Jump to content

Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang


VikingFjord
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sternjaeger

Where those Spit Vs and early P-40s in front line service?

 

Oh yes, the Canadians for instance flew missions on D-Day on Mk.Vs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, the Canadians for instance flew missions on D-Day on Mk.Vs. 

But by D-Day most Canadian squadrons were flying Mk IX at the very least.  Mk XIV were being replaced by MKVIs.

 

The VIII hung around for a bit but was replaced quickly by the XIV for V-1/V-2 interceptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

But by D-Day most Canadian squadrons were flying Mk IX at the very least.  Mk XIV were being replaced by MKVIs.

 

The VIII hung around for a bit but was replaced quickly by the XIV for V-1/V-2 interceptions. 

 

of course, but this is not the point. What we're saying is that there was a wide array of different marks of the same aircraft, and they were often used in combat in the same period.

 

Crumbs, even Hawker Hurricanes were produced until the end of 1944!

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets even more interesting, when you look on the Soviet side. Not only did several different versions of the same aircraft stay in service alongside one another, but even production of older models were only gradually phased out in order to use up as many spare parts as posible.

 

The Lavochkin fighters are propably the most extreme example of this. Production of the first versions of the La-5 started in the autumn of 1942, but LaGG-3 development did not end and it was kept in production until the end of 1943, when Ash-82 engine production was sufficient to completely shift to La-5 production and the LaGG-3 was in front line service until the end of the war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

Where those Spit Vs and early P-40s in front line service?

 

Even Hurricanes flew combat sorties until the end of the war.

 

Just like Mustangs had the range, 109s the firepower and the Spitfire Mk.V their nimbleness, the Hurricane had the ruggedness and ease of handling that made it suited to roles where newer designs often came up short. Moreover, it was available where never and more capable deigns was occupied in other roles. It is all well to say that the Thunderbolt could have taken over the JABO-role the Hurricane was employed in at the later stages of the war (that was indeed what happened in India and Burma), but the Thunderbolt is a large aeroplane and need long and fairly even runways and guzzle up large amounts of patrol.

 

It is not a question of "best", but of "best in what role".

Edited by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

Even Hurricanes flew combat sorties until the end of the war.

 

Just like Mustangs had the range, 109s the firepower and the Spitfire Mk.V their nimbleness, the Hurricane had the ruggedness and ease of handling that made it suited to roles where newer designs often came up short. Moreover, it was available where never and more capable deigns was occupied in other roles. It is all well to say that the Thunderbolt could have taken over the JABO-role the Hurricane was employed in at the later stages of the war (that was indeed what happened in India and Burma), but the Thunderbolt is a large aeroplane and need long and fairly even runways and guzzle up large amounts of patrol.

 

It is not a question of "best", but of "best in what role".

 

exactly, this is why whenever goes along the lines of "which one is the best" my conclusion is that they're either bored/trolling or they don't still fully understand what they're talking about  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Polikarpov I-16 and the Tupolev SB won the war! Had they not so thoroughly depleted the Luftwaffes stores of ammunition, you would all be speaking German today!!!!eleven!!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESCOMM_Viper

The Polikarpov I-16 and the Tupolev SB won the war! Had they not so thoroughly depleted the Luftwaffes stores of ammunition, you would all be speaking German today!!!!eleven!!!

 

I-16 was the best plane ever ;)

 

People here are watching much The History Channel ;) That history of P51 hahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where those Spit Vs and early P-40s in front line service?

Since the "front line" meant bomber escourt over The Reich I assume not
Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

Since the "front line" meant bomber escourt over The Reich I assume not

 

I believe they was involved in ground attack missions in support of infantry until the end. I guess you'd be hard pressed to find an aeroplane role more closely tied to the front line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how many wartime kills has the Eurofighter achieved over the years?

 

Checkmate, modern warfare-ists!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Flanker

S!

 

 I think the most war/conflict kills are still achieved by F15. At one time it had 96 kills to 0 losses. I bet it is a bit higher at the moment. Recently that is :)

Edited by LLv34_Flanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I don't really like their arrogant, know-it-all tone.

"And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane." - Gunther Rall


And just because a 20/30mm round was bigger, made a bigger splash, doesn't mean they were more effective than the fast .50. They both got the job done.

