OT: What if?

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

This is about the general side by side comparison of the two planes at the time. It was fortunate the early marks of the Spitfire had the Channel to protect them. Fraudulent wartime propaganda sold that it was purely the quality of the British plane. Something that would have been dashed if the Spitfire had of fought in the Battle of France.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

This is about the general side by side comparison of the two planes at the time. It was fortunate the early marks of the Spitfire had the Channel to protect them. Fraudulent wartime propaganda sold that it was purely the quality of the British plane. Something that would have been dashed if the Spitfire had of fought in the Battle of France.

Really now. Look at the stats of the 109E and Spit Mk1. You'll find they're pretty equal with both planes having slight advantages where the other has a slight disadvantage.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

Any comparison in performance is about the aircraft, training and tactics. The aircraft is only one part of the equation. There is no doubt that a Bf109 in the hands of an experienced pilot was a formidable combination and many Bf109 pilots amassed huge scores.

However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

There was probably little to choose between the Spitfire and the Bf109 and the differences in success were more dependent on developing tactics and pilot training. The Axis having a significant advantage in the early years in tactics and training, with the advantage moving to the Allies later in the war, as the pressure of numbers necessitated a reduction in German training quality and the loss of experienced aircrew.

Although Adolf Galland's comment 'give me a squadron of Spitfires' was a hasty response to Goering from a frustrated commander, he did at least respect the Spitfire in its performance at the job it was designed to do.

Quote - I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable.

The final measure of any aircraft is the test of war itself and the Spitfire remained in production and front-line service throughout the war (not because there were no alternatives). The Bf109 was certainly ebbing as the war came to a close and both aircraft were pushed into tasks that they had not been designed for, but either way, they were both equally matched great aircraft.[:)]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt’s Peerless Fighter

The argument is.....

II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?

So we are talking about the war up until 1941.

Battle of France had the outnumbered 109's wiping all opposition....that's good enough for me. The battle of Britain has the 109 fighting at extreme range against the Splutterfire. Dowding very cleverly never deployed the Splutterfire on more even terms in France, he just let everything else the Brits had get shot down in droves.
The 109 was equaled later on but continued to give good account right to the end of the war.

Come again please!
You're version is rather inaccurate as the plentitude of books on the subject will quite clearly prove.
I'm not saying the 109 was bad or did not perform well even againsty the Spitfire but to state that the Spitfire couldn't handle a 109 is pure and utter nonesense. Roughly 1/3rd of the fighter available to the brits were Spits, the rest Hurri's. The spits were consitently employed against the 109's escort and were often outnumbered by the escorting fighters. They had better turn, equal high altitude performance but were very slightly slower depending on altitude.

As to the original comment. It doesn't really matter how good the plane is if you're fighter consistenly 10-1. The P47's was very well suited for extreeme high altitude combat 7000+, but take it down to 3000 and it's indeed a barn door. It took the P-51 pared to the English engine before the Allied bomber offensive really resulted in the collapse of the German fighter defense.
It had speed, dive, excellent high and reasonable low performance and could go to Berlin and back and still fight. IT was also about 1/3rd of the cost of the Jugg (P47), and was simply much better.
The one important advantage the P47 had was it's ruggedness and that's probably the only reason they kept it around in a ground attacking role.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

Totally incorrect. When the 190 was introduced in middle of 1941 it massacred the Spits. IT was faster by far, heavily armed, etc...
They would just tear the living guts out of the SpitVB's. It took the VIII and IX's to redress the situation to some extent.
The fundamental "thing" in air to air combat is speed and surprise. If you have speed, you can gain surprise. The 190 had plenty of speed.

Last but not least, to a large extent in simular performance planes, it's the pilot stupid, not the plane.
Compare it with this, take a raw recruits, without a drivers license and put him in a tank, send him off to fight. On the other side you have veterans with 100'd of hours experience in their tank. Tanks can destroy each other comparibly. Who has the most chances of winning?

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

So let's see......

