Jump to content

Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang


VikingFjord
 Share

Recommended Posts

HeavyCavalrySgt

And some people make a bigger deal of the P-51 than it really was.

 

 

 

I think partly it is a matter of the Mustang still being pretty accessible.  There are still quite a few airworthy Mustangs around (including at least 2 at my home airport).  While there are some airworthy 109s, it would be hard to put on an event and have literally 100 of them show up from all over the country. While there is a FW 190 racing (NX190RF) it is a replica.

 

Conversely, there are lots of Mustangs around you can walk up to, see fly, talk to the pilots ( and make them wait for you at the hold short line while you are coming down final).  You can go to Reno and watch planes that used to be Mustangs but are now something else go 500+ mph 50 feet over head.  People are more likely to find the Mustang familiar, and identify more closely with things that are familiar.

 

The same is true with the Sherman tank.  It wasn't superior in any area to the tanks it was facing except maintainability... there were just a lot of them and even now if you want a Sherman and have the money it is easy to go buy one.  Harder this week than last week, with the Littlefield auction over, but still.

Edited by HeavyCavalrySgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It wasn't superior in any area to the tanks it was facing except maintainability...

Speed

It was able to circle around behind a Tiger and shoot it in the rear before a Tiger could do anything about it.

That was the factor more than maintainability -  speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv44_Mprhead

Speed

It was able to circle around behind a Tiger and shoot it in the rear before a Tiger could do anything about it.

That was the factor more than maintainability -  speed.

 

Are you for real or is it that you just really don't like this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following.

Do some research if you don't like that statement.

Not talking vs Panzer IV etc, but what often happened in Sherman vs Tiger encounters.

A single Tiger could drive up, kill 10 Shermans and drive away. A Sherman on the other hand could easily

outmaneuver a Tiger. Tigers were much slower, including where the turret was concerned.

So yeah, I'm for real I guess.

 

As silly as the thread is, might as well talk tanks I guess!

Edited by Gambit21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

There's no way this doesn't end badly or with an eventual lock.................

 

Said no simmer ever :P 

Edited by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeavyCavalrySgt

Not following.

Do some research if you don't like that statement.

Not talking vs Panzer IV etc, but what often happened in Sherman vs Tiger encounters.

A single Tiger could drive up, kill 10 Shermans and drive away. A Sherman on the other hand could easily

outmaneuver a Tiger. Tigers were much slower, including where the turret was concerned.

So yeah, I'm for real I guess.

 

As silly as the thread is, might as well talk tanks I guess!

 

My professional forefathers learned that is an expensive way to fight tank battles.

 

Getting back on topic, and thinking from an American perspective, it is possible that there is greater exposure to Mustangs than to 109s and 190s in the US accounts for some of their popularity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

WINNER - VikingfFord!

Most redundant, pointless and unnecessary thread of the year award.

Oh, not so fast my fleet fingered friend. There are other candidates for THAT title!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh...true enough.


My professional forefathers learned that is an expensive way to fight tank battles.

 

Getting back on topic, and thinking from an American perspective, it is possible that there is greater exposure to Mustangs than to 109s and 190s in the US accounts for some of their popularity.  

Greater exposure, nationalism, and ignorance.

As an American I love the Mustang, but I'm equal opportunity in that regard.

I love all the birds - especially the Zeke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pointless argument.

 

Defiant won the war.

I'd suggest the SBD Dauntless won the war. By knocking out the Japanese carrier force in a matter of minutes and stopping the expansion of their empire, it allowed the U.S. and the other Western Allies to focus the majority of their resources on the European War first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah - the credit for winning the war goes mostly to the Russians, and the MASSIVE amount of fighting and

dying that happened on the Eastern Front. US involvement was a side show by comparison, as was the overall effect on snuffing Hitler.

 

 

I suggest reading "No Simple Victory" by Norman Davies -  a great book on just this subject.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

under an engineering point of view American aircraft were miles ahead, and even if the Germans were more advanced under certain aspects of sophistication, the lesson we learned from WW2 is that a war is won mainly thanks to standardisation, and the American standard for aircraft was very high, probably higher than anybody else. 

 

Under a practical point of view, for every aircraft you have to apply the law of the "short blanket": you just can't cover it all, some things have to be sacrificed in order to favour others. 

