It's pretty rare to have a fighter that's objectively better than one of its counterparts in all aspects. It's more about identifying its strengths and weaknesses relative to each counterpart and then working out and widely adopting tactics that try to maximize your identified advantages and mitigate your known weaknesses vs that other aircraft.
Wasn't that rare, many smaller nations utilized bi planes and often forgotten interwar planes, even the Ussr early on. These planes stood little chance against the modern planes of Germany/Japan. By late war, Japan was totally out matched by allied plane models as well.
@@pickleman40 the zero was probably a better plan than the wildcat.. the hell cat hands down outclassed the zero. but yeah, I would say more often than not. Plans were greatly missed matched in performance.
@@Reggiestreet agreed, hence why i made the late war distinction. Saburo Sakai says it himself, japan was completely outclassed by american models after the early period fighting cobras and wildcats. It was utterly hopeless to attempt engaging the b29, sakai saying he knew of only one pilot who could and it required a good condition j2m2. Thats to say nothing of the failure to develop better tactics or communocation
Ultimately its down to the pilot if plane performance is close. But Bf109 gets underrated because people forget its high level of automatic pilot aids, which significantly aided the Bf109 in dogfighting and pilot endurance. The Bf109 suffered in the Battle of Britain, because it was fighting on half empty tanks and the enemy had radar.
I read a great book by an RAF Spitfire pilot. He flew at Dunkirk the Battle of Britain. He states how at the beginning of the war it was hard because of the experience of the German pilots then towards the end it was a lot easier because the Germans were only sending boys across to fight. He was killed in 1944 aged 26, it really puts a perspective on how young and brave all the airmen were from both sides.
Slightly off topic, but we were sending young and inexperienced pilots into battle later in the war (USA) as well. There were also numbers of experienced pilots from the beginning of the war no longer on the front lines. However, instead of attrition, the US voluntarily sent the experienced pilots home to train the new generation of pilots and pass on their knowledge. When you think things through, regardless of how good someone is, eventually their time will come. Look at the Red Baron. At some point you will lose a good pilot. So, may as well pull the plug before the inevitable happens and bring them home anyways. Then you still have them as an asset to use outside of combat. And also to send to advanced leader training and go back as higher leadership. Not sure if Jimmy Doolittle had leadership training or just got promoted, (the info I have access to says he just got promoted and given a command), but after his famous raid he went into higher leadership. He did fly some combat, but much less. He was the one to develop better tactics for fighter cover for bombers. Japan and Germany would have just kept him on the front lines until he burned into the ground. Literally. The US eeked out much more value from him and his experience.
@@nomadpurple6154 This happened in late 42 early 43 when the USAAF Eagle Sqn pilots were transitioning to the P47 The pilots in the P47 challenged the Spitfire pilots to mock fights because they though the new P47 would be better than the Spitfire. It turned out bad for them after 4 were lost quickly trying to stay with the Spitfires in the turns . So much so that the P47 WERE NOT to take on the Spits below 8000ft Source; Spitfire A Complete Fighting History by Alfred Price page 83
I am sure I heard the average age of a RAF fighter pilot was just 20 ! Seems incredibly young.......at the time you needed to be 21 years old to vote !
I remember my father's friend, who had been a Mosquito pilot in the European war theatre, had extremely fast reflexs and spatial awareness when playing tennis. He was never shot down and very rarely lost a tennis game. So I would say it depends on the pilot providing he is flying a good machine.
I know it's fiction but that reminded me when Hangman was playing darts in Maverick and he hit the bullseye three times, once when his co pilot covered his eyes. Maybe that was included in the film based on similar stories of pilots having great spacial awareness.
I have read an account from an ace that was much more nerdy than that. He described surviving combat as being similar to looking both ways even though you are emerging onto a one way street.
I remember hearing the raf liked to recruit motorbikers. As a pilot and biker myself, I absolutely think it is a advantage. Aircraft turn like a motorbike (you have to balance the speed and rate of turn) not like cars, where it's a 2d affair.
Mike Spick wrote a book called _'The Ace Factor'._ in which he concluded that situational awareness was more important than pretty much any other attribute.
I am old enough to have met a few Battle of Britain fighter pilots who were friends of my father. I think the biggest advantage the RAF had was fighting over home territory so they could engage for longer and have a better chance of fighting another day if they were shot down. Thanks for an interesting video.
They also had the best radar network in the world to track and intercept German air raids. Everything Germany did played perfectly into the strengths of Great Britain's defenses.
RADAR meant all the fighters could be waiting on the ground and still be ready and waiting for the German formations when they arrived at altitude. Without RADAR the Poles and French needed continuous fighter caps to protect their forces from raids. This reduced the availability of aircraft due to wear and tear on both aircraft and crews. Britain never had a shortage of aircraft but always a shortage of pilots.
@@Blizofoz45 That is half a myth. Sure, Britain had a functioning RADAR network that was very advantageous in scrambling for defense, but it certainly wasn't the best. The Germans actually had more sophisticated RADAR at the time that could measure plane type, height, position and bearing with more precision, which they forwarded not just scrambling fighters, but also AA-batteries. The British bombers felt the reverse punch and more. It is not just spoken of in the standard narrative. Later in the war, it became a different thing. Britain and US developed and surpassed Germany on that technological field. Also, Germany's network wasn't as coherent due to a diffuse, larger and newly conquered territories borders. So yes, Germany played into British strength by trying to fight an air war across a channel they didn't control and was detected by "a" radar network. But what I am saying is that if Britain had had German radar tech, the situation would have been far worse. And let's remember. They (Germany) weren't that far off from succeeding anyway, but there are many other and more important factors than the RDF.
