PDA

View Full Version : The issue of G-6 - was a step backwards?



Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:05 PM
Can somebody clarify this for me cos I'm really confused. While going through various sources comparing the performance of 109 G models, it's easy to see that the G-6 was both slower and less manouverable than G-2, and other earlier G models. Its only saving grace was the slightly increased firepower in the form of 2 heavy machineguns, which I personally do not find to be all that effective. Various Rustsatze gunpods could just as easily been installed in earlier G marks if such provisions were made, so that too can't be considered to be a great advantage over earlier marks.

And as I understand it, the advantage of German 109 fighters had always been climb and speed, which worsened with the G-6 model (the speed).

And if we take into account the time G-6 first appeared, fall 1942, when Germany's enemies started to develop and use better and faster fighters like the La-5FN and Spit Mk9, it really makes me wonder, why the hell did they even introduce the G-6 model (versatility, yes I know, but that can't be the only reason), but even more importantly, why the hell did they wait for over 18 months to improve the breed by introducing the G-14 and G-10 (mid to late 1944)? If we look at other models and the way the 109 was constantly upgraded up to that point (the F was ready even before it was needed, late 1940, before improved Spits came of the production lines, first G models early 1942 etc.), it seems like a break from tradition to have such a long period with no improvements, especially considering the crucial battles that were fought (and lost) then.

Even from a construction standpoint, it seems like Willy dropped the ball here. I mean, just look at those bulges at the nose. Was he so lax thet he failed to realize the way it obstructed view and worsened the aerodynamics of his plane? And it was so easy to correct it, just tinker with the nose cover a bit and voila: the G-10 style nose covering is there!

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:05 PM
Can somebody clarify this for me cos I'm really confused. While going through various sources comparing the performance of 109 G models, it's easy to see that the G-6 was both slower and less manouverable than G-2, and other earlier G models. Its only saving grace was the slightly increased firepower in the form of 2 heavy machineguns, which I personally do not find to be all that effective. Various Rustsatze gunpods could just as easily been installed in earlier G marks if such provisions were made, so that too can't be considered to be a great advantage over earlier marks.

And as I understand it, the advantage of German 109 fighters had always been climb and speed, which worsened with the G-6 model (the speed).

And if we take into account the time G-6 first appeared, fall 1942, when Germany's enemies started to develop and use better and faster fighters like the La-5FN and Spit Mk9, it really makes me wonder, why the hell did they even introduce the G-6 model (versatility, yes I know, but that can't be the only reason), but even more importantly, why the hell did they wait for over 18 months to improve the breed by introducing the G-14 and G-10 (mid to late 1944)? If we look at other models and the way the 109 was constantly upgraded up to that point (the F was ready even before it was needed, late 1940, before improved Spits came of the production lines, first G models early 1942 etc.), it seems like a break from tradition to have such a long period with no improvements, especially considering the crucial battles that were fought (and lost) then.

Even from a construction standpoint, it seems like Willy dropped the ball here. I mean, just look at those bulges at the nose. Was he so lax thet he failed to realize the way it obstructed view and worsened the aerodynamics of his plane? And it was so easy to correct it, just tinker with the nose cover a bit and voila: the G-10 style nose covering is there!

What are your thoughts on the subject?

BuzzU
03-12-2004, 02:13 PM
You're forgetting the 108 cannon, and 108 gunpods it comes with as an option. Not just a little more firepower, but a lot more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

[This message was edited by BuzzU on Fri March 12 2004 at 01:21 PM.]

Oso2323
03-12-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And if we take into account the time G-6 first appeared, fall 1942, when Germany's enemies started to develop and use better and faster fighters like the La-5FN and Spit Mk9, it really makes me wonder, why the hell did they even introduce the G-6 model <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G6 wasn't introduced to counter the La & Spit. It was introduced to counter the B-17 - hence the increased firepower.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-12-2004, 02:22 PM
The only bit of helpful information i can give is that i belive the G6 was the 1st to incorperate the mk108 cannon. Guess this was a move to make it a better bomber killer as speed, manoverability etc is less important.

