manners of things happened. These aircraft didn't tend to last long and those that did were frequently stripped for spare parts or sent into second line duties. On the eastern front it was even more brutal on the airplanes.

 

Just going to use this opportunity to say: the Germans should have kept producing the Me-109F series until the war's end.

 

Use it for training (since its handling was the best of the series) and maybe a few aces might have wanted to keep flying it. Its top speed was passable in '45. In expert hands, large speed differences can be overcome. The Japanese proved that, albeit very infrequently towards the end.

 

That said, I can't think of too many other planes with huge numbers of variants that arguably got worse over time. The Zero and the 109 both lost handling quality as the war progressed. By total contrast, Russian planes like the Yak series and La-5 and 7 series actually improved their handling, both due to engineering revisions, and construction quality.

[Cybermat47]

12 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

In the PTO it was very bad, especially for the Japanese as they often were isolated and couldn't get spare parts that were rare to begin with due to their lack of industrial base.

Not only did they lack an industrial base, but they basically had to build two of everything due to the Army/Navy rivalry. It got so bad that the Army had its own submarines and aircraft carriers.

[MattS]

17 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

In the PTO it was very bad, especially for the Japanese as they often were isolated and couldn't get spare parts that were rare to begin with due to their lack of industrial base. When Clark Field was recaptured they found a remarkable bone yard of planes that only needed a few parts to fly but that were grounded for lack of parts, even when parts were available in the same boneyard, due to lack of mechanics and systemic problems.

 

I think it was this failure of the Japanese system that led to their 1970s revolution in car manufacturing. The US experience in the war was to keep lines moving no matter what, so that the GM factory bone yard in 1970 had many many franken cars that got through the line, while in Japan all the line personnel had the authority to stop the line to fix a problem before a car got to the end of assembly.

 

Japan's post-war industrial revolution was pretty amazing...I remember when I was a kid in the 70s/80s everyone wringing their hands about how Japan was going to put the US out of business. (Incidentally I went to spend a summer there in 88, loved the people and the place. Still talk with my host brother on Facebook!).

 

I don't know very much about it but the Toyota Production System and the use of kanban seemed like an elegant way to solve the problems that plagued Detroit at the time. 

[Irishratticus72]

On 6/18/2020 at 5:22 AM, oc2209 said:

 

Just going to use this opportunity to say: the Germans should have kept producing the Me-109F series until the war's end.

 

Use it for training (since its handling was the best of the series) and maybe a few aces might have wanted to keep flying it. Its top speed was passable in '45. In expert hands, large speed differences can be overcome. The Japanese proved that, albeit very infrequently towards the end.

 

That said, I can't think of too many other planes with huge numbers of variants that arguably got worse over time. The Zero and the 109 both lost handling quality as the war progressed. By total contrast, Russian planes like the Yak series and La-5 and 7 series actually improved their handling, both due to engineering revisions, and construction quality.

If I remember correctly, Jochen Marseille preferred the F model over the G that caused his death. 

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

If I remember correctly, Jochen Marseille preferred the F model over the G that caused his death. 

 

Yes, it was an engine problem in a G-2 if I'm not mistaken.

 

His career in the E series wasn't anything like his F series accomplishments; so the F itself was probably a large factor in his success.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

On 6/18/2020 at 6:22 AM, oc2209 said:

 

Just going to use this opportunity to say: the Germans should have kept producing the Me-109F series until the war's end.

 

Use it for training (since its handling was the best of the series) and maybe a few aces might have wanted to keep flying it. Its top speed was passable in '45. In expert hands, large speed differences can be overcome. The Japanese proved that, albeit very infrequently towards the end.

 

That said, I can't think of too many other planes with huge numbers of variants that arguably got worse over time. The Zero and the 109 both lost handling quality as the war progressed. By total contrast, Russian planes like the Yak series and La-5 and 7 series actually improved their handling, both due to engineering revisions, and construction quality.

Bull!. Without our Fantasy Engine Timers the G-6 and F-4 are still an even Match, but when the G-6 hits the F-4, the Friedrich goes down a Hell of a lot more quickly.

 

The Gustav was the Warplane built for Mud, Bombs and Gunpods, it was built to Dive away from Bombers at extremely High Speeds where the Friedrichs weaker Wings would flutter and fail.