@@henrikg1388 Hitler had zero chance of a successful invasion of Britain. Just one cruiser or destroyer in amongst Hitler's invasion fleet would have wrecked the entire operation. And Britain had hundreds of such ships, and air support. Hitler's surface navy was very weak compared to the Royal Navy.
Even with radar, it required a fighter capable of climbing to meet the enemy of superior numbers having an extreme altitude and speed advantage, meet on the enemies terms and still dominate. The spitfire did that.
A further point regarding the Spitfire's effect on the populace. My parents were teenagers during the war.. and not only did the Spitfire have this incredibly beautiful aesthetic but, its engine had an absolutely incredible sound unlike anything else.. a deep roar that exuded power, fortitude and a fighting spirit. This, married with its beauty proved not only an inspiring harmony but also a motivating and lifting of morale. My father was in the airforce too. Even to this day, the unmistakable sound of a Spitfire is remarkable, so one can only surmise its effect in its day.
Even today the sound of a Merlin engine will get me running outside to see what's flying over. Very distinctive sound. I used to live on a hill near the flight path to Eastleigh airport and in the airshow season we'd have allsorts of iconic WW2 aircraft low flying on a circuit to land there.
Didn't the Hurricane's similar Merlin engine not make exactly the same sound as that of the Spitfire? The sound of the Merlin is legendary but it was used to power not only the Spitfire and the Hurricane but also the Mustang, the Mosquito and the Lancaster and variants of other aircraft such as the Halifax and the Beaufighter. The sound of the Merlin isn't only the sound of the Spitfire.
You obviously haven't heard the sound of a Pratt and Whitney R2800-1850 18 cylinder twin wasp with a two speed two stage supercharger on the Hellcat, Corsair or a P-47 it rumbles much lower than a Merlin.
@johnharris7353 yes we do, i was at RAF cosford today, one of the things i wanted to do was I wanted to see which i "liked" best, i honestly tried to be as objective as possible (considering im an englishman - but also an engineer). The ME is undeniably a beautiful machine to be sure, but the spitfires wings (and lines) are just magic.
In WWI and WWII, given a competitive fighter, it's pilot skill, doctrine, and other factors that will be important. Part of this is knowing the both your plane as well as the enemy's planes. The Spitfire and BF109 were competitive with each other.
Interesting but not of that era. While I was at LUKE AFB. New Jersey Guard sent down 5 F4E Phantoms to fly DACT against our F16 and F15. We got our behinds kicked. Why? Because the Guard pilots had many more hours on type and a good many of those hours were in combat with real bullets! Experience and knowing your aircraft counts for an awful lot.
To me it's not just it's outright performance. how easy were they to maintain and build. No point having 100 excellent fighters if they are facing 1000 decent fighters and they can only do a 5:1 ratio on downing the enemy. Having a super manoeuvrable aircraft is no good if the average pilot cannot land it. So many factors are involved, it's not a game of Top Trumps.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 if an F-16 got beat by an F-4 in a dogfight, he should be embarrassed. The F-4 sucks big time to the F-16. That is like getting beat in an F-22 by a Mig29.
It's interesting that 303 squadron equipped with 'inferior' Hurricanes was the highest scoring unit in the Battle of Britain because of it's highly skilled and ferocious Poles and Czechs.
Most of the Polish pilots in 303 Sqn had about 10 years flying experience in inferior aircraft. Despite this they still performed well against overwhelming opposition in the Battle of Poland. Give them Hurricanes and a chance of revenge against the beastly Hun the result is only to be expected .
And 303 only joined the battle half way through. The pilots would attack the bombers head on. Most of the crew were at the front of the aircraft (HE 111 in particular) under plexiglass so the effect of 8 brownings converging at 300 yards was utterly devastating.
I've often wondered if, given the inferior planes that Poland had, it is not likely that a high proportion of Polish pilots having survived Poland's invasion where exceptionally skilled ones. Not that I want in any way diminish their merit as I truly admire them and find their ulterior treatment by the British disgusting.
@@liamquigley4670 But they also shot down an amazingly high number of Me-109's while flying the Hurricane. I suspect the fact that Goering ordered the German fighters to stay close to the bombers at this point in the Battle contributed to the tally however when you look closely at these guys performance at this point in the Battle you can see they were a major contributor to Britian's victory. They were an unexpected and strong counterattack at the moment of the Luftwaffe's greatest weakness.
An important consideration is that there was no single “Spitfire” but rather a very large variety of them. The performance of a Mk-IV was significantly different than that of a Mk-IX for example. So it is no surprise that there were a range of evaluation scores over the course of the war. The same can be said if the Me-109, it too evolved greatly from 1939 to 1944. This wasn’t mentioned in the video, but regardless I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Um...do you mean the Mark V compared to the Mark IV? Typo? The actual Mark IV was the first Griffon-powered Spitfire and only two were made, but, yes, there would have been a significant performance difference then to both Mark v and Mark IX...
Then there was the indifferent performance of the two-bladed Watts propellor and the old Vic tactics with an inexperienced wingman often watching the leader and sometimes easy meat for an opponent.
Similar things can be said about the Mustang and the Corsair. The Mustangs got better after the British put Merlin engines in them and after a more bubble canopy was added. The Spitfire was beautiful and sounds awesome, but my favorite plane of WWII is the Corsair used by US Marines. Different designs for different combat roles.