Udidtoo
03-12-2004, 02:23 PM
I am by no means a expert but I have always understood that the G-6, like Buzz and Oso alluded to was,with its 30mm designed to be a check against the US Bombers.
The armament on the previous models you mentioned just wasn't getting the job done agains the heavies.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
You're forgetting the 30mm cannon it comes with as an option.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah your're right, but it wasn't ready for the first examples which got the 20 mm. Besides it was only an option, and not such a good one at that (for dogfighting other fighters, and this is really what I was writing about). As far as downing bombers, you can just as easily do it with older less capable fighters as long as they are well armed and armoured. They don't need to be ultra fast unless they are up against escorts which the Germans in early and mid 1943 didn't have to worry about. No, I mean what about dogfighting Spits and La-5FNs and P-47s etc.

If this guy was able to down 2 B-24 and 1 P-38 and damage another in a Ki-43 armed with two 12,7 mm guns, then you don't really need a 30 mm monster in the nose which screws up your aim cos of the recoil (but it sure comes in handy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif)



http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/stories/anabuki1.html

BuzzU
03-12-2004, 02:33 PM
That's the way the planes progressed through the war though. They got heavier with bigger guns. You can see many examples of it. Not just the 109.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Udidtoo:
I am by no means a expert but I have always understood that the G-6, like Buzz and Oso alluded to was,with its 30mm designed to be a check against the US Bombers.
The armament on the previous models you mentioned just wasn't getting the job done agains the heavies.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, what I really meant was why didn't the Germans in the summer of 1943, when the **** has hit the fan, when they were up against fighters that outperformed G-6, replaced it or even had a replacement lined up already, ready to start production. The G-6 wasn't just a bomber stoper, it was everything, it was the primary dogfighter the Luftwaffe had. Hell, even Hartmann started on the G-6 and used it all the until the late summer of 1944! And he wasn't fighting the bomber streams, he was battling Yaks and Lavockins!
23000 G models were produced ot of 35000 Bf-109s. Out of that 23000, the G-6 was the most numerous, and has been the backbone of JagdGeschwaders until late 1944. Way too long after it used up all of its advantages.

It just seems such a long time to have in production a fighter model that wasn't that good to begin with, that was even worse than earlier models of the same type, yet it still became the single most produced fighter model of its kind. Weird!

Also, someboy mentioned gunpods. The gunpods could just as easily been placed on earlier models of the G variant like the G-2, if such provisions were made at the factory (which was a much faster plane by the way). What makes more sense, to modify slightly an existing model to be able to carry pods and leave the nose armament such as it was, or to create a completely new one just for the sake of increased firepower in the nose?

BuzzU
03-12-2004, 02:37 PM
I believe the Germans put all their eggs in the Fw190 basket. They were hurting by 43, and had to do with what they had already.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

BfHeFwMe
03-12-2004, 02:41 PM
I don't think the G-6 as modeled is at all a step backwards in game. It's a thoroubred when it comes to slow speed handling right on the edge of stall. Much slower turn ability than the La's with good firepower and near equal initial acceleration. A born knife fighter on the deck even without flaps usage. This is the one model I'll tackle an La-7 in the grass and win.

JG52_wunsch
03-12-2004, 02:50 PM
i don t think it was a step backward either the g6 was a good plane,not the best.but still a pretty decent fighter none the less.you just have to fly to it s strenghtes,b&z.cheers

Magister__Ludi
03-12-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Can somebody clarify this for me cos I'm really confused. While going through various sources comparing the performance of 109 G models, it's easy to see that the G-6 was both slower and less manouverable than G-2, and other earlier G models. Its only saving grace was the slightly increased firepower in the form of 2 heavy machineguns, which I personally do not find to be all that effective. Various Rustsatze gunpods could just as easily been installed in earlier G marks if such provisions were made, so that too can't be considered to be a great advantage over earlier marks.

And as I understand it, the advantage of German 109 fighters had always been climb and speed, which worsened with the G-6 model (the speed).