 

So if we talk manoeuvrability, the Spit has the edge

if we talk firepower, the Fw190 wins

if we talk range and speed, the Mustang is first

if we talk versatility, I'd say the P-47 wins

 

out of all of the above I'd go either with the Fw190 or the Jug, but that's my personal taste of course, probably because they're both a perfect blend of technology and versatility, and whilst the Fw190 is considerably smaller than the Jug (offering a smaller target), the P-47 is much more rugged and capable of taking quite a punch.. 

 

The skill of a pilot then is all about dragging the opponent in his area of advantage, so I guess one should really go after an aircraft that suits one's style really. They're all incredible machines with their prons and cons, and the fact that they were developed so quickly during the war makes them even more fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an engineering point of view, late war German planes were top drawer - period.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with, except maybe firepower.

 

Those 8 .50 of the Jug probably pack more punch than even the 190's cannons, or at least can be considered equal.

They often would move a panzer off a road - that's a lot of energy.

I suggest readind "Hellhawks" if you heaven't already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original_Uwe

Hawker Hurricane.

/thread.

 

Edit: I must say gambit that is QUITE a claim.

Edited by forsale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those 8 .50 of the Jug probably pack more punch than even the 190's cannons, or at least can be considered equal.

They often would move a panzer off a road - that's a lot of energy.

I suggest readind "Hellhawks" if you heaven't already.

 

No, thats not possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

No, thats not possible

I agree.

 

F=MA

 

Next we are going to get back to the P-51 can kill a tiger because the engine deck grates are spaced at .55 cal and the bullets could hit the engine at the right angle rubbish.

Edited by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

From an engineering point of view, late war German planes were top drawer - period.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with, except maybe firepower.

No. Have you ever put your hands on a warbird? The Germans had more innovative ideas and sophistication, but the quality of US engineering of those years is superior because of the materials, design, assembly methods, quality consistency and standardisation. I'm not expecting you to understand if you've never touched it with your hands, but at least trust the judgement of someone who does.

 

Those 8 .50 of the Jug probably pack more punch than even the 190's cannons, or at least can be considered equal.

They often would move a panzer off a road - that's a lot of energy.

I suggest readind "Hellhawks" if you heaven't already.

That's another myth that has been widely discussed: first of all it's hard to compare cannon firepower to HMG firepower - the former relies on chemical power (the explosions), the latter on kinetic power.

 

Having said that, 8 .50 cals can surely cripple most vehicles and tanks, but move 60 tons of metal? Come on...

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Flanker

S!

 

 Regarding Rall's comment on P51 he said it was spacious, well arranged cockpit and relatively easy to fly with good controls. But he also said that he was so used to the Bf109 as been living in that cockpit for like 5 years and knew the plane inside out. For me one of all time favorites is F4U Corsair aka Whistling Death. Baa Baa Black sheep has a part in this too, but also the quite impressive combat record for the Corsair. It could move mud and fight fighters, rugged contruction and simply badass looks :) How can't you like Corsair?!  :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah - the credit for winning the war goes mostly to the Russians, and the MASSIVE amount of fighting and

dying that happened on the Eastern Front. US involvement was a side show by comparison, as was the overall effect on snuffing Hitler.

 

 

I suggest reading "No Simple Victory" by Norman Davies -  a great book on just this subject.

The slaughter of millions of human beings by evil, inhuman leaders notwithstanding, no one argues the importance of the Eastern front. Certainly not during the war years as the massive amounts of lend lease sent there proves. But if what the Western Allies did in WWII was a side show , that shows an equal lack of understanding of that war. It was a much larger war in terms of area that spanned more than half the globe. The logistics alone stagger the imagination. In that regard, nothing the Germans or Russians did compares.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

The slaughter of millions of human beings by evil, inhuman leaders notwithstanding, no one argues the importance of the Eastern front. Certainly not during the war years as the massive amounts of lend lease sent there proves. But if what the Western Allies did in WWII was a side show , that shows an equal lack of understanding of that war. It was a much larger war in terms of area that spanned more than half the globe. The logistics alone stagger the imagination. In that regard, nothing the Germans or Russians did compares.

100% agree with Rjel on this. I missed that comment from Gambit: as I said somewhere else, revisionism of WW2 FACTS is the fashion of the moment  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeavyCavalrySgt

 

They often would move a panzer off a road - that's a lot of energy.