1. The 109 climbs faster......check!

2. The 109 dives faster.......check!

3. And when it really comes to it the 109 could turn tighter as well......check!

Is there anything we missed? What does that make the 109?

My argument is the 109 was the more nimble aircraft, the fact that it was a difficult aircraft to fly doesn't change that. The fact that the ones flown by novice pilots were doctored to not turn so tightly doesn't mean they weren't capable of more with the training wheels off.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

So let's see......

1. The 109 climbs faster......check!

2. The 109 dives faster.......check!

3. And when it really comes to it the 109 could turn tighter as well......check!

Is there anything we missed? What does that make the 109?

My argument is the 109 was the more nimble aircraft, the fact that it was a difficult aircraft to fly doesn't change that. The fact that the ones flown by novice pilots were doctored to not turn so tightly doesn't mean they weren't capable of more with the training wheels off.

Please read the post fully, I have said:

Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

Therefore, in actual wartime conditions most Spitfire pilots were out-turning most Bf109s, Galland says so and he was there (see quote), I am prepared to accept his assessment.

All through the air war one side, or the other, had advantages and disadvantages, as new aircraft and upgraded models came into service. The tactical and strategic situation changed, giving one side, or other, the upper hand.

A large number of pilots never got the chance to take the 'training wheels' off, their aircraft were not 'doctored' during training, if they got it wrong they died. An aircraft that keeps its pilots alive is a big plus, dead pilots don't win wars..

Taking a snapshot of any part of the war will give one, or other, the superior position, but overall, I don't think there is much to choose between the two aircraft.[:)]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

Totally incorrect. When the 190 was introduced in middle of 1941 it massacred the Spits. IT was faster by far, heavily armed, etc...
They would just tear the living guts out of the SpitVB's. It took the VIII and IX's to redress the situation to some extent.
The fundamental "thing" in air to air combat is speed and surprise. If you have speed, you can gain surprise. The 190 had plenty of speed.

Last but not least, to a large extent in simular performance planes, it's the pilot stupid, not the plane.
Compare it with this, take a raw recruits, without a drivers license and put him in a tank, send him off to fight. On the other side you have veterans with 100'd of hours experience in their tank. Tanks can destroy each other comparibly. Who has the most chances of winning?

I'm well aware of the superiority of the 190 over a Spit II. What I am also aware is that almost every unit in the Luftwaffe wanted one. And there were never enough. According to Galland's book.

As someone pointed out, the 190 wasn't suited for high altitude operations. So with no 109s to take on the escorting P-47/51s.......

I'm also well aware of Luftwaffe piolts who scored in the 100s. and 200s, and a couple of 300s. A very small percentage too. And the high scoring night fighters. And yet, they lost.

[Aurelian]

Argggggh Double post.

[Jimbo123]

Unless your can somehow forget that the Brits had broken the luff codes it really doesn't matter what plane was better.

[Footslogger]

I did find this interesting link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAUgUzAIdiA

[wulfgar]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa





Taking a snapshot of any part of the war will give one, or other, the superior position, but overall, I don't think there is much to choose between the two aircraft.[:)]

Basically I agree. Both where light fighters, a concept that became over-shadowed by heavier multi-role planes. But there must of been something going for the light fighter, for we see numerous efforts to recreate the concept later in the war.
The Yak-3 was a late plane built to pre-war weight. We see numerous examples with the Japanese which are partly over-looked. Even the Americans built the naval Bearcat at the end of the war, half the weight of many of its contemporaries.
A novice pilot might appreciate the protection, firepower and neutral control of a heavier fighter-bomber. But somebody who got experienced in dog fights would yearn for a true dog-fighter.
The 109 survived because it could take the increasingly powerful engines, the same with the Spitfire.
As for the FW 190, it remained the 109 that challenged the Mustang.

The FW 190 was a good fighter-bomber that was a stable platform for hitting ground targets and taking on the opposition at lower levels. But it wasn't a war changing aircraft, which is point of the thread.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
The 109 survived because it could take the increasingly powerful engines, the same with the Spitfire.
As for the FW 190, it remained the 109 that challenged the Mustang.