And if we take into account the time G-6 first appeared, fall 1942, when Germany's enemies started to develop and use better and faster fighters like the La-5FN and Spit Mk9, it really makes me wonder, why the hell did they even introduce the G-6 model (versatility, yes I know, but that can't be the only reason), but even more importantly, why the hell did they wait for over 18 months to improve the breed by introducing the G-14 and G-10 (mid to late 1944)? If we look at other models and the way the 109 was constantly upgraded up to that point (the F was ready even before it was needed, late 1940, before improved Spits came of the production lines, first G models early 1942 etc.), it seems like a break from tradition to have such a long period with no improvements, especially considering the crucial battles that were fought (and lost) then.

Even from a construction standpoint, it seems like Willy dropped the ball here. I mean, just look at those bulges at the nose. Was he so lax thet he failed to realize the way it obstructed view and worsened the aerodynamics of his plane? And it was so easy to correct it, just tinker with the nose cover a bit and voila: the G-10 style nose covering is there!

What are your thoughts on the subject?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do not pay that much attention to those bulges. They brought only 10 km/h decrease in max speed, for a big advantage in firepower. There were very little differences in terms of maneuvrability between G-2 and G-6, they had the same handling, same turn rate, same climb and acceleration. Usually all sim developers make from G6 a crap plane, the worst 109, which never was. They make a mix of the worst performance numbers they are able to find: for example they model it according to the numbers found for G-6/R6 (wing gunpods) or G-5/AS, G-6/AS at sea level, all slower than G-6, but they forget about the performance boost AS versions had at altitude.

Too cut this short G-6 was a G-2 with better guns but slower with 10 km/h.

Both G-2 and G-6 remained very competitive until spring of '44 when newer and more power fighters became available, therefore were replaced with MW-50 equiped versions of 109G. You want to compare it with other dogfighters, ok, let's see for example Spit IX, had 1490HP at sea level (with 18" boost) from summer of '43 but it was much heavier plane than G-6. 109G got 1450HP from mid '42, and even if there were some problems with overheating at the beginning, the engine was never factory derated - pilot could simply remove the throttle stop if nedeed in an emergency. La5FN was manufacturated in very small numbers before 1944, less than 200 reached squadrons, but little is known if the planes really were operational (they were troublesome, problems encountered with engine cooling on La5 were back on La5FN when the boost was increased - La5 was restricted to 1 min full power, La5FN could use full power for 2 min). I disagree with Oleg decision to include in 1943 planeset planes that had very restricted use in 1943 like La5FN and Spit LF V CW, without including LW planes with similar restricted use like the Bf-109s with AS/AM/ASM engine retrofits from late '43.

If I had to choose a plane to survive the war, I would pick 109 series without doubt.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I don't think the G-6 as modeled is at all a step backwards in game. It's a thoroubred when it comes to slow speed handling right on the edge of stall. Much slower turn ability than the La's with good firepower and near equal initial acceleration. A born knife fighter on the deck even without flaps usage. This is the one model I'll tackle an La-7 in the grass and win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm fairly new to the game and don't know all the nuances yet. But still... I think you guys are missing my point. It probably did have its strong sides but I'm talking about these things: one, lower top speed at a time when Germany's opponents developed figters that were very fast (Mustang, P-47 in a dive, La-5FN and especially LA-7), much faster than G-6. Two, G-2 and others were faster than the G-6, an earlier production model, really strange. Three, still worsened handling, not by much, but still... every little bit makes it that much more difficult. Three, why wait soooo loooong for the next mark (really people, more than 18 months for the G-14) and why produce it in such large numbers. Rather go for more 190s.
And last, but not the least, if you're not designing better models for the immediate future, at least make the existing one a little better. Get rid of those bulges, streamline te nose, and improve visibility a little bit (like in the G-10 and 14). Really how hard can it be, not exactly high tech engineering involved. And they did have a blueprint in the form of La-5FN which had armoured glass instead of steel headrest, surely they had captered examples, surely they tested them or at least took a little peak inside! I don't think that there was sufficient feedback between the pilots and the designers on this.

