RE: He-100 vs Bf-109

RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/20/2013 11:36:38 PM)
japanese were holding together lines for about 10 different fighter models political reasons were the main downfall of the He-100, and He-280

btbw -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/21/2013 1:13:54 PM)
It different way for "hold" lines of planes. Via japanese view - He.100 is serial produced plane.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/21/2013 4:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barkorn45 According to what I have read the majority of german aces had more respect for the Spitfire than the Mustang. When Goering was inspecting JG-26 he asked Galland what he wanted he answered"A squadron of Spitfires". Needless to say the Reichmarshall was not amused! You are taking this quote badly out of context and misleading the unwary. Mike

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/21/2013 9:33:44 PM)
late model Spitfire would be more challenging to fight against (more maneuverable and 20mm firepower) mustang would be more annoying to face on an operational level, can show up anywhere, loiter, and then go back similar to how annoyed allies were with the A6M2 in 1941/1942 so Lwaffe aces would be more worried about facing a spitfire Lwaffe commanders would be annoyed about mustangs showing up everywhere gone were the days of the funny twin-engined Zertorers comfortably making passes on B-17s/B-24s none (except axis ground forces) were really worried about P-47s.. despite what is evident from AE

geofflambert -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 4:25:21 AM)
Comparing the Spitfire to the FW-190 has limited relevance. Both were essentially short range interceptors and their various models met rarely throughout the war. The 190 must be judged against both its prey and its prey's escorts, primarily the P-51. The effective air superiority fighter of the Germans was the 109, and its main foe would be the P-47. There was a period in '42 when Spits and Focke-Wulfs fought in the skies over France, but that time passed, and the Spits mainly protected bases and such, not having the range to reach the enemy.

Dili -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 5:30:26 AM)
quote: Well, at the risk of sounding repetitive and of bashing my favorite plane ever, AE has demonstrated to me the limitations of the spit. I wasn't putting range in equation, at least not much. quote: late model Spitfire would be more challenging to fight against (more maneuverable and 20mm firepower) Late model Spits were less maneuverable not more. They were much heavier. quote: You are taking this quote badly out of context and misleading the unwary. Correct. Galland did say after war that that phrase came out of his mouth because he was really irritated by Luftwaffe not listening to the pilots requests. It was a on spot bluster, a provocation due to the irritation he was on at the moment.

tigercub -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 8:09:13 AM)
quote: You are taking this quote badly out of context and misleading the unwary. Correct. Galland did say after war that that phrase came out of his mouth because he was really irritated by Luftwaffe not listening to the pilots requests. It was a on spot bluster, a provocation due to the irritation he was on at the moment.. yes very true and was in 1940 before the P51s time! Tigercub

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 6:42:05 PM)
quote: Late model Spits were less maneuverable not more. They were much heavier. late model spitfire for example mk 14 was more maneuverable than mustangs like P-51D - and slightly faster mustangs in a short range, lightweight config would have been good too (P-51H) always entertained how fighters like the Mig-1 and He-100 were super fast around 1940/1941 and yet fighter development was steered (by all sides) in making fighters not faster but fatter for more range when really any side that wanted an edge in performance (japanese at rabaul for example) could have made variants with a minimum of range, loitering with drop tanks, and using their superior performance to achieve a better exchange rate

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 6:44:56 PM)
quote: Correct. Galland did say after war that that phrase came out of his mouth because he was really irritated by Luftwaffe not listening to the pilots requests. It was a on spot bluster, a provocation due to the irritation he was on at the moment. Though he would have been correct. Bf-109E was both slower and less maneuverable than the Spitfire I only hope was to try and escape with a negative-G dive.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf quote: Correct. Galland did say after war that that phrase came out of his mouth because he was really irritated by Luftwaffe not listening to the pilots requests. It was a on spot bluster, a provocation due to the irritation he was on at the moment. Though he would have been correct. Bf-109E was both slower and less maneuverable than the Spitfire I only hope was to try and escape with a negative-G div I apologize, but I don't think you have ever read Galland's book First and Last or reviewed the loss ratios between 109s and Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. The 109E and Spit 1 were very balanced opponents, each with different strengths, and superior German tactics during that phase of the war led to a slightly favorable kill ratio for the 109 over the Spit. Galland was talking about the Spitfire's particular characteristics as being advantageous for an escort over the 109, not as a better aircraft at that point in the war. I think there is general consensus that the Spit Mk IV marked a clear tipping point in the technological advantage between the aircraft. Again, I apologize, for you have stated you know quite a bit about aircraft design, but you seem a bit prone to oversimplification which can mislead those who are not as suspicious as I. mike