My father was a bomber pilot in that awful conflict. He grew up in London. During a conversation he said prior to WW2 he went to an air show and was "dazzled" by the Hurricane and I think a Wellington. They were a quantum leap forward in design compared to previous RAF types.
There was an "ebb & flow" to the Spitfire vs BF 109 rivalry. The 109E had some clear advantages vs the Spit Mk.I in the Battle of Brittan but the limited range of the 109 and fighting over enemy territory was a major handicap. Then the Spit V had the advantage until the 109 F/G models were introduced with upgraded engines & aerodynamics. Once the Spit IX was introduced the upper hand was secured until the end of the war for the Spitfire in a dogfight scenario especially in higher altitude engagements. You also have to factor in the aircraft design priorities as the war progressed... once bombs started falling on the Reich it was far more important to the war effort to shoot down a bomber than a fighter.
The Spitfire Mk V with the single speed supercharger Merlin 45 was not that hot, the 2 speed supercharger Merlin XXs were put in the slower Hurricanes! The much improved Bf 109F was not inferior to a Mk V.
@@HansJakobGrimmelshausen Me262 was a great plane, coming as a nasty surprise to the Allies. But the Allies had the comfort to have DEDICATED airplane types DEDICATED to specific tasks. In other words - to defeat an enemy, you just need to make his life troublesome. Allies kept using Spit IX for sweep and tactical support, but to defeat Me 262, Tempest V was a great choice. As KG 51 Me 262 pilot Hubert Lange reminds: “The Me 262’s most dangerous opponent was the Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed.” P.S. And do not forget about the Griffon-engined Spit XIV - it really made life short to Fw190D & Me262 crews...
I have this recollection, that what really made the Hurricane actually more valuable than Spitfire in the overall battle, was it's faster, turnaround, I suppose. Something like, it took a landed Spitfire an hour to get rearmed and refueled, but only half of that for a Hurricane. The best plane is the one you have flying....
Without calling bs , it used the same engine, had about the same fuel capacity, used the same number and calibre machine guns with the same round count. And the spitfire had easier engine access. So..how could the hurricane take half the time to turn around?
It is also interesting to know if the Spitfire from the first example was evaluated with 100 octane fuel and a constant or variable speed propeller. Gregs airplanes and automobiles channel mentioned the Germans evaluated a Spitfire captured in France before the BOB. It had a variable speed propeller and they used I believe 90 octane fuel. According to Greg they didn’t rate it very high. They were apparently unpleasantly surprised when they encountered the versions with constant speed propellers and 100 octane fuel later in 1940.
The Bf109 was equal to the MkV but by the MkIX was falling behind by the VII VIII was way behind The MkV was beaten badly by the Fw190 Equalled by the MkIX and was falling behind so much that it was an easy kill to the MkXIV It always had the best Roll rate I would recommend Eric Browns Wings of the Luftwaffe He extensively tested both the Bf109 and Fw190 He loved the harmony and control of the Fw190
Russia. There were only a relative handful of Luftwaffe pilots who exceeded 100 kills exclusively on the Western Front. Werner Molders and Adolf Galland are two who immediately spring to mind.
In the early 2000's I knew Gunter Rall, I asked him one day about the Bf109E vs Hurricane Mk. 1. Without hesitation he answered " came down to the pilot " One of my Grandfather's flew Hurri I's in the B.o.B. That summer he spanked two 109E's!
@ZoomerStasi no it is not, because you are using racist, anti immigration rhetoric to compare weapons of war which is the height of stupidity. It literally means you are a moron. But you do you, because that one sentence proved you are essentially stupid. It is perhaps a double bladed sword that you think you are actually capable of free thought.....
@ZoomerStasi Well if those countries were at war with Britain boats might well be the best weapon. If they win. War is about winning and the best thing is the thing that causes you to achieve that aim. If you can build 10000 good planes it does not matter if your opponent can build 100 better ones for instance.
The key point about pilot skills being the determining factor is shown by devastating success of 303 (Polish) Squadron when only equipped with Hurricanes. An often-forgotten factor is the poor performance of the Me109 in landing and take-off. Once the Luftwaffe advanced to the French coast and had to use grass airstrips, they lost 10% of their planes in ground accidents due to the 109s narrow wheelbase and poor rudder authority at low speeds. The situation grew worse when many of the experienced pilots had to be replaced with newbies. By the time the war started the 109 was already a mature design but the Spitfire was only just coming out of prototype phase. From the first to the last Spitfire mark, it's power and rate of climb doubled.
I’m certainly not an expert by any means but if this makes sense to anyone who has a greater understanding and knowledge of the subject - a Spitfire was an aircraft that pretty much every pilot was able to get the best performance possible from it, but the Messerschmitt 109 had to be piloted by an extremely skilled pilot in order to get the maximum results of that aircrafts capabilities. I hope this is a straightforward and understandable explanation.
So much like Sherman vs Panzer IV vs T-34 or Gewehr 98 vs SMLE: You get close enough that other factors are overwhelmingly more important than the marginal advatanges inherent in them.
Exactly. I really think the main fact that matters is that they are "good enough" for the intended job. Something of which the Panzer IV/T34/Sherman definitely fit into that category.
@@WanderfalkeAT Maybeeeee. Realistically any of the later P4's w/ the KwK 40 L/43 were lethal to nearly anything the allies fielded all the way until the end of the war. The 30mm added front armor was a solid addition though, and I can't help but wonder how much better Germany would have fared if the development of the P5 & P6 was scrapped in favor of improving the P4 and TD's further.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 yet even then the British could reliably knock it out with smaller guns. Also ignoring the fact the Churchill Mk.III onward had thicker frontal armor then the Tiger.