Magister__Ludi
03-12-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Udidtoo:
I am by no means a expert but I have always understood that the G-6, like Buzz and Oso alluded to was,with its 30mm designed to be a check against the US Bombers.
The armament on the previous models you mentioned just wasn't getting the job done agains the heavies.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mk-108 was a very popular weapon on Eastern Front where there were no heavy bombers. It was very effective against fighters, Germans used Mk108 against fighters just like the Russians used P-39's heavy cannon against fighters.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri March 12 2004 at 10:55 PM.]

Fillmore
03-12-2004, 02:59 PM
It wasn't a step backwards, but it seems like it because it was a step sideways at a time when they needed to be stepping forward.

As to why they lagged in 1943 and didn't get with widespread use of MW50, jets and all that other neat stuff until 1944, it is due to polotics. Early on they saw no reason to plan ahead aggressively as they felt the war would be over by 1942. Quite honestly I think they were right - by the end of 1942 the war was unwinnable and anything they would have cooked up from then could only have at best delayed the inevitable. Put MW50 in 109G6s in 1943, make a long nose FW190 in 1943, make 262 operational months earlier, at best would have prolonged the war a few months. when you are isolated and outnumbered 10-1 in manufacturing and manpower there is not much you can do in the long run but lose, so you plan for a quick war and skimp on some long-term development I guess.

LilHorse
03-12-2004, 03:01 PM
I can buy that the G-6s climbed slower than the G-2s but I'm not convinced that they were slower at level speed. The G-6 was heavier and sturdier. It could handle the dive better than the G-2. The hp went up with the 605 all the way to the G-6a/s. And I'd say that having the two 13mm mg added with the 20mm nose cannon probably helped a lot. Much better than the two 7.92mm.

Then again this could be a case of my actually liking the G-6, G-6 late and G6a/s better than the G-2, LOL!
They just seem sturdier, more stable. And although they may not be as manuverable as the G-2 I think they work better for BnZ work. Dunno, just my impressions.

Magister__Ludi
03-12-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I don't think the G-6 as modeled is at all a step backwards in game. It's a thoroubred when it comes to slow speed handling right on the edge of stall. Much slower turn ability than the La's with good firepower and near equal initial acceleration. A born knife fighter on the deck even without flaps usage. This is the one model I'll tackle an La-7 in the grass and win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm fairly new to the game and don't know all the nuances yet. But still... I think you guys are missing my point. It probably did have its strong sides but I'm talking about these things: one, lower top speed at a time when Germany's opponents developed figters that were very fast (Mustang, P-47 in a dive, La-5FN and especially LA-7), much faster than G-6. Two, G-2 and others were faster than the G-6, an earlier production model, really strange. Three, still worsened handling, not by much, but still... every little bit makes it that much more difficult. Three, why wait soooo loooong for the next mark (really people, more than 18 months for the G-14) and why produce it in such large numbers. Rather go for more 190s.
And last, but not the least, if you're not designing better models for the immediate future, at least make the existing one a little better. Get rid of those bulges, streamline te nose, and improve visibility a little bit (like in the G-10 and 14). Really how hard can it be, not exactly high tech engineering involved. And they did have a blueprint in the form of La-5FN which had armoured glass instead of steel headrest, surely they had captered examples, surely they tested them or at least took a little peak inside! I don't think that there was sufficient feedback between the pilots and the designers on this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


MW-50 kits were available in 1943 but nobody asked for them, pilots considered that the increase in speed and climb were not needed for the fighters they encountered (they did not see at that time hordes of La7 and "armoured" Yaks as we see online), considering that the additional weight of MW-50 kits made the handling more difficult.

Don't forget that Merlin powered Mustangs are '44 planes and so are La7. As for P-47 I never read something congratulatory about it's qualities as a dogfighter.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

]


Do not pay that much attention to those bulges. They brought only 10 km/h decrease in max speed, for a big advantage in firepower. There were very little differences in terms of maneuvrability between G-2 and G-6, they had the same handling, same turn rate, same climb and acceleration. Usually all sim developers make from G6 a crap plane, the worst 109, which never was. They make a mix of the worst performance numbers they are able to find: for example they model it according to the numbers found for G-6/R6 (wing gunpods) or G-5/AS, G-6/AS at sea level, all slower than G-6, but they forget about the performance boost AS versions had at altitude.

