It seems that the three highest scoring German pilots (i.e. the highest scoring aces ever) - Erich Hartmann (352 victories, all confirmed by witnesses), Gerhard Barkhorn (301) and Gunther Rall (275) all preferred the ME109 (Bf109, to use its proper name) to the FW190. They all used the Messerchmitt virtually to the end of the war. Barkhorn, after his service on the Eastern front, commanded a Home Defence unit with FW190s but it is recorded that he kept a Me109G for himself, and he only briefly flew the ME262 for the last few weeks. And yet the FW was the one that really had the RAF worried, proving superior to the Spitfire Vb and a match for the IX. ACM Sir Sholto Douglas, C-in-C Fighter Command, described the FW as the best fighter in the world, in mid-'42. So, does anyone have any idea why these three leading aces apparently remainded loyal to the Messerschmitt?
Interestingly, all three achieved their high scores mainly on the Eastern front. But what is also interesting is the tactics that they used. They were of the "get up close" combatents (if they could get away with it). The Me109 was an excellent aircraft throughout the war. For most of the war it's many varients were equal to most of the fighters that the allies had. But most importantly, it was generally equal or better to anything that the Russians could throw up, and these three spent most the war there. And most FW 190s were reserved for Reich defence, where they were required against the bombers and bomber escorts - the advantage that worried the Allies so much was it's effectiveness against the bomber escorts just around the time that they thought thet had countered the threats by the introduction of the Mustang. I don't know about Barkhon, but when Rall was also transferred to Reich defence, he used the G5 which is the high altitude varient with the pressurised cabin - a very good aircraft.
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/barkhorn.html http://www.luftwaffe.cz/rall.html http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html And comparison between the Me109G and Spitfire Mk XIV http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html As far as I can tell, the 109 was still considered a formidable opponent right to the end of the war.
Certainly a formidable opponent in the right hands - apparently tricky to fly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot. Having said that, a Buchon killed very experienced display pilot Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company (don't know if it was pilot error, mechanical failure or what) but I remember another display pilot, Nigel Lamb rings a bell, saying that every time he walked away from the '109, he'd look back and think "You didn't kill me that time, you bastard"! However, on top of that (arguing with myself!), experienced pilots have to start somewhere so given German superiority early on and combat experience in Spain and the "peace" leading up to Sept '39, there may have been plenty of time to master the '109? Later in the war, with Allied fighters ranging all over German territory, there would have been less time to learn to fly and a great likelihood of being shot down early which no doubt would have had Mustang pilots etc thinking their aircraft was superior.
I suppose it comes down to being careful of generalisations and cliches. I don't think I'd realised just how advanced the later marks of 109G with the DB605 engine were. The "aircraft performance" website is worth bookmarking even if it reminds me of long-forgotten University studies. It is often said that the Luftwaffe was reduced to using barely-trained nineteen year-olds by the middle of the war; I believe that Galland said after the war that the Battle of Britain had taken a quarter of Germany's experienced combat pilots and the Luftwaffe was never the same again. Whereas many of the most experienced Soviet pilots were either murdered in Stalin's purges or killed in the initial days of Barbarossa, which may explain why the Germans were up against inexperienced replacements, and why the Finnish Buffaloes had virtually the best kill-loss ratio of the war, even shooting down Soviet Spitfires. But Hartman, Barkhorn and Rall had mastered the 109 and like all good weapons it was an extension of themselves. And although Hartman et al believed in going in close, they also believed in diving away afterward to avoid getting into dogfights. This kind of tactic often meant that disciplined teamwork allowed an inferior aircraft to beat a better one; it was largely how the F4Fs in the Pacific were able to get the better of the Zeros - and Phantoms in Vietnam had to resort to this as the Mig-17s gave them a nasty surprise in dogfights. Best guess about Mark Hanna's death is that he encountered a vortex at low altitude - maybe even one created by himself in his previous circuit of the aerodrome. Not much you can do about that - I wonder if it was what happened to Brian Brown the other week.
It was indeed a aircraft that went through so many incarnations and yet was basically the same aircraft - comparable to the Spifire. The FW190 was considered an excellent aircraft for a while, purely because of the shock that the RAF received at such a superior aircraft to their own Spitfire mark of the time. But there were many teething problems with the 190 (especially the engine), and the production could never reach the required levels. This is why I asked the question about what makes a good fighter pilot. Technical training alone is probably lowest in the list of requirements that I mentioned. Stalins purges may not have affected the pilots in the Soviet Union to any great degree but what it do is remove experienced higher officers who knew how to use these forces, and most importantly (especially at the start of the Invasion) how to disperse the forces to better protect them. A lesson that the Buffalo pilots also learnt very quickly over Malaya - they knew that in a "traditional" dogfight the Japanese had the edge on maneuverability, but were less armoured and so more vulnerable to hit and run tactics.
Kittyhawks also used this tactic successfully particularly against the Japanese as they struggled otherwise. Nothing dived like a Kittyhawk! :becky:
I think the idea of the "traditional" dogfight is rather misplaced when taking about WW2. The visions we have aircraft swirling around in circles trying to get on each other's tails may be true of WW1, but most of the time in WW2, most forces tried to carry out the hit and run. And the speeds that the aircraft were travelling meant that anything else wasn't always possible. Of course, there are many instances of swirling fights, for example between fighters around day-time bomber streams.
The Japanese were normally the ultimate team players with all traces of individuality discouraged. For instance, it was observed that bomber formations dropped all their bombs at once as soon as the master bomber in the lead aircraft dropped his. The exception was the fighter pilots who saw themselves as modern (or reincarnated) Samurai, fighting individually in single combat. Ironically, and unfortunately for them, fighter pilots need to be just as much disciplined team players as any other group.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, their idea of the Samuri spirit also translated as deferring to the leader which meant that the Flight/Squadron leader was the one who should get the kill. He also became the most likely target as well.