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:20:50 PM)
spitfire took some losses due to pilot quality faster with lower wing loading.. all other factors the same means a better fighter Bf-109E however was well suited in its role of interceptor, downing many fairey battles / wellingtons during the battle of france, and it could be built in large numbers quickly RAF would have been well served with Bf-109Es (or cannon armed hurricanes) during BOB while Lwaffe would have been better off with some Spitfire the existence of the spitfire meant that any ideas of air supremacy over britain during 1941 could not be entertained (though the Fw-190 did well at the beginning, again due to other factors like pilots, surprise, and the fact that typically the early spitfire marks were kept on the front aerodromes as cannon fodder, while later marks were kept back - also spitfire IX was later developed so Fw-190 was outclassed once again

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:21:40 PM)
edit: pilot quality was so bad sometimes that Lwaffe called the RAF fighter swarms "rows of idiots"

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:27:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf quote: Late model Spits were less maneuverable not more. They were much heavier. late model spitfire for example mk 14 was more maneuverable than mustangs like P-51D - and slightly faster mustangs in a short range, lightweight config would have been good too (P-51H) always entertained how fighters like the Mig-1 and He-100 were super fast around 1940/1941 and yet fighter development was steered (by all sides) in making fighters not faster but fatter for more range when really any side that wanted an edge in performance (japanese at rabaul for example) could have made variants with a minimum of range, loitering with drop tanks, and using their superior performance to achieve a better exchange rate Again, I apologize because you have stated you know a great deal about aircraft design, but....In order to get similar levels of performance to a P51 out of the significantly older Spitfire airframe, it was necessary to use a much more powerful Griffin engine which made them very difficult to fly until the advent of the counter-rotating propeller. This technology arrived at a time when the transition to jets was clear.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:33:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf spitfire took some losses due to pilot quality faster with lower wing loading.. all other factors the same means a better fighter Bf-109E however was well suited in its role of interceptor, downing many fairey battles / wellingtons during the battle of france, and it could be built in large numbers quickly RAF would have been well served with Bf-109Es (or cannon armed hurricanes) during BOB while Lwaffe would have been better off with some Spitfire the existence of the spitfire meant that any ideas of air supremacy over britain during 1941 could not be entertained (though the Fw-190 did well at the beginning, again due to other factors like pilots, surprise, and the fact that typically the early spitfire marks were kept on the front aerodromes as cannon fodder, while later marks were kept back - also spitfire IX was later developed so Fw-190 was outclassed once again dulce madre Mar�a de Dios

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:34:46 PM)
how exactly does being old mean obsolete? spitfire's airframe was 1st rate from the beginning to the end perfect aerodynamics (only way it could be improved was using a w.c.e.s system instead of its radiator) even with a griffon, its wing loading was still less than a P-51D, and WAY less than an Fw-190 main disadvantage was it took a long time to build (similar design philosophy to japan) exclusively required good materials and was irritating to put to use operationally (high maneuverability achieved due to short range) spitfire was more of britain's shield mosquito was britain's arrow lancaster britain's mallet

Dixie -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 9:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace I think there is general consensus that the Spit Mk IV marked a clear tipping point in the technological advantage between the aircraft. mike I think you may have your mark numbers mixed up? The Mk IV wasn't a production aeroplane in fighter form, although it did lead to the Mk XII. The Mk IX was the first type which was clearly superior to the Luftwaffe, up to that point it was a case (as you've said) of the Spit/109 being equally matched up until the 190 massively out classed the Mk V Spit.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 10:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace I think there is general consensus that the Spit Mk IV marked a clear tipping point in the technological advantage between the aircraft. mike I think you may have your mark numbers mixed up? The Mk IV wasn't a production aeroplane in fighter form, although it did lead to the Mk XII. The Mk IX was the first type which was clearly superior to the Luftwaffe, up to that point it was a case (as you've said) of the Spit/109 being equally matched up until the 190 massively out classed the Mk V Spit. Dixie, sorry, it was a typo. Meant IX(9) not IV(4).