Too cut this short G-6 was a G-2 with better guns but slower with 10 km/h.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to the figures I found. The G-2 is rated at about 660 kph in those sources, as well as in the Object viewer ingame (666 I think, an odd number don't you think should we get worried when we fly the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif ) and the G-6 as low as 620. Now thats really low. Ingame says about 640 kph which is still more than 10 kph as you say. Handling was worsened a little bit.

Besides, even if it was only 10, why not improve even on that, streamline the bulges a little bit. What the hell was Willy doing? Having his nails done? Going to his hairdressers? It just seems really inept.

Also, I'm not looking for adevices on how to fly it ingame. 190 is my bird, and lately Zero, I just love that little plane, really turns well. It much easier to fly it than I thought once you get used to it, provided the opponent isn't much faster then the Zero.


By the way, to go ahead of the pack a little bit, before somebody accusses me of being a LuftWhinner. I really couldn't care less about how good the G-6 was. In fact I'm glad it wasn't any better than it was so that the Nazis could be defeated a little bit easier and with less casulties. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I don't fly it in FB and don't plan to.
All I want is a little historical perspective, that's all.

Magister__Ludi
03-12-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I can buy that the G-6s climbed slower than the G-2s but I'm not convinced that they were slower at level speed. The G-6 was heavier and sturdier. It could handle the dive better than the G-2. The hp went up with the 605 all the way to the G-6a/s. And I'd say that having the two 13mm mg added with the 20mm nose cannon probably helped a lot. Much better than the two 7.92mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The difference in weight between G-2 and G-6 was minor, around than 30kg for standard equipment. You could have heavier G-2s than G-6s depending on equipment carried. Therefore there were no changes in turn rates, climb and acceleration. Max speed was affected though, but not much (around 10km/h decrease).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Then again this could be a case of my actually liking the G-6, G-6 late and G6a/s better than the G-2, LOL!
They just seem sturdier, more stable. And although they may not be as manuverable as the G-2 I think they work better for BnZ work. Dunno, just my impressions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G-6/AS are defenitely better for BnZ, they pick up speed really quickhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
03-12-2004, 03:25 PM
got complacent i think

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-12-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:

Not according to the figures I found. The G-2 is rated at about 660 kph in those sources, as well as in the Object viewer ingame (666 I think, an odd number don't you think should we get worried when we fly the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif ) and the G-6 as low as 620. Now thats really low. Ingame says about 640 kph which is still more than 10 kph as you say. Handling was worsened a little bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Correct figures for Bf-109 are not easy to come by. You have to go directly to the original tests. Unfortunatelly nobody thought of publishing those charts in a comprehensive book.
Object Viewer has correct data, less correct data and plain wrong data. It's hard to use it as a reference.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Besides, even if it was only 10, why not improve even on that, streamline the bulges a little bit. What the hell was Willy doing? Having his nails done? Going to his hairdressers? It just seems really inept.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Military planes are not meant to please the eye, especially during the war. The cowling was not streamlined because they had little reason to do so, there was no worthy adversary of Bf-109 so that Bf-109 would benefit from 10km/h more prior to 1944.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, I'm not looking for adevices on how to fly it ingame. 190 is my bird, and lately Zero, I just love that little plane, really turns well. It much easier to fly it than I thought once you get used to it, provided the opponent isn't much faster then the Zero.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can understand your choices. 190 a "cool bird" but ineffective online so you need something to compensate and found Zero: the easiest way to kill and get killed online.
If kill ratio rather than number of kills becomes interesting to you, I suggest you to look into Bf-109 more closely.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 04:03 PM
US pilots left their planes bare, no camo paint, to reduce weight and microturbulences that resulted from rough paint schemes on planes. It probably helped their top speed by 5, maybe 10 kph, but they squeezed every little bit of juice their planes could give them. How come the Germans didn't do the same with regard to those awkward looking bulges.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-12-2004, 04:39 PM
Check this out, an authority (Carson, I assume Leonard Kyle, 18.5 kills, 357th FG) speaks on the 190-109 comparison and also adds some comments on how to improve the 109 by making some very simple, cost effective and easy to do improvements. No high tech involved. I don't understand all of the tech lingo but still seems pretty reasonable to me.



http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html



Also, check this out, this Japanese pilot downed two B-24, one P-38 and smoked another in a single engagement flying - unbelieveable - Ki-43 with 2x12,7 guns.



http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/stories/anabuki1.html

WarGod5475
03-12-2004, 07:48 PM
Simple answer.

slower Yes but more armor both in weapons and protective plating. read bomber interception.