All the Gustav is to begin with, was a reinforced and simplified Friedrich with an improved Engine. All the other Mods would have come to the Friedrich as well, and would have hampered it more than the Gustav.

[Bremspropeller]

Yeah, Klaus is right, the Friedrich just wasn't up to the tasks that were laying ahead. The Gustav was a 109 that was somewhat turned from a racing horse into a cavalry horse.

I still wouldn't call the Gustav "built for mud", though.

 

BTW: Marseille's success was for the most part down to his commanding officer - Eduard Neumann - who knew how to maximize Marseille's performance and how to turn a raw diamond into the real deal. "Edu" Neumann's leadership-talent cannotbe over-estimated.

Johannes Steinhoff wasn't quite as succcessful and generally had issues. That made him a good career-officer, but he was way too political* to be liked by me. I prefer troop-officers that excel in wartime, yet don't quite win the popularity-contest during peace-time...

 

BTW 2: There supposedly were lots of 190A-2 and A-3 airframes in training units right to the end of the war. Looks like some still were in frontal units.

One example is Lt. Eisermann's Fw 190A-3 with 9./JG 5 in early 1945.

 

___

* For lack of a better word.

[Irishratticus72]

25 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah, Klaus is right, the Friedrich just wasn't up to the tasks that were laying ahead. The Gustav was a 109 that was somewhat turned from a racing horse into a cavalry horse.

I still wouldn't call the Gustav "built for mud", though.

 

BTW: Marseille's success was for the most part down to his commanding officer - Eduard Neumann - who knew how to maximize Marseille's performance and how to turn a raw diamond into the real deal. "Edu" Neumann's leadership-talent cannotbe over-estimated.

Johannes Steinhoff wasn't quite as succcessful and generally had issues. That made him a good career-officer, but he was way too political* to be liked by me. I prefer troop-officers that excel in wartime, yet don't quite win the popularity-contest during peace-time...

 

BTW 2: There supposedly were lots of 190A-2 and A-3 airframes in training units right to the end of the war. Looks like some still were in frontal units.

One example is Lt. Eisermann's Fw 190A-3 with 9./JG 5 in early 1945.

 

___

* For lack of a better word.

Just let the Star of Africa do his thing, he's the Messi of the LuftWaffe. 

[=X51=VC_]

There are many examples of certain aircraft being really liked as "pilots aircraft" even when later versions of the same plane, or another new plane, are objectively superior in performance.

Edited June 20, 2020 by =X51=VC_

[blue_max]

The 109-F4 is by far my favorite airplane on the axis side. Don’t know why exactly, it just seems to fly nicer. Although if you fly it against late war bombers it becomes hard to catch up with them :’(

[Hartigan]

Early DB605 engine had problems with a higher manifold pressure ,that's why we have max 1.3 ATA for G2. Maybe that unreliable early 605 with 1.4 ATA caused Marseille death?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

26 minutes ago, Hartigan said:

Early DB605 engine had problems with a higher manifold pressure ,that's why we have max 1.3 ATA for G2. Maybe that unreliable early 605 with 1.4 ATA caused Marseille death?

DB601 was built extensively with Roller and Ball Bearings, while the 605 switched over to Sleeve Bearings and simplified Rockers etc. The Requirements for Oilpressure were miscalculated and at high RPM the Oil Flow was insufficient to transfer the Heat away from the Bearings, leading to Oil Overheating, Burning, Fouling and the Bearings Seizing and catching Fire.

A redesigned Oilpump solved the Issue later on.

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The Gustav was the Warplane built for Mud, Bombs and Gunpods, it was built to Dive away from Bombers at extremely High Speeds where the Friedrichs weaker Wings would flutter and fail.

All the Gustav is to begin with, was a reinforced and simplified Friedrich with an improved Engine. All the other Mods would have come to the Friedrich as well, and would have hampered it more than the Gustav.

 

Everything you list as advantages are in fact the problem.

 

The 109 was never designed for, nor was it suited to, ground attack or heavy bomber interception. Nor was it suited to long-range escort, another role it was forced into during the Battle of Britain, because of the Me-110's abject failure. 