I don't like to discredit the real pilots who stressed their aircraft in real WWII combat with a full load of ammo and not gonna discredit the real pilots who said if they turned the P-51 flaps down to ~5 degrees, they could turn with most Germans (with E). Put them in an interview with the History Channel, and a bandwagon of PC pilots will immediately jump to the propaganda card. People can throw stats they find on the internet around all they want, when it really comes down to it, considering their advantages/disadvantages; the P-51 never reigned 'supreme' over the 109/190 and the 109/190's never reigned supreme over the P-51's. This is why Germany vs USA is the most fun matchup for me but if you read this long, you'd know I still think the 109 was the best fighter of WWII but not by any game changing margins; they're very even if they fly to their advantages. Keyword: Advantages.

 

"In my opinion, and I participated in 25 fights, best fighter of WWII was Me-109G2." - Vladimir Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, Yak pilot.

 

Alright, my adderall is burning off.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Interesting



I'll take the Corsair though

 

Watch out, PC pilots claim Bud Anderson is lying and it's all propaganda, especially the fish tails he did because apparently, "the P-51 can't do that." But this video enforces my point. People can throw stat cards around all they want, but when it really came down to it, they were evenly matched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Be forewarned, now that this thread is being revisited all of my future posts will be either sarcastic or outright trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

I'm just going to leave this here for in-depth historical analysis and technical review.

 

 

The dragons are over-modelled. There's no way a non-projectile flames can do that amount of damage to an airframe. Besides, the Brits had the better dragons!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I don't know if the P-51 Mustang were the best fighter, but it was better than the Bf 109, at least at the end of the war. Each one of them had some strong points - Bf 109 was very manoeuvrable, P-51 Mustang had a long flying range, but in the end, I think the Mustang outclassed the Bf 109 as it had more firepower, armour etc. than the German fighter, if I'm not mistaken. As for the design, I tend to like more the Bf 109 as it has some kind of gracious aggressivenss in my opinion, but the the P-51 Mustang B/C are very nice too. Here you can find some interesting articles about the two warbirds
http://scale-model-aircraft.com/plans-drawings/wwii-aviation/north-american-p-51-mustang
http://scale-model-aircraft.com/plans-drawings/interwar-aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Space_Ghost

I don't know if the P-51 Mustang were the best fighter, but it was better than the Bf 109, at least at the end of the war. Each one of them had some strong points - Bf 109 was very manoeuvrable, P-51 Mustang had a long flying range, but in the end, I think the Mustang outclassed the Bf 109 as it had more firepower, armour etc. than the German fighter, if I'm not mistaken. As for the design, I tend to like more the Bf 109 as it has some kind of gracious aggressivenss in my opinion, but the the P-51 Mustang B/C are very nice too. Here you can find some interesting articles about the two warbirds

http://scale-model-aircraft.com/plans-drawings/wwii-aviation/north-american-p-51-mustang

http://scale-model-aircraft.com/plans-drawings/interwar-aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109

 

:rolleyes:

 

I think the point here is that there is no such thing as "better." All aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages - that is before you factor in the largest variable of them all: pilot ability.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortis_Leader

^ That. It's one thing today with IR, medium, long range radar guided missiles, radars, stealth, considerable speed differences, maneuverability, etc. but if we go back to the war it's just going round in circles debating which was the better fighter most of the time. We can all agree that some were obviously better, e.g. the 109 was better than the Hurricane, the Zero was better than the Wildcat, etc. but when you start comparing the very latest versions of the pure thoroughbred fighters it's ridiculous. A lot of the most famous planes were de facto the very best that could be accomplished and wound up being as far as propeller driven fighters could get before jets took over. In the end it came down to dogfights since there was no other way of reliably shooting down enemy fighters, and in that situation the differences between planes gotta be huge for it to make a mention-able difference, at least compared to how much the individual pilots' skills mattered.

Edited by Palaszewski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Just to jump in here, the Zero was not necesarilly better, it was just used properly as a turn fighter. Once the Americans learned to bounce them and NOT turn with them, Wildcats did quite well for themselves. Again, it came down to the pilot and using both an aircraft's strengths as well as tactics developed around those strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread still alive?