Increased fire power was the main advantage. most encounters were not dogfights like you think of most were german plane sees mustang or yak bounses him from behind one pass riddels other craft from stim to sturn flies up and climbs for altitude looks back at the other plane its in flams or smoking profusly and desending quickly. combat over

this would also happen with a flight of planes. thier just wernt that many turn and burn fights.
mostly somebody got caught sleeping were jumped from behind and it was over from thier.

so nimbleness was not the end all be all. they also where mainly woried about the bombers where they mainly ignored the fighter escourt to go after the bombers.

the type of fighting were used to just didnt happin on a large scale in ww2. we have to much crap like plane tags and pad lock and f6 all these crutches make it easy for us not to get jumped so then we turn it into a furball when in reality it would have been over as soon as they were on our six.

we may not be dead but we would have split s ed shot for the deck and headed home with a bunch of holes in our plane.

horseback
03-12-2004, 08:24 PM
First of all, let's talk about Satoshi Anabuki. As Japanese fighter pilots go, he was pretty damned good, but it should be pointed out that the Japanese in general were amazingly optimistic about how well they'd done after a combat mission, and NO ONE ever questioned the surviving pilots' assertions about what they or their buddies accomplished. I gather that it would be remarkably rude to do so in that cultural context.

This situation lasted throughout the war, and the Japanese consistantly overclaimed vs their opponents actual losses by something like 7 to 1, while the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, and Brits lowered their overclaiming significantly as the war (and their experience) progressed.

That said, if Anabuki did do it, he only managed it once, out of a combat career that lasted the bulk of WWII. Guys do get lucky once in a while. Guys who pushed their luck too often ended by pushing up daisies. Anabuki clearly knew when to let it ride.

Now, about the G-6. It was developed to address a need for more firepower in the aircraft with the best high altitude performance in the German inventory. Ever since the development of the F series 109, German pilots complained of inadequate hitting power.

The intended targets were American heavy bombers. At the time, the 'experts' did not think that anyone could build a long ranged fighter with the performance to match the G-6 over the target area of central Germany.

I get the impression that the Soviet fighters starting to appear were still not effective enough to cause alarm in Berlin, at least in part because the experten still seemed to be cutting through them in great bloody swaths.

The capabilities of the P-38, which was operational in limited numbers at the time(late '42, early '43), were dismissed as mere propaganda, and rumors of the re-engining of the Mustang low altitude reconaissance fighter with the Merlin were not taken very seriously. Obviously, the Spitfire and P-47 would never have the reach to be a factor over Germany.

The Germans thought that all they had to do was bloody the Western Allies' noses sufficiently and they could come to an arrangement that would allow Germany to defeat International Communism and by the way, absorb Russia's territory and natural resources. The Allies were convinced that they were fighting for their existance, and fought and planned accordingly.

This led to a certain complacency in the higher reaches of Nazism, where racial destiny was taken as a given, and the costs of aircraft development were competing for other munitions and armament requirements.

At the same time, there was a lot of work being done to develop more capable high altitude fighters, but German engineers had more trouble than their American and British counterparts developing effective turbo-superchargers that could be effectively used in a fighter (there was a size bias problem there, I suspect). The fact that the development of the Me-262 was progressing well may have also been adding to the complacency at Messerschmitt.

So the 109G-5/6 was not a step backwards as much as a step towards effectively fighting the heavies which had designs on destroying German industrial centers, and secondarily, improving the chances of quickly destroying the much sturdier high altitude US fighters over the Channel Front.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

csThor
03-12-2004, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Check this out, an authority (Carson, I assume Leonard Kyle, 18.5 kills, 357th FG) ... [/EMAIL]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This "comparison" has been discussed ad nauseum. Some give him enough "authority" to trust this judgement, some others point out glaring errors in this text. From my point of view Carson judges the 109 from a false point of view and bases his words on the american doctrine. That doesn't do the 109 justice.