Eric Winkle Brown wasn't so complimentary, though he loved the Fw 190. The 109 was a bit of a swine to fly in comparison to the Spitfire, with a cramped cockpit and heavy controls that only got heavier as speed increased (and could not be fully deflected in the lateral axis due to the size of the cockpit), and lacked rudder trim which would allow you to fly "hands and feet off", unlike the Spitfire which had very benign characteristics and was much easier to fly and control. Neither were easy to taxy on the ground but the Spitfire took off and landed a lot less dangerously.
@@blockheadgreen_ Anyone not familair with Eric Brown should learn about him if they're an aircraft enthusiast. No other pilot came remotely close to the variety of airframes he tested.
2:28 There was a fairly simple fix credited to Ms Beatrice Shilling who devised a restrictor plate to solve this problem. It was a brass thimble with a hole in the middle (later further simplified to a flat washer), which could be fitted into the engine's carburettor without taking the aircraft out of service. She was know as Tilly Shilling and her device was know as Miss Shilling's Orifice. There's a pub in Farnborough named after her.
Well said. The pseudo-historians and USAAF fan boys tend to ignor any mods that improved the Spitfire beyond the wiki disinformation, like Shilling's Orifice, metal ailerons, increased boost on various Merlins, s/c gear ratios, Aboukir air filter and dozens of other refinements.
@bobsakamanos4469 USAAF fan boys know nothing about the early war when things were in the balance. The USAAF turned up when the eventual outcome was already decided.
It’s fun to talk about these two planes. Both had their own strengths and weaknesses, and both were very, very good. I really like hearing both sides of the story, because it tells the whole story of the plane and the war. So, we’ll done bringing those perspectives to the presentation. Now, let’s hear about how the Luftwaffe thought of the P-51 Mustang.
I can tell you now they hated it......up until the P51, Luftwaffe pilots could stand off and wait for any fighter escort to turn for home leaving the bombers exposed. When the P51's arrived with their extended range it was a completely different kettle of fish.......
First of all, it was the "D" version that got a name. Kurt Bühligen, the third-highest scoring German fighter pilot of World War II's Western Front (with 112 confirmed victories, three against Mustangs), later stated: We would out-turn the P-51 and the other American fighters, with the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. Their turn rate was about the same. The P-51 was faster than us, but our munitions and cannon were better."[85] German fighter ace Heinz Bär said that the P-51: was perhaps the most difficult of all Allied aircraft to meet in combat. It was fast, maneuverable, hard to see, and difficult to identify because it resembled the Me 109.[86] (Wikipedia)
The USA bombers were the ones delivering the key punch to knock out German War Production & refineries. Very very difficult to do whilst being mauled by the Luftwaffe during daylight hours. The P51 escorts with Merlin engines were a game changer ! Capable fighters with the range to escort the B17 bombers all the way to the target ! The P51s presented the Luftwaffe the dilema of whether to focus on the US bombers and run the very real risk of being shot down or tackle the P51's and ignoring the bombers ? Also imagine the effect on the morale of the US bomber crews, the chances of surviving a 25 raid tour dramatically improved !
I have to agree, one pilot's comments are an anecdote, multiple pilot's comments, taken together, make a more realistic assessment. I appreciated both of your guests. I have seen Jens multiple times on MHV and it is always a pleasure to hear his thoughts and revelations.
there was many on the Bismarck that said they scuttled and sank there own ship, but there was a few below who said the sink was sinking before it was scuttled,. read history books it says the Germans sank there own ship. also Adolf Galland lol he wanted a squadron of spitfires in the battle of Britain ??>? seems history been twisted along the way and top aces comments forgotten let alone the stupid comment made after Jutland. the myth of Trafalgar has been broken or something on them lines lol can you see there not giving credit they never did and you cant compare them 2 battles but obvious its stuck in there heads to even mention it. the greatest sea battle ever never to be repeated surly did bother them
Also, by definition if you are interviewing a pilot he survived at least one encounter with a Spitfire. I'm sure if you could interview the pilots that were KIA, their opinion of the spitfire would be different.
I always felt like Hollywood central casting was involved in the battle of Britain, the 109's look angular and the grey villain, and the spitfire curves and earthly colors represent the good guys.
That was the proper camouflage for the time. The Germans had progressed from ground camouflage to air camouflage. The British were always worried about ground attack. The Squadron books on the BF-109 covers this.
There is another important factor. It can be easy to get hung up on superior turn performance. While this may indeed provide a huge advantage in an isolated 1-on-1 encounter with no one else around, that is not what frequently happened. Quite often you'd find yourself in a furball with many other friendlies and hostiles, and getting bogged down in a slow turn fight would expose you to the risk of getting shot to pieces by someone you just didn't even see while you were fully focused on the plane you were turning with. I believe most pilots shot down never even saw the plane that got them.
In the 1st World War every pilot knew the advantage of attacking from altitude out of the sun. The difference is that the speeds were much slower and weaponry far less destructive (Twin Vickers as opposed to eight Brownings etc). This often resulted in extended dogfights and pilot on pilot duels each trying to out manoeuvre the other. In WW2 every fighter had advantages and disadvantages and was capable in the hands of experienced Pilots of evading the enemy attack. This led to the tactic of "bouncing" the enemy, making a single surprise attack from altitude and, whether successful or not, using superior speed to then get away to fight another day. Most fighter pilots did not ever see the plane that shot them down, it was over before they knew it had begun.