 

If the 110 had done its job, and if its successor, the 210/410 hadn't been even more catastrophically inferior in its intended role, the 109 could have focused on its ideal role: air superiority. Instead, the 109 was forced to pick up the slack that another design should have fulfilled.

 

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would entail having the 109 in a pure fighter role; the 210/410 as bomber interceptors and ground attack, with the 109s providing high cover; and the FW-190 for low to mid-altitude air superiority.

 

The fact that the G-6 was the most common/produced variant, and that it presided over the majority of the Luftwaffe's collapse, does not speak well for its abilities. At the exact moment when the Luftwaffe needed a plane with gentle handling for novices (1943 and beyond), it instead gave novices the worst-handling version of the 109 to deal with. If you made a novice fly a G series with underwing guns, I consider that little better than a kamikaze mission; and the death rates bear it out. 

 

In terms of being 'built for mud,' the F was present for the invasion of Russia. I think it handled the mud perfectly well enough.

[Irishratticus72]

I honestly have found the G, and especially the K to be seriously overpowered for their airframes, they are just relying on brute horsepower to try and maintain relevance, whereas I find the F very well balanced and precise. But that's just me, I still have a soft spot for P40s. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Irishratticus72

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, blue_max said:

The 109-F4 is by far my favorite airplane on the axis side. Don’t know why exactly, it just seems to fly nicer. Although if you fly it against late war bombers it becomes hard to catch up with them :’(

 

I consider its handling--at least in this sim--god-tier.

 

Such that whenever I want to buy a new plane, I think: 'eh... will it really fly better than the F? Probably not.'

15 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I honestly have found the G, and especially the K to be seriously overpowered for their airframe, they are just relying on brute horsepower to try and maintain relevance, whereas I find the F very well balanced and precise. But that's just me, I still have a soft spot for P40s. 

 

Well, you're correct. The later series are overpowered.

 

Most American airframes can afford to be larger, heavier, stronger, and more versatile precisely because they were designed later, and intended to be fitted with very powerful, newer engines. In some cases, American planes were designed around a specific engine.

 

Whereas the 109 was designed to be small (and cheap to produce; something that mattered less to Americans), and mated with the most powerful engine available--in the late 30s. Because of this inherent limitation, the 109 was technically obsolete by late 1943, much like the Zero. Unlike the Zero, the F series neared 400 MPH for its top speed. Not bad for an obsolete design.

Edited June 20, 2020 by oc2209

[Irishratticus72]

19 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I consider its handling--at least in this sim--god-tier.

 

Such that whenever I want to buy a new plane, I think: 'eh... will it really fly better than the F? Probably not.'

 

Well, you're correct. The later series are overpowered.

 

American airframes can afford to be larger, heavier, stronger, and more versatile precisely because they were designed later, and intended to be fitted with very powerful, newer engines. In some cases, American planes were designed around a specific engine.

 

Whereas the 109 was designed to be small, and mated with the most powerful engine available--in the late 30s. Because of this inherent limitation, the 109 was technically obsolete by late 1943, much like the Zero. Unlike the Zero, the F series neared 400 MPH for its top speed. Not bad for an obsolete design.

Yet the Spit IX was probably the best performing of the Merlin engined series, and the airframe wasn't modified that much over the very early marks, even though horsepower was radically improved, so it could be done, just not by BF. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Irishratticus72

[oc2209]

5 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Yet the Spit IX was probably the best performing of the Merlin engined series, and the airframe wasn't modified that much over the very early marks, even though horsepower was radically improved, so it could be done, just not by BF. 

 

I'm thinking the basic Spitfire airframe was inherently stronger than the 109's, and for that reason the various engine upgrades didn't impact it as much.

 

When you just look at the 109, either in books or in a museum, it really strikes you as being tiny more than any other plane. Even the Yak, which has similar dimensions, has a fatter, more robust feel to it. The 109 looks like it will break just from staring at it too long.

 

In an odd way, that's part of its charm. Whether I'd feel comfortable flying in it in real life, is another story. I'd probably want a P-47 in real life. For shoulder room, if nothing else.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I find it easier to fly the G-series than the F-series.  Especially when it comes to lining up shots.  They just feel so much more stable.