Imagine a "comparison" from german point of view, say of the P51 as a bomber interceptor. I think we can agree that the pilot would like her speed and high-alt performance, but given her "not so favourable" climbrate and armament against heavy bombers it would just "plain suck".

As someone else said: "If you only have a screwdriver each problem looks like a missing screw."

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

Bula
03-12-2004, 11:45 PM
Wannabe, from what I've read, Magister Ludi has the right of it: performance was not significantly degraded, at least not as much as this game would have you believe. Romanian pilots flew the G2, G4, and G6 side-by-side from 1943 onward. Those who had the chance to fly the G6 preferred it for its heavier armament. It's difficult to believe that these pilots would have preferred an aircraft with significantly reduced handling characteristics and climb rate.

Ruy Horta
03-13-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Not according to the figures I found. The G-2 is rated at about 660 kph in those sources, as well as in the Object viewer ingame (666 I think, an odd number don't you think should we get worried when we fly the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif ) and the G-6 as low as 620. Now thats really low. Ingame says about 640 kph which is still more than 10 kph as you say. Handling was worsened a little bit.

Besides, even if it was only 10, why not improve even on that, streamline the bulges a little bit. What the hell was Willy doing? Having his nails done? Going to his hairdressers? It just seems really inept.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First Messerschmitt was probably putting his focus on the 109 replacement(s), respectively the 209 and 309. These were slow in development (not to mention disappointing, although the later 209 came close to 190D/Ta152 figures).

So the extended 109G line was expendient, a choice of continuing mass production of a proven line of fighters which in general could be handled by average pilots (as the Soviets nicely: a Soldier's airplane).

However although the 109G remained competative, it is true that the *early* G-6 was in performance terms an impasse (or compromise) at a time when the Allies were able to introduced a/c of greater performance. As such the early G-6 represents stagnation. The later enhancements such as AS or chemical boosting are attempts to shorten the gap.

The problem here is not the 109, but a real failure of producing a *full* replacement, keeping in mind that the BMW powered 190 did not have the same high altitude performance and was not competative at altitude with the latest western allied types.

Messerschmitt finally banked on the 209 and Tank on the Ta 152 (the Fw 190D-9 being a coincidence similar to the Spit MkIX). Both unavailable in 1943...

Could it have been different? Perhaps if Kurt Tank had gotten his chance with the early introduction of inlines, but that's an IF story...

Now I gotta get out of here before "they" find me!

Xnomad
03-13-2004, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Check this out, an authority (Carson, I assume Leonard Kyle, 18.5 kills, 357th FG) speaks on the 190-109 comparison and also adds some comments on how to improve the 109 by making some very simple, cost effective and easy to do improvements. No high tech involved. I don't understand all of the tech lingo but still seems pretty reasonable to me.



http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html



Also, check this out, this Japanese pilot downed two B-24, one P-38 and smoked another in a single engagement flying - unbelieveable - Ki-43 with 2x12,7 guns.



http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/stories/anabuki1.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could tell by your previous posts in this thread that you had read Carson and that sooner or later you were going to mention him http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, no disrespect to you for that, it's just that he's been fuel for flames on this board regarding the Bf 109 for quite some time now.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-13-2004, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Check this out, an authority (Carson, I assume Leonard Kyle, 18.5 kills, 357th FG) speaks on the 190-109 comparison and also adds some comments on how to improve the 109 by making some very simple, cost effective and easy to do improvements. No high tech involved. I don't understand all of the tech lingo but still seems pretty reasonable to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wannabe-Pilot, if you want to learn something about Bf-109 skip Carson all together. He is not able to get a single sentence right about Bf-109, not a single piece of information you read in that article is correct. Look someplace else, pick a book.