P-51 was long-range escort, optimized for flying long distance and downing sluggish, overgunned interceptors. Nothing less, but nothing more. Against overarmoured, cannon-armed late war Bf-109K - themself optimised to intercept high altitude superfortress  bombers, *not* to engage in dogfights, it shined - the all MG armament was better at hitting fighters and had just adequate firepower, and medicore maneuvrability was not disadvantage against planes themselves built for resilence first. If used as bomber interceptor it would suffer from lack of cannon and armour, if used to intercept IL-2s it would be undergunned, if faced with proper dogfighter like Yak or Spitfire it would be outperformed. Without superfortresses to escort, it would have no targets in it's narrow, preferred enviroment; I see it hunting  Ju-87s and doing ground attack, but that's a job any single-seat fighter could do. What it did, however, it did very well.

Edited by Trupobaw
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

This thread still alive?

 

P-51 was long-range escort, optimized for flying long distance and downing sluggish, overgunned interceptors. Nothing less, but nothing more. Against overarmoured, cannon-armed late war Bf-109K - themself optimised to intercept high altitude superfortress  bombers, *not* to engage in dogfights, it shined - the all MG armament was better at hitting fighters and had just adequate firepower, and medicore maneuvrability was not disadvantage against planes themselves built for resilence first. If used as bomber interceptor it would suffer from lack of cannon and armour, if used to intercept IL-2s it would be undergunned, if faced with proper dogfighter like Yak or Spitfire it would be outperformed. Without superfortresses to escort, it would have no targets in it's narrow, preferred enviroment; I see it hunting  Ju-87s and doing ground attack, but that's a job any single-seat fighter could do. What it did, however, it did very well.

I think you mean Flying Fortresses (only a couple of B-29's ever saw the ETO and none operationally) and I also think you underestimate the .50 API rounds when it comes to gun capabilities. The P-51 doesn't give up much to anybody when handled appropriately. That said, the top performing prop aircraft from all of the nations involved fit into a pretty narrow window towards the end of the war. The Germans had a pretty clear advantage until 1942-43 on the continent except for the Spitfire. As the war progressed everyone caught up and then leapfrogged each other in terms of technology/performance til the end. In a dogfight it would mostly come down to pilot skill, training and team tactics to determine the victor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CorsairHundo

So... What was Germany dedicated dogfighter? What about USA? Looks like Britain was Spitfire and Russia was yak

It wasn't that the P-51 wasn't a designated fighter. The #1 mission for the 8th Air Force was bombing the axis, not looking for individual dog fights, that wouldn't win the war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... What was Germany dedicated dogfighter? What about USA? Looks like Britain was Spitfire and Russia was yak

US demands were different. They needed not interceptors but long range fighters and fighter/bombers. Due to distances on the pacific front and that they had to fight over europe flying from British bases. Although, US had such constructions earlier on. Check P-40, P-39 line and P-36 which were the USAAF interceptor planes.

 

@OP You did one thing wrong. You took the Bf109K4 which was not supplied in big numbers and many of those planes had been built with worse materials yet on paper still looked amazing. The primary enemy of the P-51 since B to D was Bf109G6 and later G14.(both these versions were produced even when K4 came out and until the end of the war)

K4 was late 1944 and mustang was long before that in the air. If you want to compare the best versions (both from 1944) You should take the P-51H. 500 of them were built, never saw combat but was deployed on the pacific. You know why? Because Germany was already finished and even though they could produce planes like Me262 and K4, Ta152, they were. unable to make them in quantity. So when 20 Mustangs were vs 1 Ta152 even a superior plane cannot do much in that situation. Thus US forces didn't needed a new plane with better abilities on the front as P-51D was enough to counter the German airforce.

 

The 109 is a good aircraft but, it needs strenght to be flown well at high speeds, so even though K4 was faster than the mustang, the pilot needed both hands on the stick to manuver.(control stiffened badly at speeds above 550kph) That required strenght and pilot of the 109 was already tired after few high speed maneuvers when P-51 pilot was piloting his plane with 1 hand.

 

German pilots have respected the Mustang. So should you

 

Edited by =LD=Solty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg

 

Looking at these data sheets I don't see how late-war 109's (in this case the K4) were in any way clearly inferior to most allied contemporaries flown at the time.

As always with the 109, staggering climb rate, one of, if not the highest of the war, some sources claiming it to be at around 4920ft/min at optimum altitudes.

Combine that with a top speed of just under 730km/h (at 7km) and you've got a formidable fighter. 

 

Yes, pilot skill needs to be taken into account, as does the condition many of the late war 109's were flown in, but I don't see any evidence of late-war 109's being clearly inferior to their allied counterparts. Especially not the P51.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg

 

Looking at these data sheets I don't see how late-war 109's (in this case the K4) were in any way clearly inferior to most allied contemporaries flown at the time.