[Irishratticus72]

28 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'm thinking the basic Spitfire airframe was inherently stronger than the 109's, and for that reason the various engine upgrades didn't impact it as much.

 

When you just look at the 109, either in books or in a museum, it really strikes you as being tiny more than any other plane. Even the Yak, which has similar dimensions, has a fatter, more robust feel to it. The 109 looks like it will break just from staring at it too long.

 

In an odd way, that's part of its charm. Whether I'd feel comfortable flying in it in real life, is another story. I'd probably want a P-47 in real life. For shoulder room, if nothing else.

Give me whatever Ben Affleck is flying.... ? 

[=X51=VC_]

46 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'm thinking the basic Spitfire airframe was inherently stronger than the 109's, and for that reason the various engine upgrades didn't impact it as much.

 

When you just look at the 109, either in books or in a museum, it really strikes you as being tiny more than any other plane. Even the Yak, which has similar dimensions, has a fatter, more robust feel to it. The 109 looks like it will break just from staring at it too long.

 

In an odd way, that's part of its charm. Whether I'd feel comfortable flying in it in real life, is another story. I'd probably want a P-47 in real life. For shoulder room, if nothing else.

 

What it comes down to is wing loading. The 109 was designed around high wing loading to maximise speed, which was a revolutionary concept at the time. This gave little room for weight growth, as high wing loadings adversely affect handling. The Spitfire was designed with a low wing loading and its handling did suffer with increased weight, but it started from a more docile place. Arguably though the Spitfire had greater problems structurally as larger engines were fitted and higher speeds were reached, e.g. aileron reversal due to wing twist.

 

The Yak-3 is the perfect example of what the 109 could have been if allowed to specialise in that direction. Imagine a G-14 with only one MG131, weight savings in other places, no bulges, no needless add-ons, full gear doors and retracting tail wheel. It would be a bit overpowered but probably not that horrible to handle, and its performance would be utterly terrifying.

 

I think the perception of handling, in game especially, also comes from the matchup and the overall speed of the engagement. The F-4 is great to fly and has a perfect balance of raw performance and handling qualities... for the time period it fits into. It's undisputed king of the roost in its matchup, especially in game where there is no competitive allied counterpart (e.g. Spitfire Vc) to fight it, and even the Vb tends not to be put in early enough missions by MP servers because it's not relevant in the Eastern Front battles we have.

 

But as soon as the whole fight speeds up and the reds get better and faster planes and know what to do with them, I'd rather have a G that can dive harder, handle and shoot better at speed, and get out easier. You simply don't miss the slightly better handling because you aren't putting it in those kinds of situations, the fight is different.

 

So saying that the F-4 handles better than later models is really more like saying you prefer the earlier style of slightly slower but more turny-loopy dogfights. No matter how well it handles, it has no place in the later BnZ-fest.

Edited June 20, 2020 by =X51=VC_

[blue_max]

19 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

So saying that the F-4 handles better than later models is really more like saying you prefer the earlier style of slightly slower but more turny-loopy dogfights. No matter how well it handles, it has no place in the later BnZ-fest.

 

This is exactly true! I'm here to live my WW2 fighter pilot fantasy, which does not revolve around BnZ

[Barnacles]

36 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

What it comes down to is wing loading. The 109 was designed around high wing loading to maximise speed, which was a revolutionary concept at the time. This gave little room for weight growth, as high wing loadings adversely affect handling. The Spitfire was designed with a low wing loading and its handling did suffer with increased weight, but it started from a more docile place. Arguably though the Spitfire had greater problems structurally as larger engines were fitted and higher speeds were reached, e.g. aileron reversal due to wing twist.

 

The Yak-3 is the perfect example of what the 109 could have been if allowed to specialise in that direction. Imagine a G-14 with only one MG131, weight savings in other places, no bulges, no needless add-ons, full gear doors and retracting tail wheel. It would be a bit overpowered but probably not that horrible to handle, and its performance would be utterly terrifying.