And that is where the FW190 left the spitfires into dust when it appeared. It would just split S disengage and go hunt other plane. IT was really hard for the MK V to fight the FW190 on a furball.
@@tiagodagostini true enough, at first. The P-47s couldn;t handle the 190s either (before paddle blades) but in the climb. This is why the Spit IX was rushed into service in '42 before the Spit VIII and it set the 190 pilots back on their heels. LW pilots not knowing which Spitfire Mk was being targeted saved a lot of Mk.V pilots. Later, the LF Mk.V Spits were hot rods and gave the 190s a run for their money.
@@tiagodagostini the inferior performance of the MkV was why the MkIX was hurriedly brought into action. It was better than the FW190 and stayed in production until the end of the war. It was a combination of the Mk5 and an upgraded model of the Merlin Engine. That however, did not prevent Supermarine from improving Spitfire Marks (including Griffon MKs of Spitfire,) the MkIX was continued in use until the war ended.
@@donyoung1384 MK IX against the FW of same period had inferior roll rate, inferior instant turn rate over 450 km/h, Inferior top speed, larger drag coefficient (so it accelerated slower in dives), less firepower. It had higher max climb rate, better sustained turn,better low speed handling, Hardly anyoen woudl cosnider the mk IX definnitely better than the FW 190. The MK IX only became a match later when it got allowed to use very high octane fuel (that woudl kill the engine in a short lifetime, but at that point in war UK had no problems replacing the engines anymore)
So far, as I understand it, the Spitfire did undergo several updates (same with the 109). So, we cant talk about "THE" Spitfire or "THE" 109. Early in the war, it seems, German aircraft were superior. However, later in the war, the aircraft were equally matched or even outperforming German planes. The Griffon Spits were a different beast then the early ones with the Merlin engine.
@@yepitsme4065 there were only a relative few Spitfire 14s and frankly the P51 was only superior to the Spitfire Mark14 in one aspect, range. In all other aspects the Mark 14 was superior. Mind you, the torque produced by that Griffon engine and five blades propellor was horrendous! The British continued to use Spitfire Mark IXs until the end of the war and they were considered to be as good as any German, piston engined fighter.
I knew, he's gone now, a guy who was a fighter pilot in 109s and 190s back in the 1970s and early 1980s. He loved the FW 190s, he was mostly a 109 pilot until he was sent to a FW 190 squadron.
@@WanderfalkeAT I forgot that he mentioned that, he said the Bf 109 was always looking for new ways to kill you when low and slow. Thanks for the reminder
@@kirkmorrison6131Makes sense it was so finnicky at the low and slow- It's a LOT of torque going through that engine and such a small airframe. The fragility of the 109 is also something to consider.
First of all, thank you for your serious and in-depth researches!!! Much needed, especially in these times. IMHO, i think that the overall quality of a system (detection, GCI direction, training plans and logistics to support all this), means that, provided you have on-par equipment, you can withstand any opponent's attacks. The climb-dive-turn-speed capabilities thing becomes secondary.
Hi Chris. Great video. It was good to hear from your experts. One thing that has also to be taken into account when answering this question is that both the ME Bf109 and Spitfire evolved rapidly, even throughout the Battle of Britain. As they evolved, one marque out-performed its opponent until a newer version was released.
A very good point. We shouldn't forget the incremental arms race aspect to war. Rolling out new designs into the field to gain the advantage was critical. Germany started the war with the wheels of industry churning out war machines; Britain started late, much less prepared. Surviving was Britain's primary objective for three years. Germany starting a war with Russia (June 1941) and America entering the war on the Allies side (Dec 1941), left the Axis powers with an unsurmountable industrial and manpower disadvantage, which took a few more years to play out to it's conclusion. This summary is a massive reduction of detail. I recommend everyone finding a specific old war topic (there are so many to choose from) and study every gruesome detail until you feel the gravity of it in your bones. "To understand Peace, study War. Conversely, to understand War, study Peace"
A key difference between Spitfire and Hurricane was that the latter did not have a self-sealing fuel tank. A large proportion of the RAF fighter pilots who were badly burned flew Hurricanes. I think that many of the experienced pilots in the Battle of Britain knew this - though they might not have emphasised it to less experienced pilots, who already had enough to worry about.
Exactly ! Return fire from bombers was especially troubling as rounds could penetrate the unprotected header tank and firewall. The resulting fire would torch through the firewall burning the pilot.
The reason for Adolf Galland saying he wanted a squadron of spitfires was that Goering was forcing them to use tactics that a spitfire would be better at than a ME109. Goering was forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers despite the fact that this would allow the british to engage them in dogfights at will where the spitfires superior turning ability was an advantage. A less manuverable but faster plane like the ME109 should be free to come in high and use zoom and boom tactics. Adolf was trying to get across to Goering that he was forcing the Luftwaffe to use tactics that would give the RAF the advantage
I remember watching a documentary years ago, that spoke specifically to Hurricane pilots from the Battle of Britain. They where most indignant that any shot down German pilots would swear it was done by a Spitfire, never a Hurricane!
post war accounts should always taken with a bti of salt. Even when they were the only ones that had the most credible system of confirming kills (gun cameras).
@@20chocsaday im not talking about documantary work but of personal pilot accounts. All were great guys but biased towards themselfs and their machines
In all seriousness though I can imagine the RAF's command had a hand on that, supposedly they directed the Spits towards the enemy fighters and the Hurricanes towards bombers.