Dixie -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/22/2013 10:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace I think there is general consensus that the Spit Mk IV marked a clear tipping point in the technological advantage between the aircraft. mike I think you may have your mark numbers mixed up? The Mk IV wasn't a production aeroplane in fighter form, although it did lead to the Mk XII. The Mk IX was the first type which was clearly superior to the Luftwaffe, up to that point it was a case (as you've said) of the Spit/109 being equally matched up until the 190 massively out classed the Mk V Spit. Dixie, sorry, it was a typo. Meant IX(9) not IV(4). Don't need to be sorry [:D]

tigercub -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/23/2013 9:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf quote: Correct. Galland did say after war that that phrase came out of his mouth because he was really irritated by Luftwaffe not listening to the pilots requests. It was a on spot bluster, a provocation due to the irritation he was on at the moment. Though he would have been correct. Bf-109E was both slower and less maneuverable than the Spitfire I only hope was to try and escape with a negative-G dive. The 109 was a little slower in top speed but it did not matter because the 109 was faster accelerating...with fuel injection. I know of one Germany ace of 1940 that claims that no spitfire ever turned inside him and he shot down 5 spits... there was noting between the 2 fighters in the early days of the war latter the 109 of was better with the F model then the spits with the MKIX...and so on.

Dixie -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/23/2013 2:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf The Spitfire was bar none the best airframe design available in Europe per-war, emphasizing tactical performance(the combination of high speed and low wing loading made other nations scratch their heads) that was achieved by sacrificing range (spitfire mk.I only carried about 300L of fuel). Just by the by, you've got your measurments wrong. The early Spitfires (I,II,V) have a fuel capacity of about 400L. Seeing as we're already waaay off topic now, both the Spitfire and Messerschmitt were well balanced so that victory in a fight would usually come down to whoever had the tactical advantage of height. Spitfires scrambling for altitude would mean a German advantage whilst Bf109s tied to the bombers would mean a British advantage. Both fighters had their strengths and there are probably many pilots from both sides who could say that they were never out-turned by a Spitfire/109 depending on who they fought against. Still OT, the main advantage that the British had was that RR managed to develop better superchargers than DB did, meaning a better power output from the smaller displacement Merlin than the DB605. The DB605 had a similar displacement to the Griffon but les power. IIRC, there was some private disappointment that the Griffon wasn't able to manage a higher HP than it did. Development of the 605 and Merlin was also partly driven by rumours of what the other lot were doing. Apparently DB got wind that RR were developing an inverted V engine and did the same. In the meantime RR found out that DB were using particular design features in their new engine and adopted them for use in the Merlin (can't remember which features though). There was some interest from both sides when they found the others had 'stolen' their ideas.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/23/2013 5:47:18 PM)
subjective opinions are no substitute for simple math and physics being faster is a big deal. disengage at will. lower wing loading is a big deal. tighter turn circle. like i said, Bf-109E was the correct fighter to be put into production since it could be made quickly and had a set of 20mm cannon (even though low velocity with few rounds) that made it well suited to protecting the battlespace during tactical advances in france/russia Bf-109E (or any model for that matter) would lose significant airspeed doing any type of turns so acceleration would be useful i suppose thus once it was obvious against the RAF that Lwaffe fighters were outmatched in horizontal maneuverability, Lwaffe were instructed to use boom-and-zoom tactics only similar parallel to usaaf tactics against japanese fighters then there were some fighters like P-47/Fw-190/Typhoon that behaved like sumo restlers, both absorbing and delivering punishment no doubt many Lwaffe pilots had an easy time against some spitfires that were encountered (though it was far more likely to be fighting against hurricanes, where the Bf-109E was equally matched) Lwaffe had a pool of veterans that fought in spain and another large pool of somewhat well trained recruits (those recruits then gained experience in the early campaigns of 1939/1940) RAF had a similar pool of well trained recruits, though typically the experienced ones became squadron/section leaders and the hordes of tigermoth trainees were completely outmatched a poor standard of training that was not to be repeated until the japanese kamikaze program (though probably a large number of 1944/1945 lwaffe recruits had similar levels of inexperience)

LoBaron -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/23/2013 8:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace dulce madre Mar�a de Dios [:D]

Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/24/2013 1:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btbw During the Battle of Britain, in a front line General Officer briefing on Luftwaffe tactics, G�ring asked what his pilots needed to win the battle. Werner M�lders replied that he would like the Bf 109 to be fitted with more powerful engines. Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left G�ring speechless with rage. So Galland prefer Spitfire during BoB. When Mustang coming to action, Galland already changed his opinion and prefer fast and well-protected planes like Me.262 and Fw.190 which had capability to fight on high alts. Agility Bf.109 used mostly for cover landing/take-off. He.100 (in future) can be used for counter Mustangs but Germany cannot hold so much plane lines together. Galland was referring to the Spitfire's apparent ability of being in two places at the same time. On 15th Aug 1940, the Luftwaffe launched an all out attack on southern UK with Luftflotte 2 and 3, and Luftflotte 5 attacking Scotland. Luftflotte 5 sent 115 bombers inadequately escorted by 35 Me 110s. Expecting little or no opposition, the raid was intercepted by a sizable force of 3 sqds of Spitfires, 2 sqds of Hurricanes, and 1 sqd of Blenheims (in addition 1 sqd of Defiants were in the area but didn't get to fire on the enemy). The Germans suffered heavy losses of 16 bombers and 7 fighters shot down. The RAF losses were 2 pilots wounded, one Blenheim damaged by return fire and 2 Hurricanes crashed landed, both were later repaired. Luftflotte 5's role in the was reduced to recon and its active units were redeployed to the other Luftflotte at the end of August.

geofflambert -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/24/2013 2:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace Dixie, sorry, it was a typo. Meant IX(9) not IV(4). Those darn Roman numerals, they didn't even have zeroes, what are we supposed to do with those flippin' things?

geofflambert -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/24/2013 2:57:37 AM)
The king of Sharkosauruses needs to remember that sharks are fishes, and sauruses (like myself) are reptilians. Now what we really need to know is who would win the following tete-a-tete, sharknado or crocnado?

Dili -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/24/2013 8:41:09 PM)
[:D] What are you smoking/drinkin' reptilian?

warspite1 -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/24/2013 8:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The king of Sharkosauruses needs to remember that sharks are fishes, and sauruses (like myself) are reptilians. Now what we really need to know is who would win the following tete-a-tete, sharknado or crocnado? warspite1 It is a well known fact that neither would win. Both types of creature are pacifist in nature. If two came together there would be a bit of posturing, handbags at 50 paces, and then both would withdraw. FACT. [image]local://upfiles/28156/37BCE5D222FB4478B824931BFFF04793.jpg[/image]

guytipton41 -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/25/2013 12:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The king of Sharkosauruses needs to remember that sharks are fishes, and sauruses (like myself) are reptilians. Now what we really need to know is who would win the following tete-a-tete, sharknado or crocnado? warspite1 It is a well known fact that neither would win. Both types of creature are pacifist in nature. If two came together there would be a bit of posturing, handbags at 50 paces, and then both would withdraw. FACT. [image]local://upfiles/28156/37BCE5D222FB4478B824931BFFF04793.jpg[/image] Where is the up-vote button?

Symon -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/25/2013 8:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The king of Sharkosauruses needs to remember that sharks are fishes, and sauruses (like myself) are reptilians. Now what we really need to know is who would win the following tete-a-tete, sharknado or crocnado? Clade Dinosauria was not reptilian. They were Neonisthes; Ornisthichia + Saurischia = Theropods. Tyranosaurus Rex evolved into crows, vultures and pigeons, and chickens, ducks, pheasants, quail, turkeys, and other good eats. Are you saying you are good to grill over a good hardwood fire, maybe with some good cajun barbeque sauce? [:D][:D]

Lecivius -> RE: He-100 vs Bf-109 (8/26/2013 4:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The king of Sharkosauruses needs to remember that sharks are fishes, and sauruses (like myself) are reptilians. Now what we really need to know is who would win the following tete-a-tete, sharknado or crocnado? Clade Dinosauria was not reptilian. They were Neonisthes; Ornisthichia + Saurischia = Theropods. Tyranosaurus Rex evolved into crows, vultures and pigeons, and chickens, ducks, pheasants, quail, turkeys, and other good eats. Are you saying you are good to grill over a good hardwood fire, maybe with some good cajun barbeque sauce? [:D][:D] I see another delicious Symon recipie post in the near furure [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.671875