Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs
- HunterSeeker
- Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:40 pm
- Location: USA
Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs
Which one is more better ??
Mustang.
It had much more range, was faster (except for the "K" variant of the
Bf 109), was at least agile like the "Me", had a better climbing rate and
a better maximum altitude. Of both were said that they were more vul-
nerable then their counterparts in their own airforce, like P-47 or the
FW 190. The Bf had (especially in the later stages of war) an extreme
firepower (Bf G6 had two 13mm MG 131 two 2cm MG FF and one 3cm
MK 108) but this was more an "anti-bomber" armament. But Four cal.50machine guns (in the Mustang B version) or six (in the D version)
were actually enough to shoot down any opponent in the airwar over
Europe, regardless of the fact that the wing-mounted Brownings tended
to jam. Also the gear of the Mustang was more stable like the whole
construction. But you have always to think about the fact that the Messer-
schmitt saw comat in the late 30´s (spanish civil war) while the Mustang
was not put into service with considerable numbers until february 1944.
Last but not least the pilot still played an important role. Due heavy losses
the average german pilots in 1944 were not trained like their allied coun-terparts but some achieved still impressive victories against Mustangs.
Erich Hartmann, the most successful fighter pilot of all times, shot down
four Mustangs in one mission from the skies over Romania with his
Bf 109 G (some people say that Hartmann just shot down sovjet planes).
Not to foget Walther Dahl who was "Top-Mustang-Killer" and shot down
28 of this Type, even if I dont know how many he killed with the Bf 109,
he also flew FW 190. In my opinion the Mustang was the best conventional
fighter of the war that was produced in considerable numbers with excep-
tion of the F4U "Corsair" that was a class of its own. The Mustang was one
of the war-machines that helped the allies to win the war.
Kristian
It had much more range, was faster (except for the "K" variant of the
Bf 109), was at least agile like the "Me", had a better climbing rate and
a better maximum altitude. Of both were said that they were more vul-
nerable then their counterparts in their own airforce, like P-47 or the
FW 190. The Bf had (especially in the later stages of war) an extreme
firepower (Bf G6 had two 13mm MG 131 two 2cm MG FF and one 3cm
MK 108) but this was more an "anti-bomber" armament. But Four cal.50machine guns (in the Mustang B version) or six (in the D version)
were actually enough to shoot down any opponent in the airwar over
Europe, regardless of the fact that the wing-mounted Brownings tended
to jam. Also the gear of the Mustang was more stable like the whole
construction. But you have always to think about the fact that the Messer-
schmitt saw comat in the late 30´s (spanish civil war) while the Mustang
was not put into service with considerable numbers until february 1944.
Last but not least the pilot still played an important role. Due heavy losses
the average german pilots in 1944 were not trained like their allied coun-terparts but some achieved still impressive victories against Mustangs.
Erich Hartmann, the most successful fighter pilot of all times, shot down
four Mustangs in one mission from the skies over Romania with his
Bf 109 G (some people say that Hartmann just shot down sovjet planes).
Not to foget Walther Dahl who was "Top-Mustang-Killer" and shot down
28 of this Type, even if I dont know how many he killed with the Bf 109,
he also flew FW 190. In my opinion the Mustang was the best conventional
fighter of the war that was produced in considerable numbers with excep-
tion of the F4U "Corsair" that was a class of its own. The Mustang was one
of the war-machines that helped the allies to win the war.
Kristian
Although the Mustang, specially the more widely use P-51D, was better in some areas the Bf-109G/K still had some advantages. As I said before visibility is very import, usually the first one to see the enemy is the one that gets the first shot, and the Mustang is the winner in that area. Next, in regards to speed the P-51D was 70+ Km/h faster than the Bf-109G (and even 50+ Km/h than the Fw-190A). The other big attribute of the Mustang was its range, but since it had to travel longer distances to engage the enemy, this was not and advantage in combat (but very helpful for the bombers it was escorting).Kristian wrote:Mustang.
