I ask because (i seems) that the (British) Spitfire was constantly being upgraded-I belive it went through 9 or 10 iterations by the end of the war. The constant improvements made the planes faster and more maneuverable. In contrast, I think the German BF109 did not evolve much-it was substatially the same aircraft in 1945, as it was in 1940. So which was the better plane? I heard that the Spitfire was slightly faster, more maneuverable, and had more firepower. The one problem was the engine-because the Spitfire used carburators (instead of fuel injection), the engine could stall in a barrel roll maneuver.
Why were the Germans (no slouches in aerodynamics) so slow to upgrade the Messerschmidt fighters?
“Messerschmitt.” No D.
The 109 was HEAVILY modified throughout the war, and substantially upgraded; there were dozens of models. I don’t know where you got that it stayed the same throughout the war, but it didn’t; it was as modified as the Spitfire. They stuck with it because it was a proven and successful design, and it was relatively cheap and didn’t use a lot of materials.
The Bf 109 was also produced in several major variants with a myriad of minor versions. It was E’s during the Battle of Britain, G’s defending against the 8th Air Force daylight bombing raids, and K’s in the last days of the war. The upgrades were as substantial as those to the Spitfire.
As to which was superior - they were comparable, which is all that matters. The Allies had the luxury of rotating pilots out of combat and using them as teachers in flight schools sheltered from the war in North America. The Germans had to leave their aces in the cockpit until they eventually got killed or bailed over enemy territory. As a result, throughout the war Allied formations became more skillful and Axis formations became less skillful. The attrition of skilled Luftwaffe pilots had far more impact than any minor advantage one fighter might have had over the other.
I’d say the Spit was better overall. The Bf-109 had some serious shortcomings that only got worse as it got heavier with every new version. One third of all the 109s built where lost in accidents caused by the poor visibility from the cockpit, the merciless low speed performance and narrow track landing gear. Not surprising since Willy Messerschmitt goal was to build the smaller possible plane around the most powerful engine available.
All accounts I’ve heard say that the Spit was a pleasure to fly, while the 109 was very demanding and unforgiving. Of course in the hands of an expert it was one of the deadliest planes ever to fly, but as the experts began to be culled off the Luftwaffe new pilots ended up going to battle on a plane that had more or less the same chances of killing its own pilot as of shooting down an enemy.
As noted, both planes underwent numerous upgrades throughout the war (and beyond), so a claim for a stagnant development is incorrect.
Firepower was very different in the earliest versions: Bf -109 had two wing-mounted 20mm cannon and two 7.62mm machines firing through the propellor arc (and, thus, slightly downrated in firing rate) while the Spit had 8 .303 caliber machine guns mounted in the wings, but no cannons or heavy machine guns.
At the end of the war, the Spit was using four wing-mounted 20 mm cannons while the Bf-109 was using an engine-mounted 30 mm cannon firing through the propellor hub with two 13 mm machine guns firing through the propellor arc.
Each plane saw several different weapons configurations over time.
I believe the last Spit with a carburetur was the Mk V. It made a big impression on U.S. pilot Robert S. Johnson when he killed the engine in a slow roll and reported it in his book Thunderbolt. However, a slow roll was not a normal combat maneuver and the plane was fitted with fuel injection before the Mk IX variant, anyway.
From this site:
For a fascinating discussion of these two aircraft (as well as the Hurricane), read Michael’s Korda’s new book, With Wings Like Eagles, about the Battle of Britain. Highly recommended!
Also to note was that sometimes the slats deployed asymmetrically, pretty much a death sentence at low altitudes and speeds.
I’m not sure that was a huge problem given advance knowledge of the airplane. It just meant that as a precaution the pilot shouldn’t pull hard off the deck.
They even developed a T variant for deployment on the never-completed aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin.
The Gustav was an effective and handsome aircraft, no doubt, despite its flaws, and it’s one of my favorites of WWII. The three top aces of WW2 flew Bf 109s, all on the Russian Front. According to Wiki, the Finns, Romanians, Croatians and Hungarians also were highly successful in Gustavs. Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia
Still, I’d have to give the edge to the Spitfire. I think any pilot of the day, if given his choice of one or the other in a dogfight and if equally well-trained on both, would probably agree.
Just found this in the Wiki article:
RAF pilots who tested captured Bf 109s liked the engine and throttle response but criticised the high speed handling characteristics, poorer turning circle, greater force required on the control column at speed, and the thick framing of the cockpit glazing which they felt created blindspots in the pilot’s field of vision. In August 1940 comparative trials were held at the E-Stelle in Rechlin, with the famous ace Werner Mölders being one of the participants. The tests concluded that the Bf 109 had superior level and climb speed to the Spitfire at all altitudes, but also noted the significantly smaller turning circle of the British fighter. It was advised not to engage in turning dog-fights unless the performance advantage of the Bf 109 could be used to full effect. The roll rate of the Bf 109 was deemed superior as was its stability on target approach. Mölders himself called the Spitfire “miserable as a fighting aircraft,” due to its two-pitch propeller and the inability of its carburettor to handle negative g-forces. It should be noted, however, that in the political climate of the times there was often a considerable amount of propaganda written into such reports by both sides…
I also seem to remember that because of the wing design, the Spitfire was extremely difficult to build. The Bf 109 could more easily be mass produced.
