Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I have to disagree with you on some of these points. The Bf-109 (at least the late models) had one of the best climb rates and acceleration of the period. The early models not so much.
Quite the opposite. The Spitfire could out-turn a 109, but had the problem of being very touchy while doing so. The semi-elliptical wing had a nasty tendency to stall, and the plane had the very bad characteristic of instantly going into an inverted flat spin. It was said that the expected pullout distance of that spin was about 5000 feet, so if it happened at low altitudes you could have serious problems. The Bf-109, on the other hand, was fairly gentle in a stall (though not so much as the FW-190, which was said to be practically unspinnable), and would fall off to one side in a gentle spiral when the pilot screwed up. Couple that with negative-G capability which no Spitfire had until the Mark IX, and while the Spit had superior maneuverabilty it took a seasoned pilot to get the best out of it.
And when Hermann Goering asked Adolph Galland if there was anything he could get him to aid in the Battle Of Britain, Galland famously replied "A squadron of Spitfires." And when a former German ace flew a P-47 for the first time, he said the cockpit was so roomy he felt like he could run around inside dodging bullets.
In my opinion there was no "best" fighter in WW2, at least among the group of very best. The Spitfire was tight-turning, the Bf-109 was fast climbing and fast-rolling, the Mustang had extremely long range, the P-47 was amazingly rugged, and they all did their respective jobs superlatively. I would love to be able to fly any of them. And I didn't even mention the Japanese or the US Navy fighters. Silly me.
|
I was referring to how the BF109s behave in IL-2 it is a bit over done and gives a false impression.I cant find the links right now but I have read and heard in more than one place German BF109 pilots saying the 109 was not easy for an inexperienced pilot to get the best out.What you say about the Spitfire is true i suppose though pilots and historians have argued for years which was the better turner Spit or 109 the truth is that neither was substantially better than the the other.Now the 190 could easily out turn a Spitfire any day of the week.Of course turning is not the only thing in a dog fight a skilled pilot can counter a turner.
The most important factor I argue is pilot and overall unit skill an air force that has generally better pilots will always have an advantage so long as they can maintain it something that both Germany and Japan failed to do while the Allies managed to have fairly skilled pilot corps that where consistent throughout most of the war. As the war progressed Japanese and German pilots on average become of sub par quality and the survivors even with all their skill could not make up the difference.At the start of hostilities Germany and Japan had very skilled pilots which is the primary reason that in the first year or so of the war they where dominating air combat.Of you still had insanely good pilots a late war Japanese ace managed to shot down 5 F6F Hellcats in a single engagement 1945 most likely this was purely do to one pilot having vastly superior skills of course it had no effect on the outcome of the war for Japan.Another example of pure skill is Richard Bong he managed to defeat an experienced pilot flying a P-38 while himself flying a T-6 trainer this was while Bong was still in advanced training.
The Axis powers also rarely rotated pilots so they fought on until they died or the war was over.The Allies on the other hand understood the value of having combat experienced pilots train new pilots and many pilots rotated back to the states and passed their knowledge on to new pilots.