The Bf had (especially in the later stages of war) an extreme firepower (Bf G6 had two 13mm MG 131 two 2cm MG FF and one 3cm MK 108) but this was more an "anti-bomber" armament. But Four cal.50machine guns (in the Mustang B version) or six (in the D version) were actually enough to shoot down any opponent in the airwar over Europe, regardless of the fact that the wing-mounted Brownings tended to jam.
As for the Bf-109, its main advantage was its agility, which somehow upset the speed advantage of the Mustang. The other one was its firepower, early in the war the Germans realized that the MG used in fighters did not have the punch needed in aerial combat, that is why they starting using cannons in all their models. The cannon has a better projectile trajectory, more energy on impact, and has a higher speed which is very helpful with aim adjustment.
It is true, but we are comparing machines, not pilot skill.Kristian wrote:Last but not least the pilot still played an important role.
- DeBaer
- Contributor
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: Westphalia, Germany
- Contact:
well, the Mustang is better, but its a later design, so they're not too comparable. in case of Spitfire vs. Bf109 its hard to say. there are many factors that are of different value in different situations of aircombat.
if you want something technical-fact-based, go and search the net for tables or buy some books.
i personally think the Bf 109 is slightly better.
if you want something technical-fact-based, go and search the net for tables or buy some books.
i personally think the Bf 109 is slightly better.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Sven
-
terras licet et undas obstruat at caelum certe patet
Sven
-
terras licet et undas obstruat at caelum certe patet
- Scott Revell
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:57 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Scott Revell
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:57 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Sure luck has a lot to do on any particular day Which can sum-up several factors as weather, rest factor, enemy numbers at the engagement (is not the same 1:1 that 5:1), condition of the aircraft at that particular moment, etc.Revellations wrote:I guess it comes down to luck as well on the day. Grislawski with 133 kills in a Bf109 was shot down by a P-51 who has a few kills.....
If we continuo to discuss the issue we can see that to determine what is the better machine there are quite a few considerations and assumptions that have to be made. If we go to actual results, we could say that allied aircraft were superior to German aircraft on the fact that they won. Which would not be fair.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 11:58 am
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Numbers are also very important.Hawk wrote: But if both pilots have the same level of skill, then the machine they are riding will make the difference.
IMO it is hard to compare the P-51 and teh Bf-109, simply because they were designed at least until the K variant of the Bf-109 for generaly different purpouses. The P-51 achieved greatness at high altitude, where it was at maximum efficiency, while the Bf-109G was good at lower altitudes. The words of general Ion Dobran, a former Romanian Bf-109G pilot, come to mind: we were barely "hanging" by our propellers at that altitude, while the Mustangs roamed freely. He was shot down twice by Mustangs (surviving both encouters) and only claimed one P-51, which remained unconfirmed (in fact he severely damaged it, bu the pilot managed to get it to Poltava).
Skill level does not matter. Randy Cunningham shot down the NV leading air ace. The NV pilot had 23 or more kills, Cunningham got his 5th when shooting him down.But if both pilots have the same level of skill, then the machine they are riding will make the difference.
Say you take 2 pilots both with 300 hours, both with 10 kills, do they have the same level of skill?
Maybe not. If the first pilot had all those kills in WW1 does he have the same skill needed to achieve those results in WWII? Why did so many US aces in WWII not become aces in Korea? Why did USAF Korean aces not become aces in Vietnam?
What is the pilot’s physical condition on the day they fly, tired, hung over, war weary? How badly does he want to engage the enemy?
If skill level is the key, why then do the instructor pilots in Top Gun eventually lose air to air combat engagements to their students?
They practice ACM much more than other pilots and still their students beat them by the end of the course. Even flying similar aircraft as when the F16N fights against AF F16.
Chuck Yeager was blessed with exceptional eye sight which allowed him to see the enemy before he saw Chuck and his other pilots but still Yeager got shot down. How many leading aces in all air forces in WWII did not survive the war. The US two top aces did not, Bong died in a test flight of the P80 and McGuire crashed in combat. The US Navy's leading ace did, as did the Marines, but even Pappy Boyington with 20+ kills was shot down.
Skill helps, but it is not all about skill.