Wannabe-Pilot
03-13-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:

I could tell by your previous posts in this thread that you had read Carson and that sooner or later you were going to mention him http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, no disrespect to you for that, it's just that he's been fuel for flames on this board regarding the Bf 109 for quite some time now.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My remark concerned only the G-6. As for the rest of the 109 series, I think they were superb planes (some models) or at least very good ones (other models). The F series was probably one of the best if not the best fighter plane in the world from mid 1941 till mid 42. Also, G-10 is a great plane also, it's amazing how after nine years since the original planes in 1936 the 109 design could still be made into a very competitive and capable fighter. The planes G-10 was supposed to battle in late '44 were at least several years younger designs, and some have even been designed with the benefit of war time experience. And this is exactly the crux of my question: why oh why hadn't the Germans started building or at least developing a successor to G-6, since it was a somewhat standing-in-one-place-not-moving-ahead design to begin with considering its lower speed, in mid to late '43. No other 109 model lasted this long as a front line fighter (for almost two years fall '42-fall '44) and it wasn't such a revolutionary design which could explain this. And it's not exactly true that it was built for bomber interception exclusively. I was do-all fighter built in the highest numbers. If they really needed a dedicated bomber killer, wouldn't it make more sense to develop the G series in two directions, one a dedicated dogfigter along the lines of F series, one more potent at high altitudes with more firepower? Eastern front Geschweders didn't really need high altitude performance as badly as the western did, and they comprised half the LW fighter strenght. Instead they got a plane that could do both but didn't excell at neither task. I suppose you'll say that they needed to rationalize the production lines a bit with only one model, that explains it to a degree. But still, if you look at the production figures, in 1942 they produced only 2664 109s, in 1943 6418 and in 1944 - get ready - 14212. So they weren't that hard pressed in 42, even in 43, and still had enough unused potential to increase production almost sixfold.

Yet I too didn't take some of Carson's statements as absolutely true since A) he never says which 109 model he actually flew B) if everything he says is true then every single german fighter plane should have been wiped clean from the skies by mid 42 at the latest. He does however makes some valid points about the complacency of german engineers and how easy it actually was to make a great fighter plane even better, if one only applied some common sense to the problem. They should have at least improved rear visibility like in G-10, how hard can that be and it does make all the difference in a dogfight. You won't convince me otherwise, sorry guys. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

oh-rip
03-13-2004, 12:20 PM
Well, Germans had a lot better plane available: FW190 BUT...
1. It required better fuel that was not available.
2. It was about 3x more expensive.
3. It dod not perform well in high alt.
SO...
They made 109-G6 that was even cheaper and easier to manufacture as a mass produced weapon.
The problem was that 109 required skill to fly and Germans did not have large number of skilled pilots available at -44.
Too bad.. (for the pilots)

RiP

Wannabe-Pilot
03-13-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oh-rip:
Well, Germans had a lot better plane available: FW190 BUT...
1. It required better fuel that was not available.
2. It was about 3x more expensive.
3. It dod not perform well in high alt.
SO...
They made 109-G6 that was even cheaper and easier to manufacture as a mass produced weapon.
The problem was that 109 required skill to fly and Germans did not have large number of skilled pilots available at -44.
Too bad.. (for the pilots)

RiP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How come it was three times more expensive? That's quite a difference! What the hell did they make out of, gold? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Horseback, you mentioned 'Kiwis'. Who's that. I understand Aussie etc. but Kiwis... never heard of that word.

HARD_Sarge
03-13-2004, 01:19 PM
Hi Wannabe

&lt; He does however makes some valid points about the complacency of german engineers and how easy it actually was to make a great fighter plane even better, if one only applied some common sense to the problem. They should have at least improved rear visibility like in G-10, &gt;

come on mate, you can say the same thing for most of the other fighters made

why were the US and GB Engineers so lazy and design so many planes with the razor back ? , that was the style of the time, what was thought the best way to go, in time, they came up with a better system, as did the 109 (which is strange, thought the G6 also had the Galland hood ?)

for a lousy plane, it shot down a lot of better planes, so it had to have something

over all, from the tone of your posts, you had already made up your mind as to the answer to your question

HARD_Sarge

Kiwi's ? they from New Zeeland, which from what I know, is one of the few polite words the Aussies use towards them