 

 

It would be, but I don't recall P-47 drivers complaining about not being able to fire their guns for fear of damaging their wings or stalling the aircraft.  Equal and opposite reaction, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% agree with Rjel on this. I missed that comment from Gambit: as I said somewhere else, revisionism of WW2 FACTS is the fashion of the moment  :rolleyes:

Absolutely. I posted this once before on another flight sim website. Given the power of the internet in today's world to influence and even educate, I'd give it about two or three more generations of revisionism before it's accepted as fact by many that not only did the Axis powers in WWII actually win the war, they were the victims forced into it by the Allied nations. I'm glad I won't be alive to see that. More so, I'm thankful the people who actually sacrificed themselves, their lives and their youth contributing to winning the war, will have long been gone. For them to see their history so distorted would have to be heartbreaking.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I posted this once before on another flight sim website. Given the power of the internet in today's world to influence and even educate, I'd give it about two or three more generations of revisionism before it's accepted as fact by many that not only did the Axis powers in WWII actually win the war, they were the victims forced into it by the Allied nations. I'm glad I won't be alive to see that. More so, I'm thankful the people who actually sacrificed themselves, their lives and their youth contributing to winning the war, will have long been gone. For them to see their history so distorted would have to be heartbreaking.

I do think you should have a little more trust in our youths- growing up as the digital natives they are, i think they can distinguish lots of rubbish on the net from what they learn elsewhere as "Fact". Difficulty being, fact in History is quite subjective, the longer back the less proveable.

So does that leave us a nice little dilemma, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slaughter of millions of human beings by evil, inhuman leaders notwithstanding, no one argues the importance of the Eastern front. Certainly not during the war years as the massive amounts of lend lease sent there proves. But if what the Western Allies did in WWII was a side show , that shows an equal lack of understanding of that war. It was a much larger war in terms of area that spanned more than half the globe. The logistics alone stagger the imagination. In that regard, nothing the Germans or Russians did compares.

Well said. the fact that so many Russians died and that these deaths were attributed to the Germans (by Russian sources) proves not that they pulled the most weight, but that perhaps the common Russians were brave but with bad leadership. What did Patton say about winning a war? You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other bastard die for his. Simply dying in droves for your country was never going to win the war by itself. One should not marginalize the Western Allies' indispensable, critical, essential role to ending the war. The Western allies had fewer dead because they fought WELL, not because they fought any less or not as hard. The unspoken implication of "we did the most because more of us died" is that Western Allies did less because fewer of them died, and that is completely incorrect.

 

Also I am highly suspicious of the so called numbers, especially the claim that Russia had the largest amount of war dead. I guess the CBI theatre was chopped liver? And did they properly attribute losses due to enemy action, and say to ahum, "internal" action or environmental factors? If a peasant starved to death due to his food being requisitioned for the army, was he counted in? I would think not, but different countries have different accounting standards, so the numbers one pulls out may not be directly comparable. 

Edited by kongxinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_bongodriver

And that is the plain truth of the matter, it was an evil Georgian that killed the most Russians not the Germans headed by an evil Austrian, if Stalin had elected to use any morality then the Russians would have lost the war, but instead he just threw bodies at the Germans in wave after wave, these poor sods sent in without enough guns between them had no choice in the matter, either die by a German bullet or by a Russian one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because certainly there was nothing motivating the Red Armys soldiers other than sheer fear of comrade Stalin....

 

Geez....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think you should have a little more trust in our youths- growing up as the digital natives they are, i think they can distinguish lots of rubbish on the net from what they learn elsewhere as "Fact". Difficulty being, fact in History is quite subjective, the longer back the less proveable.

So does that leave us a nice little dilemma, right?

I can agree with that. And I'm not saying everyone everywhere is so easily swayed. As far as history being subjective, I can agree with that to a degree. But consider, WWII was the most extensively covered event in human history. Even though it was, far and away the most widespread event mankind has ever known to this point in time, the major incidents and the facts associated with them are widely documented and really shouldn't be considered subjective. IMO, the BoB is a prime example. The Germans threw away a lot of aircrew and airplanes trying to defeat Great Britain. Only after it was over was it claimed as not an important event as far as the German war effort was concerned. How valuable would those men and machines lost over England have been later in the war to Germany fighting over Russia or even their own homeland from 1943 onwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, they weren't given the choice.