 

I think the perception of handling, in game especially, also comes from the matchup and the overall speed of the engagement. The F-4 is great to fly and has a perfect balance of raw performance and handling qualities... for the time period it fits into. It's undisputed king of the roost in its matchup, especially in game where there is no competitive allied counterpart (e.g. Spitfire Vc) to fight it, and even the Vb tends not to be put in early enough missions by MP servers because it's not relevant in the Eastern Front battles we have.

 

But as soon as the whole fight speeds up and the reds get better and faster planes and know what to do with them, I'd rather have a G that can dive harder, handle and shoot better at speed, and get out easier. You simply don't miss the slightly better handling because you aren't putting it in those kinds of situations, the fight is different.

 

So saying that the F-4 handles better than later models is really more like saying you prefer the earlier style of slightly slower but more turny-loopy dogfights. No matter how well it handles, it has no place in the later BnZ-fest.

Yeah, the f4 is great, but even against a p47 it's not holding many cards anymore. 

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would entail having the 109 in a pure fighter role; the 210/410 as bomber interceptors and ground attack, with the 109s providing high cover; and the FW-190 for low to mid-altitude air superiority.

 

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would scrap the prop Messerschmitts all together (and have them focus on the 262 instead) and equip the 190 with all the DB603 engines one could get a hold on. That means scrapping DB605 production in favor of the 603.

[danielprates]

18 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 so the F itself was probably a large factor in his success.

 

That, and his ever increasing experience.

[Jaws2002]

59 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would scrap the prop Messerschmitts all together (and have them focus on the 262 instead) and equip the 190 with all the DB603 engines one could get a hold on. That means scrapping DB605 production in favor of the 603.

 

   That's a good plan, but it took a while for the 603 and the Jet engines,  to have all the bugs ironed out and until the engines were good to go, the 605 wasn't really taking production space from other engines. 

Obviously, once the 603 production started, they should have switched to that and the various jet engines. Giving all the 603 engines to the ME-410 instead of the FW-190 B/C was a pretty big blunder on their part.

 

Another big blunder they made was not giving the BMW 801 engine a better supercharger. That was a good engine and a better supercharger could have made a huge difference at altitude. 

 Just look at the supercharger on the DB-603. That thing could have made the FW-190A a way better fighter. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Jaws2002

[Eisenfaustus]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Everything you list as advantages are in fact the problem.

 

The 109 was never designed for, nor was it suited to, ground attack or heavy bomber interception. Nor was it suited to long-range escort, another role it was forced into during the Battle of Britain, because of the Me-110's abject failure. 

 

If the 110 had done its job, and if its successor, the 210/410 hadn't been even more catastrophically inferior in its intended role, the 109 could have focused on its ideal role: air superiority. Instead, the 109 was forced to pick up the slack that another design should have fulfilled.

 

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would entail having the 109 in a pure fighter role; the 210/410 as bomber interceptors and ground attack, with the 109s providing high cover; and the FW-190 for low to mid-altitude air superiority.

 

The fact that the G-6 was the most common/produced variant, and that it presided over the majority of the Luftwaffe's collapse, does not speak well for its abilities. At the exact moment when the Luftwaffe needed a plane with gentle handling for novices (1943 and beyond), it instead gave novices the worst-handling version of the 109 to deal with. If you made a novice fly a G series with underwing guns, I consider that little better than a kamikaze mission; and the death rates bear it out. 

 

In terms of being 'built for mud,' the F was present for the invasion of Russia. I think it handled the mud perfectly well enough.

Let's start at the Top: The 109 was intended to be an interceptor. "The bomber always comes through" was the doctrine of the day - and the Do 17 when introduced was so fast no contemporary fighter could reliably intercept it. Thus Messerschmitt and Supermarine tried to built extremely fast and well climbing interceptors to counter bombers. Neither spitfire nor 109 where originally intended to fight enemy fighters. The plan was to smash the enemy air force on it's airfields day one with bombers. (In 1935 at least - when the 109 was designed)

Every following modification was based on need and experience.

 

The Luftwaffe's collapse was not due to the G6 handling. The factors are too many to list them hear - but strategy, tactics, ressources and personal management all played a major role. If the TA-152 and Me 262 would have been operational in 1943 the collapse might have occured a little later - but it would have anyways.