Which stands in contrast to the typical German habit of the time of over engineering military products making mass production difficult to say the least (Panthers, Tigers etc).
That’s not really fair. The Germans didn’t go down the excessively complicated system path until they were looking for wonder weapons. The Panzer IV and the StuGs were well designed, and they were from the same generation
as the Bf 109. The Panther/Tiger analogs in the air were the Komet and the Me 262.
I was under the impression that while the Panther was well designed, it was overly reliant on bespoke parts and highly skilled labor - once manpower shortages bit hard in Germany that led to production problems. Not sure where I am remembering that from so I will have to look.
Sorry - misread your post, Winsling. I read it as the Panzer V being well designed… I’d agree with you re the Panzer IV, which didn’t seem to suffer from production problems. But Germany was suffering less of a labor shortage at that time too, as well as less disruption from the air.
Well designed tough to nail down. We both agree that the Tiger was poorly designed - even if everything was up to spec, it was too heavy for the suspension. On the other end, the T-34 was well designed by any definition. The Panther was theoretically sound, but building and maintaining one put a burden on the German logistics and infrastructure that wasn’t justified by its performance.
I’ll argue that means that it wasn’t well designed, because the designers weren’t operating under realistic constraints. The fact that their design could have been successful under conditions that didn’t exist doesn’t really matter to me. If someone wants to argue that the design was sound, but the implementation under wartime conditions failed, it’s just a matter of definitions.
Remember also that the Panzer IV was the one German tank that served throughout WWII. Production was actually higher in '44 than any other year despite labor shortages and the bombing campaign. By any measure, it was a phenomenally successful tank.
Okay, I’ll stop hijacking now. Sorry.
I think we would both agree the design of the Spitfire wing made it hard to manufacture, and that should be included in any calculation of how good a 'plane it was…
Correct me if I’m remembering incorrectly, but the Spitfire’s canopy was developed so that eventually it was a bubble above the fuselage, giving much better all around visibility. The BF109 kept the canopy streamlined into the fuselage, restricting visibility.
Remembered (without cite) from one of those “weapons vs weapons” shows on TV. Interesting show, especially when showing how much fuel the BF109 burned through when in combat over England.
As others have noted (and noted the notations) there were a lot of variants of the 109. Also, while the 109’s were the most prolific of the German planes there were other fighter designs from Messerschmitt as well as other competing companies.
I couldn’t access the Military Channel’s top ten fighters web site for some reason, but IIRC the 109 was about the middle of the list with the Spitfire edging it out by a couple of slots (I believe that they picked the P51 as their top fighter choice…which I agree with btw). Here is another top 10 list of all time fighters. They have the BF109 as number 6 and the Spitfire as number 1 (edging out the P51 which they list as number 2). Interestingly enough they have the FW 190 as number 3, beating the 109 (which I agree with, though it depends on what metrics you are using to measure ‘best’ or ‘greatest’).
Myself, I think the Spitfire was a superior fighter for the role it was used in (short range local air superiority fighter)…while the 109 was unsuited for the role the Germans tried to use it in (as a long range air superiority fighter). By the end of the war the air frame was definitely getting long in the tooth, despite numerous upgrades and versions.
I agree with an earlier poster however that said the critical difference wasn’t so much the fighter itself it was the fighter pilots and the system of how pilots were trained, used and rotated. The same thing can be said for the Japanese pilots vs US pilots and their programs during WWII. The Japanese (and the Germans) started off with superior personnel at the outbreak of the war, however by the end of the war they had worn down and lost through attrition their best pilots…which the Brits (and the US) had not. That was the critical difference, not which plane was better.
ETA: Finally got on the History Channel’s top ten site. Was wrong…the BF109 isn’t even on the list. Instead, they chose to put the ME262 on there. The Spitfire is number 6 btw.
-XT
all good replies…as i recall, the british even had a carrier-based Spitfire (the Seafire). It proved not to such a good plane, however 9its undercarriage was not robust enough for carrier landings).
WRT the BR109-I also recall reading that BF109 fighter pilots suffered horrendous attrition, on the easter fron 9after 1943). the reason was that the Russian YAK and Shtormovik fighters greatly outclassed the BF109.
Did the Italians ever field their airforce in Russia?
I don’t think this is true. The Germans kicked the crap out of the Russian air force…but the Russian’s simply had more planes and pilots to throw at the Germans and eventually simply wore them down through attrition. Since a German pilot basically flew until either killed, captured or hurt so bad they couldn’t fly anymore it was a long slow decline. Much like the rest of their armed forces.
-XT