# Which was the Better Fighter: BF109 or Spitfire? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907 "2009-03-10T01:40:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/21 "2009-03-10T18:10:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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… The fact is, though, that the British outbuilt the Germans in fighter production throughout the war. Whatever the difficulties, they overcame them. If you have the production capacilty to build a more complex fighter, its complexity isn’t really a weakness. [QUOTE=xtisme] …the BF109 isn’t even on the list. Instead, they chose to put the ME262 on there. The Spitfire is number 6 btw. [/QUOTE] Boy howdy, that is a terrible list. The Me-262? It was COOL, sure. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/22 "2009-03-10T18:15:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The fact is, though, that the British outbuilt the Germans in fighter production throughout the war. Whatever the difficulties, they overcame them. If you have the production capacilty to build a more complex fighter, its complexity isn’t really a weakness. Well that just isn’t true. The British outbuilt the Germans, absolutely. Did the British outbuild the Germans building only Spitfires? Would the British have outbuilt the Germans by more had the Spitfire been easier to build? If no more pilots were available then 'planes, could the extra resources have been used to build other required military equipment? Does the complexity of the Spitfire wing play any importance in comparing it as a fighter to the Hurricane (the 'plane that really won the Battle of Britain)? They were both great 'planes without a doubt. But how many of them can be put in the air is definitely relevant to a comparison between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/23 "2009-03-10T18:40:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Boy howdy, that is a terrible list. The Me-262? It was COOL, sure. Hey, during the 2-3 hours you could expect to get out of the engines it was absolutely untouchable. Assuming you didn’t get picked off during takeoff by, or flame out by pushing the throttle too quickly, or get bounced by a P-47 diving at near-supersonic speeds, or… 🙂 Actually, if the Germans hadn’t been suffering from critical material shortages (exotic alloys for parts of the jet engine, primarily - the production versions used lower grade materials hence the awful reliability) and experienced pilots, the 262 itself was a pretty kick-ass plane. ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/24 "2009-03-10T18:54:27Z")
Worth mentioning is that the post-Battle of Britain 109 variants were tailored more toward being a bomber interceptor, and not an anti-fighter platform. Their powerplant was focused on speed and climb, and they carried armament that was really becoming overweight for the size of the airframe and best designed to bring down bombers. After the F variant, I’d consider them to be interceptors rather than fighters. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/25 "2009-03-10T19:42:03Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Boy howdy, that is a terrible list. The Me-262? It was COOL, sure. [/QUOTE] Well, if you’ve ever seen the show you know that they use a bunch of different factors as criteria for their evaluation. Stuff like ‘fear factor’ and ‘innovation’. The ME 262 would have high marks in both, especially innovation…so I don’t think it’s unreasonable that it’s on the list. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/26 "2009-03-11T00:55:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=ralph124c] > 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. 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. [/QUOTE] Your reply doesn’t prove your point at all. In the same way that the T34 was a better tank than any German contemorary one, but that fact had virtually no influence in 1941 due to the inability to use them properly, the same could be the case in the two airforces; the German beat the Russian airforce in 1941 because they destroyed most of it on the ground in the first few days, and its airfields kept getting overrun for the rest of 1941. That says nothing about the quality of the respective planes. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/27 "2009-03-11T01:32:39Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > 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? The Il-2 Sturmovik was a ground attack plane, not a fighter… In any case, I think that until the Lavochkin La-5 appeared in 1943 the Soviet air force didn’t have anything quite up to the task of facing the 109s; it still was an inferior plane, but not abysmally so compared to previous fighters. It wasn’t until mid '44 when the La-7 showed up that the Russians had something to fight in more or less equal terms. Yes, the Italians sent some planes to the Eastern front, they performance, AFAIK, wasn’t anything to write home about. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/28 "2009-03-11T02:21:43Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Did the Italians ever field their airforce in Russia? Yes, with the expected “AF 1935 vs AF1939” results, Italy’s fighters could dogfight, but what killed pilots was speed and firepower. A .30cal and a .50cal firing through the prop just wasn’t enough to kill pilots. The Bf109 had cannon, and that made the game. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/29 "2009-03-11T02:30:30Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well that just isn’t true. The British outbuilt the Germans, absolutely. Did the British outbuild the Germans building only Spitfires? Would the British have outbuilt the Germans by more had the Spitfire been easier to build? If no more pilots were available then 'planes, could the extra resources have been used to build other required military equipment? Well, that sort of seals the deal, though, doesn’t it? If at the moment it mattered most you had so few pilots that your fighter production couldn’t have been meaningfully increased anyway, it makes little difference. And as the war went on, British fighter (and Allied, in general) production just hopelessly outstripped German production; it eventually reached the point that Allied fighter output might as well have been infinite for all the difference it would have made to the Germans. Economical solutions are great at some points on the quality vs. quantity indifference curve, but that curve was clearly different for the British than it was for the Germans. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/30 "2009-03-11T02:38:42Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > And as the war went on, British fighter (and Allied, in general) production just hopelessly outstripped German production; it eventually reached the point that Allied fighter output might as well have been infinite for all the difference it would have made to the Germans. Okay, let’s forget the P-51, P38, P-47, and all Spit production standardize in 1941 and let Hurricane production and development continue unabated. What happens? For my money the Gustav, though technologically superior, is eaten alive by the Allies’ production. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907/31 "2009-03-11T02:43:19Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Okay, let’s forget the P-51, P38, P-47, and all Spit production standardize in 1941 and let Hurricane production and development continue unabated. What happens? > > For my money the Gustav, though technologically superior, is eaten alive by the Allies’ production. That’s quite likely, given the numbers. More Allied pilots - a LOT more, when one considers the impact of the P-51 on daytime bomber survivability - would have died than necessary, but in the end the Germans would have been hopelessly swamped anyway. The numbers were simply staggering; to make a comparison, by mid-1944 the Royal Canadian Air Force was as big as the Luftwaffe, and it was a small part of Allied air strength. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-was-the-better-fighter-bf109-or-spitfire/488907.md?page=1)