Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs

German Luftwaffe 1935-1945.
User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Post by Paul_9686 »

Begging your pardon, Baron, but you're getting the P-40N and the XP-40Q confused. It was the XP-40Q which could reach 422 mph, largely thanks to a shallower chin radiator and a bubble canopy, but it was only built in prototype form. The P-40N was the last of the production P-40s for combat service, and they were mostly relegated to fighter-bomber duty. Their top speed was only 340 mph. I suppose it was possible that P-40Ns serving in Italy as fighter-bombers might've been bounced by Bf-109Gs during their sorties, but in that case, the best hope for the P-40s would've been to jettison their bombload and try to out-maneuver their faster opponents.

I recall that the only time the F4F Wildcat encountered Bf-109Gs was over Norway in late March 1945, and though it was lop-sided (four FAA Wildcats against eight Bf-109s), the fight ended a triumph for the British, with three Bf-109s destroyed and the rest heading for home as fast as they could go. The Wildcat was slower than the P-40, but more maneuverable, and those British carrier pilots would've been far better trained than their RAF counterparts.

Yours,
Paul
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

I was gonna say the Q. Well, that's the one I meant. Shame it wasn't built in numbers & didn't serve anywhere. Yes correct about Wilcats off Norway.
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

Last thoughts on range. The Me 110 had better range than the 109, or Hurri's & Spits, but what good was it if it couldn't fight for beans when arriving at battle zone? Range is not near as important as fighting ability.( again, I didn't say it wasn't important, I said "not as" important ).

And the Mustang also particpated in short range missions where its range offered no advantage. 38 had fairly good range, but did not have a very good kill-loss rate in ETO.
User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Post by Paul_9686 »

Well, the idea of a long-range, twin-engined, two-seat escort fighter was de rigueur in the 30s, Baron, but it sure was shot to the Devil by actual combat experience, eh? At least the Bf-110 did better in other roles.

Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific.

Yours,
Paul
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

"Well, the idea of a long-range, twin-engined, two-seat escort fighter was de rigueur in the 30s, Baron, but it sure was shot to the Devil by actual combat experience, eh? At least the Bf-110 did better in other roles.

Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific. "

Did P38s down Admiral Yamamoto?

How about Mosquitos for old fashioned 30's thinking?
didn't the wooden airframe contribute to its low radar profile......

Does anyone know how the Mossie stood up to Me109s & Fw190s?
Banzai!
Erich
Enthusiast
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:16 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Erich »

yes Yamamoto was down by a P-38 pilot and friend, Rex Barber

The 109 was superior to Mossie chasing and this will be coverd in our book Moskito-jagd über Deutschland. the Me 262A-1a was the best of the Mossie catchers.......

E ~
Image
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

I believe the 190 could outrun a Mossie. I did read one book about a Mossie pilot long ago, he mentioned catching a 190 once, but was coming out of a zoom dive, which of course gave him a temporary speed advantage. This was at low altitude.
Erich
Enthusiast
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:16 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Erich »

the only way a mossie could be caught by a single engine Luftwaffe a/c was by a dive and that is how they were caught at night.........

the 190A varaints did not have the high altitude capabilites that the Bf 109G units had that is why the moskito-jagd units moved the Fw's out for the 109's

E ~
Image
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

Makes sense. Were there upgraded variants of the Mossie? some faster than others?
User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Post by Paul_9686 »

I wish I had my local library's copy of Famous Bombers of the Second World War, but I can state with a good degree of certainty that late bomber and photo-recon variants of the Mosquito were hot performers, Baron. The late fighter-bomber and night-fighter variants were just slightly less hot.

Yours,
Paul
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

Didn't the Mossie also form Pathfinder formations........

just occured as heard some blurb on the Radio on rehabilition of Bomber Command....
Banzai!
User avatar
sigrun
Supporter
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:03 pm

Post by sigrun »

Black Baron wrote:Last thoughts on range. The Me 110 had better range than the 109, or Hurri's & Spits, but what good was it if it couldn't fight for beans when arriving at battle zone? Range is not near as important as fighting ability.( again, I didn't say it wasn't important, I said "not as" important ).

And the Mustang also particpated in short range missions where its range offered no advantage. 38 had fairly good range, but did not have a very good kill-loss rate in ETO.
The discussion was, according to the thread header and my previous comments, based upon on the 109 vs P51 in concurrent timeframe theatre variants. Rather obtusely in an irrational attempt to justify your position, you've now chosen to vary it from the particular to the general. "Go directly to Gaol. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200".

When comparing something as disparate in terms of performance as an Me-110 versus a Spitfire of any variant, whilst endurance is still a consideration, those other performance factors assume a naturally ascendant priority which render endurance the least of one's worries. Realigning your premise to argue from such a standpoint is obtuse.

And to point out the second error in your assertion, my debate was reference endurance not range, two quite distinctly different parameters which had you any salient aviation knowledge or experience, it might be reasonably presumed you would appreciate. Hence it appears "beyond your 'ken" was not only appropriate, but an accurate observation.

Lastly endurance, where you don't have it, is all important in terms of "fighting ability". Whether in terms of loiter time or as an engagment time or manoeuvring (boost) limitation.
User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Post by Paul_9686 »

I believe they did, Greenhorn, if by "Pathfinders", you mean squadrons which fly ahead of the heavy bombers like Lancasters and drop incendiaries/flares to light up a target area for the big stuff.

Yours,
Paul
User avatar
sigrun
Supporter
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:03 pm

Post by sigrun »

Paul_9686 wrote:I believe they did, Greenhorn, if by "Pathfinders", you mean squadrons which fly ahead of the heavy bombers like Lancasters and drop incendiaries/flares to light up a target area for the big stuff.

Yours,
Paul
"Pathfinders" didn't operate in formations TMK.

They did form Squadrons, but pathfinder Mosquitos operated individually ahead of the bomber stream dropping coloured flares to denote the aiming point for the stream to unload on.

Reason for use of the Mosquito was that it was a twin (night), had cruising speed to get there before the bombers and manoeuverability (speed) to evade the intercepters, and of course it could carry the necessary flare load whilst having the range to reach the target. Two crack crew (navigator and pilot) consisted of select experienced individuals renknowned for their DR navigational skill over a blacked out continent in atrocious weather, ability to find and put the load accurately on the target etc.

Unfortunately or should I say fortunately, the resultant fires from the mix of incendiaries and HE from the first few bombers to unload following the pathfinder often resulted in the stream misidentifying that point as the aiming point. A messy and imprecise business. When you consider that many of the Lanc and Halifax 'Captains' were terrified out of their wits 19 or 20 year olds who couldn't drive a car and barely an aeroplane, they made a pretty good job out of a damned hard ask.
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

The discussion was, according to the thread header and my previous comments, based upon on the 109 vs P51 in concurrent timeframe theatre variants. Rather obtusely in an irrational attempt to justify your position, you've now chosen to vary it from the particular to the general

The subject of range, or endurance is not limited to the 109 & P-51. I did not change subject to the general. If you had read my post, you would see a comment also about the 51. I also mentioned the 38 which you either ignored or missed. Your comment about the performance discreptancy between the 110 & Spit is something that was not known at the time of the BoB, therefore your point is moot.

endurance is important as I mentioned before, but not "all" important as you mentioned. You are still incorrect in your assumption. comprehending this is obviously beyond your ken.
Post Reply