As always with the 109, staggering climb rate, one of, if not the highest of the war, some sources claiming it to be at around 4920ft/min at optimum altitudes.

Combine that with a top speed of just under 730km/h (at 7km) and you've got a formidable fighter. 

 

Yes, pilot skill needs to be taken into account, as does the condition many of the late war 109's were flown in, but I don't see any evidence of late-war 109's being clearly inferior to their allied counterparts. Especially not the P51.  

You wrote right under my post without quoting to whom you are talking to. So I guess you talk to me. And I have not said that 109K4 is inherently inferior, but Climb rate and speed alone are not the only valuable aspects of a plane. Roll rate at speed, elevator authority are also very important and K4 was not able to fly so fast without 1.95 ata with MW50 which is just WEP, it is not it's military power and only with C3 type of fuel. Mostly they used B4 fuel and 1.8 ata boost on K4. So read before you reply, as it is clear you have not read the whole thing.

 

Mustang P-51D is older than K4, so no wonders the 109 in this version can be faster. Allies didn't needed to be worried anymore because they had dominated Germans earlier. P-51B, C, D did most of their work way before K4 was even introduced. Luftwaffe at that point was crumbling, sometimes not even coming to meet the bombers and letting them bomb cities. US didn't have the need to get better planes.

 

If you want to compare most common planes of both nations at that time of war, you have to compare:

P-51D to Bf109G6.

Edited by =LD=Solty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote right under my post without quoting to whom you are talking to. So I guess you talk to me. And I have not said that 109K4 is inherently inferior, but Climb rate and speed alone are not the only valuable aspects of a plane. Roll rate at speed, elevator authority are also very important and K4 was not able to fly so fast without 1.95 ata with MW50 which is just WEP, it is not it's military power and only with C3 type of fuel. Mostly they used B4 fuel and 1.8 ata boost on K4. So read before you reply, as it is clear you have not read the whole thing.

 

Mustang P-51D is older than K4, so no wonders the 109 in this version can be faster. Allies didn't needed to be worried anymore because they had dominated Germans earlier. P-51B, C, D did most of their work way before K4 was even introduced. Luftwaffe at that point was crumbling, sometimes not even coming to meet the bombers and letting them bomb cities. US didn't have the need to get better planes.

 

If you want to compare most common planes of both nations at that time of war, you have to compare:

P-51D to Bf109G6.

 

I wasn't replying to your comment. I was making a general statement answering a general question. Note that I didn't mention which version of the P51 I was referring to. I was simply saying that late-war 109's are not as inferior to late-war allied fighters as some may claim, giving the K4 as an example.

I didn't know starting arguments with people was a prerequisite to comment in this thread -- guess I should have known better. 

 

But arguments like these are inevitable in a thread posing such a broad question. Version of the plane, time frame, conditions (weather, enemy air superiority, aircraft serviceability etc.) are all factors that need to be taken into account to make any sensible comparison. Ceteris paribus is an assumption that is rarely discussed in any detail in threads such as this one, because most people want to quickly throw in a comment or two without spending hours performing detailed analyses and comparisons between aircraft (understandably), thus creating a polarity between those who take the thread's opening question very seriously and those that treat it more broadly and casually. 

Edited by 19te.Leaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[BTEAM]_Shifty_

-Performance

-Maneuverability

-Weapons

-Range

-Design

-Generally known ability to kick ass

How come price is not included in this?

Add a price and you can build two Yak-9U for every for every Kurfurst or Mustang

Go and try to fight 1 vs 2 and say which is best. Numbers is best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The K 4 was a good plane of course! But they built just around 531 planes at end of the war! And we all know that the quality of the engines at this point of war was bad, because of sabotage and other reasons!

Bad trained pilots did the rest with crashes or beeing helpless against good trained pilots on allied site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortis_Leader

How come price is not included in this?

Add a price and you can build two Yak-9U for every for every Kurfurst or Mustang

Go and try to fight 1 vs 2 and say which is best. Numbers is best!

 

That'd be a legit argument if every nation involved in the war was allotted an equal budget which they could not expand for their fighters. However, since that wasn't really the case, especially the USAAF obviously wound up with the largest number of high quality aircraft, no matter which sort. Well, maybe not the A-26, but overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

B-26? The A-26 was a fantastic AC that served well into Vietnam and did COIN work in foreign service into the 80's.

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...