What I found notable was that when aces from both sides got to examine / fly their enemy's aircraft then & now, they always said they preferred their own .. even while acknowledging the strengths of the other aircraft. These included Bob, Tuck, Galland, Bader ... they all liked what they knew best :)
To compare two aircraft we should be in the same time frame as you did. We should note that in the first report the propeller had a fixed pitch maybe the early wooden two blade Watts propeller. This was before the Battle of Britain for sure. Then the technical stuff like aircraft performance at different altitudes, firepower, tactics in use, etc. Due to the understanding of limitations, both the Spitfire and Bf-109 had new improved versions until the end and after the war. One of the main decisives factors in the Battle of Britan was that the downed pilots, could rejoined fight.
You mentioned post war production of both acct. Interestingly the Spanish HA1112(I believe used a Merlin engine in a Bf109 airframe and some of these were used in the film "Battle of Britain" Also the Czechs put Jumo engines in their 109 airframe and sold them to the Israelis.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 yes, it was a Merlin engine. But I was referring to the Spitfire (and Seafire) that had exclusive post war versions. The F.21 was active in the last days of war, the F.22 and 24 came after, the FR.47 even went to Korean War.
That first German report was very soon outdated as all Spitfires were then fitted with a variable pitch propellor and started using 100 octane fuel that greatly improved its performance. The Luftwaffe pilots reading that report had a nasty surprise when they found a Spitfire could suddenly keep with them in a climb. Also the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain was very often at a disadvantage of height, being bounced time and again. One of the best accounts of possibly the first prolonged dogfight between a Sptifire and a Me109 on equal terms, is in Al Deeres book, Nine lives. It happened just before Dunkirk, the two pilots had a extended low level dogfight where Deere managed to fairly easily get on the 109s tail. The German pilot couldn't shake him off, but Deere couldn't quite get his guns to bear for a killing shot, it ended with both breaking off the fight unhurt. A good example of a tactical situation that initially gave neither pilot an advantage. With evenly matched pilots it showed how evenly matched the airplanes were as well.
One thing regarding agility and manouverability and the Spitfire, was the semi eleptical wing; where part of the wing would stall in advance to the rest of it. This enables a new or mediocre pilot to fly at the edge of the turn envelope with ease while Me 109 pilots needed more experience and ability if the were not to spin out. Even if it were the case at optimum speed and leading edge slats a Messerschmitt might be as agile, a Spitfire pilot had stick shake indicating when his aircraft was close to the edge of the flight envelope and so could maintain control with confidence (Hurricane pilots just chucked the aircraft around and relied on the sturdiness of the airframe, which neither the Spit or Me109 could).
quite true. A rookie Spitfire pilot could learn to ride the edge of the stall quite quickly, the 109 would flick roll (and the slats either didn't open simultaneously or they'd slam open and closed making gunnery difficult. Some slats were therefore wired shut.) The Hurricane was also susceptible to wing drop at the stall without much warning. Another reason why it was used against slower, less nimble bombers.
@@AlistairNY Prandtl cribbed the work of Englishman Fredrick Lanchester who originated the benefits of the elliptical wing design in 1908. As for supermarine, Mitchell had been using the elliptical planform for years prior to the Spitfire. Don't believe the nonsense on Netflix or BBC revisionist history.
I like the comparison of the Hurricane/Spit as the latter just looking more sleek and modern. I think that may be why the Corsair is so much more popular than the Hellcat. The Corsair just looks better while the Hellcat appears sort of old and stumpy and looks not much different than the crusty Wildcat to the average onlooker.
The appearance meant a lot. It is reflected more recently by the number of Lamborghini posters on teenage boys bedroom walls. They just look more way out and exciting than Ferraris!
To a point but the unique linebacker looks of the P47 gave it a big following, By contrast the Hellcat looks basic and simple and doesnt stand out unless you take a much closer look.@@R760-E2
So first, another video that blew away my expectations. Well done! I personally would break the question into two parts, those being how did the Spitfire's technical characteristics compare to those of the Bf-109, and how did pilot skill impact that performance. It was really gratifying to see both Dr. Wehner and Mr. Holland touch on the second point as a factor that is more difficult to quantify. It was also important that the discussion seemed to focus on the period of the Battle of Britain: Considering how many models of Spitfire were developed, comparing it with the Messerschmidt is something of a moving target. For myslf, I would say the Spitfire was more anesthetically pleasing, but the two aircraft were both very well designed. I would have to ask if other aircraft characteristics were markedly superior to either of these. For example, how did the P-51 compare to the Bf-109? How did the Focke Wulf 190 compare to the Spitfire. You can really go down a rabbit hole with this topic. A very interesting discussion, up there with your best. Thanks for sharing!
I think the best (if unwitting) friend the Fighter Command pilots had was Herman (fatty) Goering, with his order that the German fighter pilots must fly in close support of the bombers. They wasted so much fuel weaving to stay in close formation to the bombers that they had very limited “linger time” over Southeastern England. I never could understand why they didn’t fit extra fuel tanks, or drop tanks to the bf 109s.
The Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle of Britain in the minds of those brave young men from all over the world who fought the Luftwaffe [flying circus, to use a matching pejorative]. If they really had inferior equipment, all the more kudos to them; but they humiliated an enemy already drunk with early, easy conquests.