 

A G-6 with gunpods did much better against American daylight bombers than the F-4 could have. And the additional guns were not liked by expert marksmen who didn't need them. The average fighter pilot needed every bit of firepower to score a kill at all.

 

And yes the F-4 flew from Russian air fields. And exactly because of that experience and all the accidents the gear was strengthened in the G4. Even experts like Krupinski had starting/landing accidents. Messerschmitt engineers were no idiots - the additional weight added to their "race horse" was neccessary.

 

18 hours ago, oc2209 said:

His career in the E series wasn't anything like his F series accomplishments; so the F itself was probably a large factor in his success.

And what about all the F pilots who did not become 100+ kill aces?

 

Edu Neumann and the absence of women and liquer in africa let him develop his insane fighting capabilities. His talent as fighter pilot was the reason why he was the star of africa.

 

Erich Hartmann flew the G-Series exclusively and did well...

 

After all most German pilots seem to report that the Fw 190 handled better than any Bf 109 variant.

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

A G-6 with gunpods did much better against American daylight bombers than the F-4 could have. And the additional guns were not liked by expert marksmen who didn't need them. The average fighter pilot needed every bit of firepower to score a kill at all.

 

Exactly! Plus, the G-6 wasn't designed to please the Experten, but to adjust to the realities of war. Those aren't always congruent with what aces or experienced pilots preferred.

I'd still say that highly experienced pilots would agree that a Kanonenboot G-6 was a better option against Möbelwagen than the armament offered by a standard F-4 (or G-4 for that matter).

 

I think a large part of the aversion towards the heavier loadouts also was psychological and mirrored the resentment towards the new realities of warfare.

[oc2209]

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The ideal Luftwaffe defense plan would scrap the prop Messerschmitts all together (and have them focus on the 262 instead) and equip the 190 with all the DB603 engines one could get a hold on. That means scrapping DB605 production in favor of the 603.

 

The 262 was never going to be the Luftwaffe's main fighter, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

 

The Luftwaffe training program was so inadequate, it couldn't even train competent prop pilots quickly enough, much less effectively oversee a mass jet pilot conversion program. For the 262 to actually matter, it'd need to be fully operational by early '43. And even that would be cutting it very close. Late '42 would be better. And, incidentally, completely impossible to achieve.

 

The fundamental weakness of the 262 on takeoff and landing was also insuperable. It was a war-winning plane only in Hitler's mind.

 

What actually was possible: Messerschmitt could have made a P-38 equivalent to effectively counter heavy bombers at high altitudes. Instead, he made the Me-210 and 410; both of which were totally inadequate for anything but dive bombing.

 

The man made a brilliant single-engine fighter, and a brilliant jet. He was a tragic imbecile in the field of heavy fighters.

[Eisenfaustus]

24 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The man made a brilliant single-engine fighter, and a brilliant jet. He was a tragic imbecile in the field of heavy fighters.

It's not that Messerschmitt AG that failed - the German military usually wishes from every weapon system to be the eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egglaying woolmilkpig) and thus the 210/410 had to be heavy bomber destroyer with full dive bombing capability. Messerschmitt gave a good shot at fullfilling these stupid demands.

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Let's start at the Top: The 109 was intended to be an interceptor. "The bomber always comes through" was the doctrine of the day - and the Do 17 when introduced was so fast no contemporary fighter could reliably intercept it. Thus Messerschmitt and Supermarine tried to built extremely fast and well climbing interceptors to counter bombers. Neither spitfire nor 109 where originally intended to fight enemy fighters. The plan was to smash the enemy air force on it's airfields day one with bombers. (In 1935 at least - when the 109 was designed)

Every following modification was based on need and experience.

 

The Luftwaffe's collapse was not due to the G6 handling. The factors are too many to list them hear - but strategy, tactics, ressources and personal management all played a major role. If the TA-152 and Me 262 would have been operational in 1943 the collapse might have occured a little later - but it would have anyways.

 

A G-6 with gunpods did much better against American daylight bombers than the F-4 could have. And the additional guns were not liked by expert marksmen who didn't need them. The average fighter pilot needed every bit of firepower to score a kill at all.

 

And yes the F-4 flew from Russian air fields. And exactly because of that experience and all the accidents the gear was strengthened in the G4. Even experts like Krupinski had starting/landing accidents. Messerschmitt engineers were no idiots - the additional weight added to their "race horse" was neccessary.