 

Except all those who volunteered for extremely dangerous combat duty?

 

Nevermind, just forget it....

 

That wasn't really the topic of this thread. What was it now? Oh right...

 

PONIES!!!

ngbbs4e7e721e119c2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except all those who volunteered for extremely dangerous combat duty?

 

Nevermind, just forget it....

 

That wasn't really the topic of this thread. What was it now? Oh right...

 

PONIES!!!

ngbbs4e7e721e119c2.jpg

No.

 

Ponies_zpsbe55bc46.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, thats not possible

I just checked the book - it was 6x6 trucks with cargo - not tanks.

Still to the point I was making - that's a lot of power.

 

To quote the book

 

" The Thunderbolts' eight. 50 caliber guns fired copper jacketed lead bullets at a combined rate of nearly

2,800 rounds per minute. Each 2 inch long slug weighed about a tenth of a pound and left the barrel at

about 2800 feet per second. When he squeezed the trigger, the P-47 pilot could put nearly fifty bullets per 

second into a cone of fire that converged 300 yards in front of the cockpit. A three second burst put a

fifteen pound bolt of lead into the target at mach 3, the kinetic energy equivalent to a six-ton truck traveling

at over eighty miles an hour. That tornado of metal would blow a 6x6 truck off the road, the cab and cargo

already afire from the armor piercing rounds...etc etc."

 

That's at least the energy that a 190 throws if not more.

Head on - you're better off facing the 190 because of the sheer number of bullets coming at you from the Jug.

Edited by Gambit21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slaughter of millions of human beings by evil, inhuman leaders notwithstanding, no one argues the importance of the Eastern front. Certainly not during the war years as the massive amounts of lend lease sent there proves. But if what the Western Allies did in WWII was a side show , that shows an equal lack of understanding of that war. It was a much larger war in terms of area that spanned more than half the globe. The logistics alone stagger the imagination. In that regard, nothing the Germans or Russians did compares.

"side show" is just an expression, don't latch on to that.

The point is that the war was won primarily on the Eastern Front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"side show" is just an expression, don't latch on to that.

The point is that the war was won primarily on the Eastern Front.

You made the statement. I just replied to it to form my counterpoint. As was pointed out by myself and several others, it was a multi-front war. The war on the Eastern Front was as much affected by battles in other parts of the world as those battles were by what happened in the East. That both Hitler and Stalin destroyed millions of lives through their own ineptness and sheer callousness should never be forgotten regardless of the individual courage of their peoples. Had Germany simple chosen to invade the Soviet Union without involving the rest of the world, we likely wouldn't be here today having this discussion regardless of who came out of that conflict victorious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such an enlightened comment. :dry:

 

Come on, it's a joke!

 

You know, a play on how male fans of My Little Pony are often viewed as gay, and doing a little reversal of that?

 

Aarh forget it... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

I just checked the book - it was 6x6 trucks with cargo - not tanks.

Still to the point I was making - that's a lot of power.

 

To quote the book

 

" The Thunderbolts' eight. 50 caliber guns fired copper jacketed lead bullets at a combined rate of nearly

2,800 rounds per minute. Each 2 inch long slug weighed about a tenth of a pound and left the barrel at

about 2800 feet per second. When he squeezed the trigger, the P-47 pilot could put nearly fifty bullets per 

second into a cone of fire that converged 300 yards in front of the cockpit. A three second burst put a

fifteen pound bolt of lead into the target at mach 3, the kinetic energy equivalent to a six-ton truck traveling

at over eighty miles an hour. That tornado of metal would blow a 6x6 truck off the road, the cab and cargo

already afire from the armor piercing rounds...etc etc."

 

That's at least the energy that a 190 throws if not more.

Head on - you're better off facing the 190 because of the sheer number of bullets coming at you from the Jug.

 

that's theoretical maths, to use it effectively is another story..

Come on, it's a joke!

 

You know, a play on how male fans of My Little Pony are often viewed as gay, and doing a little reversal of that?

 

Aarh forget it... :rolleyes:

 

I think that using the word "gay" to cause of offence, or even as a joke, is quite ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that using the word "gay" to cause of offence, or even as a joke, is quite ignorant.

 

It was definately meant tongue-in-cheek. I would never use the word "gay" as a slur except when deliberately playing on a stereotype. If that didn't come through, then I appologize.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...