Something thing to consider regarding the Germans perspective on the RAF, is that the US did not start supplying 100 octane aviation fuel to Britain until 1938. It took until just before the BoB that the testing, and associated modifications to the Merlin engine, were completed. This meant that the Hurricanes and Spitfires that the Germans met earlier over France had poorer overall performance than the ones they met over Britain. Another issue with the 109 was its armament. The two 20mm MGFF had a relatively poor muzzle velocity compared to its two 7.9mm machine guns. So bullet spread could lead to fewer rounds impacting on a maneuvering target (there’s a video of a Bf110 shooting at a Hurricane, where the 7.9 machine guns are hitting, but the 20mm shells track harmlessly below). The Spitfire and Hurricane with their eight .303 machine guns, while of a rifle caliber, could be tracked on target more consistently.
Re "the Hurricanes and Spitfires that the Germans met earlier over France," a clarification. Spitfires were no committed to the Battle of France. The only ones that appeared "over France" were those covering the evacuations at Dunkirk and other ports. Mixed armament is indeed an issue, as the bullet trajectories will virtually never be the same.
This is an underrated consideration and is why I tend to fly American planes with their all .50 cal armament. It's so much more consistent to hit with ALL your guns at the same time and not have to worry about the differences.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS not exactly true. Spitfires were engaged over France and the Netherlands prior to Dunkirk. A total of 67 Spitfires were lost over Europe, including the evacuation of Dunkirk. However I don’t believe any of them were operational with the 100 octane fuel/modified Merlins yet.
If you aren't already aware, and are interested, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles has deep dives related to that subject. His recent ones cover damage potential of various aircraft weapons, but .50 cal and up.
One thing about the Hurricane, it wasn't as advanced as the Spitfire or 109, BUT - it was still very capable & available in large numbers exactly when it was needed the most. One veteran pilot even preferred it to a Spitfire due to it being tougher, & most importantly, the nose tapered down, which gave better visibility, which was crucial in air combat.
And could be repaired very quickly even with severe damage , had a wider landing gear , was much quicker to rearm , and as you say many pilots that flew both thought the hurricane was a superior plane for getting you home with damage that they would have had to bail out of a spitfire .
Tough for a Hurricane pilot to use that visibility when the 109's and 110's are on his tail. The Hurricane was useful in numbers in 1940 over its own territory, but it was obsolete as a front line day fighter after that.
@@charlestaylor8566 nonsense. Any pilot who flew both knew that the Hurricane was lacking in every fighter metric except turn radius - a game that the LW fighters didn't play until ordered to stick with their bombers.
Eric “Winkle” Brown did a great interview on this, he flew both Spitfire, 109 and the FW190 (and many many more aircraft types). He rated the Spitfire and the FW190, however did not rate the 109 at all. Great video as always and very informative, keep up the fantastic work 👍🏻
He rated the 262 as the greatest leap forward in development, however not the best…….it’s engine reliability caused issues. But yes, Eric was easily the most experienced test pilot along with the likes of Alex Henshaw
@@almcculloch8906 ... that's not what i understood from listening to his opinion of the 262. He opined that the 262 was 5 years ahead of the allies. He related that the 262 had a vulnerability in its landing phase which required a long slow approach, offering allied fighters an opportunity for a kill and in fact this is how they were destroyed rather than through dogfighting. He did say it was the most fearsome of aircraft. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'best'. For me the most capable means the best. if you simply take (for example) how many enemy fighters a plane shot down as a measure then you're not allowing for how much or little time that type was in service compared to other aircraft types. The 262 was late to the party but in Eric Brown's view was the most capable, fearsome ... and the 'best'.
@@almcculloch8906no, Brown did rate the 262 as ‘without a doubt the most formidable aircraft of WW2, a quantum leap over anything else 125 mph faster than the fastest allied fighter.’ The engine life issue is exaggerated, they cost a fraction to make as a V12 piston engine and took thirty minutes to replace in the field compared to two days, reference Bob Strobel, Watson’s Whizzers.
As an observer, I appreciate the strengths of the 109. I imagine as a fighter pilot I would be very wary of being bounced by the German fighter as a burst from that cannon could be lethal before you even know the fighter is there. I am aware that experienced Spitfire pilots would have their guns set to shorter ranges to enable better concentration of fire. As you say though, pilot skill makes a big difference and experienced pilots lasted longer.
I'm very surprised nobody mentioned the tactics of the battle. Even to go back to Galland's auto biography, the 109s were handicapped when they were forced to close escort the bombers rather than free roam over the battle of britain. After the battle, when the RAF tried to raid france (before the arrival of the 8th Air Force) the reverse of the BoB happened and Spitfires flying escort or raids back across the channel were regulary shot down by 109s.
Exactly... Galland was pretty salty about handicapping the fighters in that way. Not that it matters, but it would be interesting if some future simulation could be run using a different doctrine to estimate if the outcome would have been different. Galland also complained about the lack of fighter pilot training (even that early in the war) and the fact that many of the more talented/best and brightest young men were gravitating to bomber training.
yes, the change in LW tactics can never be ignored in these discussions. Prior to that, the 110's and 109s were in the offensive hunter role and were decimating the RAF. Even so, the 110's still had the highest kill ratio of the battle.
The excellent and almost Transonic Supermarine Spitfire wing format was Beverley Shenstone's baby. Beverley Shenstone was a highly rated Canadian aircraft engineer who worked with Junkers Aviation inside the peacetime German aircraft industry just before the war. He specialised in developing advanced aerofoils and worked for Supermarine and Vickers to pass his advanced knowledge onto the wartime Vickers Aircraft technologists .
There was a guy who worked for Napier and De Havilland and another who designed radial Engines for Bristol Rolls Royce have a library full of the marvellous characters who worked in British aviation during both wars.