 

And what about all the F pilots who did not become 100+ kill aces?

 

Edu Neumann and the absence of women and liquer in africa let him develop his insane fighting capabilities. His talent as fighter pilot was the reason why he was the star of africa.

 

Erich Hartmann flew the G-Series exclusively and did well...

 

After all most German pilots seem to report that the Fw 190 handled better than any Bf 109 variant.

 

The 109 could intercept the tissue-paper bombers the Germans had in mind in the late 30s. No one anticipated literal flying fortresses, in the numbers the Americans could field them. Thus, the 109 was never suited to intercept heavy bombers, as I originally specified.

 

True, the G6 wasn't the sole or greatest factor in the Luftwaffe's collapse. I didn't mean to grossly oversimplify. I only meant that it was impressed into roles for which it was ill-suited, at precisely the time the overall design was entering obsolescence.

 

The G6 with wing gondolas was barely adequate against bombers; what it was wholly inadequate against, was escorting fighters. And when the P-51 came along, I wager the G6 being slower and less maneuverable did not help its odds of survival. At least the F would have been slower but considerably more agile. Recall that the Japanese Ki-100 could hold its own with P-51s, and only had a top speed of approximately 360 MPH. The F series exceeded that comfortably.

 

Again, the 109 never should have been sent against heavy bombers to begin with. That's the fundamental problem. Bolting extra guns to them to allow mediocre pilots to score kills against bombers is self-defeating in the end; because said pilots lack the maneuverability to survive determined escorts. A pilot who lives more than 20 combat sorties is worth infinitely more than a novice who got a lucky bomber kill, but died on his 3rd or 4th combat sortie. And that happened a lot.

 

As for Hartmann, he was a freak of nature. He was a robot who strictly maintained a code: see, decide, attack, break (if memory serves). War is a gamble, and the best gamblers have a system. That was his system. He also fired only from point-blank, wasting no shots. He would not have been hurt at all by the F's lighter armament. A pilot of his skill would surely get every ounce of performance and maneuverability from the F.

[Bremspropeller]

16 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The 262 was never going to be the Luftwaffe's main fighter, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

 

Depends - had the gremlins of the engines been worked out earlier, the conversion to the 262 could have started earlier. Shaking out the bugs could have been achieved by spending more manpower by eliminating other projects.

 

One has to remember that the He 100D also would have made a better front-line fighter than the early 109. It had enough internal gas to not be bothered by the required radius of action during the Battle of Britain. Trouble was that Heinkel for too long tried to out-gizmo other designers and in the end had little time to be pragmatic about a front-line version of the 100.

The RLM wasn't interested - despite lots of potential.

 

17 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The fundamental weakness of the 262 on takeoff and landing was also insuperable. It was a war-winning plane only in Hitler's mind.

 

That's a fundamental weakness shared by all contemporary jets.

A sizeable amount of 262 could have pretty much stupped the allied daylight campaign as late as early-mid '44 (pre-invasion) and force them to regroup and re-equip.

Keep in mind: Jet-powered fighter-escort from Britain to Berlin was impossible at the time.

 

The allied losses in early '44 already were close to un-sustainable - "just" facing Luftwaffe prop-fighters.

 

19 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

What actually was possible: Messerschmitt could have made a P-38 equivalent to effectively counter heavy bombers at high altitudes. Instead, he made the Me-210 and 410; both of which were totally inadequate for anything but dive bombing.

 

That airplane already existed. It was called Fw 187. The RLM didn't want it. They preferred "one size fits all" lemons.

 

Fun fact: The P-38 was effectively held back almost two years by crashes of prototypes (both the initial XP-38 and later the dive-flap prototype). Also the P-38 was hampered by it's initial specification for only 50 airplanes to be built. Larger follow-up orders required re-designs to speed up production rates.

 

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The man made a brilliant single-engine fighter, and a brilliant jet. He was a tragic imbecile in the field of heavy fighters.

 

The heavy fighter was axed by the unrealistic specifications. The Fw 187 in part was so much better, because it was an aircraft designed by aircraft-designers and not by bureaucrats.