The FW 190 was a good fighter-bomber that was a stable platform for hitting ground targets and taking on the opposition at lower levels. But it wasn't a war changing aircraft, which is point of the thread.

When the US began to build up its forces in Britain, american airman who had been fighting with the RAF where transferred into US service and were very disappointed to give up their Spitfires, for the much heavier P47. However, they became to appreciate the ruggedness of the P47, especially in the ground attack role.

The character of the war changed so that the Typhoon, a failure as an interceptor, was able to give good service in the ground attack role. Bombers became larger, with heavier armament, and a fighter with a heavy punch was needed to combat them.

The quality of both the Spitfire and the Bf109 was that they stayed in front-line service, during this changing situation. The fate of the FW190 and even more so the Me262, was that they came into service as the balance of power shifted to the Allies, in numbers and training, so that in the end, neither aircraft could show its full potential.

I saw a report of a fight between a single Bf109 and several P51s, the German pilot was obviously one of the 'experten', as he exploited the performance of the 109 to the limit, including an impressive low altitude outside loop, which would have been fatal for most pilots. The point being that, in the right hands, the Bf 109 could be a match for anything, but skill was finally overwhelmed by numbers and he did not survive the combat.

[Tentpeg]

Since the thread has expanded to consider other possible/probable "what if?" let us consider the following:

- France came through with the Polish request for the S-35 Souma Tank in addition or in lieu of the promised r-35's.
- The British reverse thier decision and provide the Poles with Matilda Infantry tanks.
- France provides the MS-406 Fighters and Amoit143 bombers that had been purchased but not delivered.
- Britain provides the FaireyBattle light bombers the Poles had paid for.
- The Poles buy and get the Spitfires they were evaluating. One was in Poland being tested prior to the outbreak of war.

Going out further on the limb:

- The border wars between Lithuania and Czechoslovakia do not destroy relations to the point that these countries refuse to cooperate against the greater threat- Nazi Germany.
- The border war successes in Silesia and the Ukraine do not suceed. The troublesome minorities are not a part of the new Poland. The liberation of the oppressed Germanic peoples is removed from the table.

Could a defense pact between Czechoslavakia and Poland been enough to save both countries or at least change the time table?

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

Go ahead into that negative G dive while I'm on your 6, I'll roll invert and pull positive g's inside you and blast you out of the sky.

[Aurelian]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Bottom line. The so called inferior Spit I/II, along with the Hurricane I, won when it counted.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

- The border wars between Lithuania and Czechoslovakia do not destroy relations to the point that these countries refuse to cooperate against the greater threat- Nazi Germany.

Eh... what border war? It would be a bit hard for them to have a border war as they do not share a common border.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Bottom line. The so called inferior Spit I/II, along with the Hurricane I, won when it counted.

Unwin, also recounted:
I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.

Which is what I have been trying to describe, the shudder before stall comes from the design of the Spitfire wing, built with 'washout', a feature which gives a greater angle to the airflow at the wing root, than at the wing tip. This means that a stall (always possible in a tight turn, even at high speed) starts at the wing root, causing the warning shudder and buffet and not at the wing tip, which causes the more vicious wing drop into a spin.

Thanks, lots of good first hand opinion from those who actually took part in the air war, although you only get reports from those pilots where things worked out and they survived. There will be many who did not get the chance to file a report.

[Tentpeg]

In the 1920's Poland not only fought a war with Russia but had very successfull skirmishes with Germany, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. The Border wars resulted in the Poles acquiring lands from Germany, Ukraine and Lithuania and losing some to Czechoslovakia. Needless to say, the Ukraine and German minorities were rebelious and troublesome. BTW, Lithuania and Poland were still technically in a state of war when the Germans invaded. All of this ruined any chance of Poland gaining allies with its neighbors and pushed them into the arms of the French. The French were only interested in using Poland as a pawn against Germany.

It is very probable that had Poland and Czechoslavakia overcome their differences and faced Germany together... the bloodless occupation of Czechoslavakia would not have happened. A German invasion of both Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been a true gamble.