For the last 20 or so years I have come to realise that pilot skill is the decisive factor when aircraft are relatively similar. And of course the situation the opposing pilots are in when they are shooting at each other. Very closely matched aircraft the 109 and Spitfire.
I wouldn't like to have been a 109 pilot, I had already flown more than 20 miles before I crossed the coast and I wanted to get back after my work was done.
Doctrine also plays a role, one only has to look at the war in Ukraine to see that. The Russian tank doctrine of sending in tanks unescorted by infantry on foot cost them a lot of teams thanks to small anti-tank teams hiding the busses and trees along the roads that the Russians were using. And in the ME with Iraqi and Saudi troops equipped with M1 Abrams getting their butts kicked because they didn't use their tanks correctly.
I raced motocross in my youth and we had the same motto. 90% rider, 10% bike. As long as the bikes were close, it's all rider. A better rider on an inferior bike could also win.
As always you have the ability to get to the point - the problem is of course that pilot skills matter a lot - and as the war progressed the number af Bf 109 versions grew, just as the spitfires versions - this makes it increasingly difficult to make comparisons just between aircrafts - many times the pilots would not be able to se the subtle differences of enemy airplane versions in a dog fight - after all, the speeds and the time they had to judge the enemy, was usually very short. German tank crews where very scared of the rocket armed Typhoons - yet post battle and post war analysis have shown that their kill ratio was quite lousy. A pilots assessment is colored by so much more than just the airplane. My father flew in 331 and 19 squadron (MK V and Mk IX - and P51s) He loved the spitfire Mk IX - it was his choice - if he had to be in a dog fight - But the war changed from 1942 when he flew the Mk V to 44 with the MK 9 and 45 with the P51 - in the beginning the odds were much more equal in numbers. At the end - the odds were heavily stacked against the Luftwaffe. The moral was if they outnumbered the enemy - they attacked, if not, they turned tail and ran - its bette to live and fight another day - the Germans, very often did not have that luxury ! Airplane/experience/numbers/restitution/tactics and situation - how do you separate these factors ??As you asked - I don't know !
I think that Greg over at "Greg's automobiles and aircraft" said that (in his opinion, presumably) "the Spitfire IX was the best all-around dog fighter of WWII."
You didn't mention Adolf Galland's famous reply when, at the end of an inspection by Hermann Goering , he was asked if there was anything he needed. To which he replied... "a squadron of Spitfires, herr Reichmarshal".
Just came across this and really don’t know much but I do seam to recall that one of the things of note was when an enemy pilot sat in a spitfire and realised just how much better the cockpit was in terms of visibility and easy of use.
From other reading on comparisons of the Spitfire Mk1 & Bf109 E3/4 it is so interesting that 2 aircraft from 2 different countries fought each other and had such similar performance characteristics in 1940. The major obvious visual difference being the wing profile and corresponding wing loading but having identical, within a few percentage points, performance characteristics of climb rate, turn rate & top speed.
The Spitfire was most definitely decisive for one very good reason. Up to that point in the war the Germans had not encountered an organised force with an aircraft equivalent or better to the 109. You need good ground control, good pilots and good aircraft. Its a team game, if you like.
Another aspect of the aircraft is the unobstructed (or otherwise) view it provides the pilot. It would be interesting to hear the experts' opinions on the importance of this, and which aircraft it favours - those I have heard before felt the British aircraft were better in this respect. Good video!
As far as I have read, being the first to see was deemed very important in term of attack. Seeing a foe about to shoot you down would be even more important! That is why the British eventually changed their formation to allow pilots to concentrate on looking out rather than maintaining formation. So it is likely that a good view was desirable. The bf 109 was deemed particularly bad in this respect because of its bird cage canopy.
@@StuartH922 Some advantages are difficult to assess. Around 5% of all 109 losses occurred during landing and takeoff. Both the P47 and the Typhoon had remarkable strength and could take the pilot home despite being wrecked. Ease of maintenance ensured the success of the Hurricane and the P40, after they'd become obsolete as interceptors. An aircraft which is easy to maintain will double the size of your air force.
As someone who has ridden horses nearly my whole life, their is a term. "A good horse is never a bad colour". You take what you get and use it to it's strengths.
I remeber reading that with regard to turn rate, yes, the 109E was perfectly capable of turning with the Spitfire 1 and II, but that whereas the Spitfires manouverability came from its physical shape, the 109's was partly due to mechanisms, ie: the leading edge slats. When the slats operated they caused a banging noise that tended to worry inexperienced pilots, so they didnt push as hard in turns as their more experienced colleagues. It sounds a credible explanation to me, anyway! :-}
Yeah the overall flap and slat design of the 109E was far more sophisticated than on the Spitfire, which gave it excellent manouverablity when utilised.
Len Deighton mentioned something like this in his book “Fighter.” He postulated that when a 109 got into a tight turning fight against, (for instance,) a Spitfire, the wings of the 109 would start to vibrate, and some less experienced pilots would ease off on the tight turn, and that would be their downfall! The 109 also had a very narrow undercarriage, and after a sortie, over SouthEast England, upon returning to their bumpy French Airfields a percentage of them crashed because of the narrow undercarriage. The Supermarine Seafire had a similar problem when landing upon an Aircraft Carrier after a dogfight, or sometimes just because of rough seas.
A kind word for both suplementary experts now follows: Both were interesting & informative German audio technology seems superior to British 🤔 Another great video, thanks Chris
I'm speaking from my own personal experience, growing up in the South East of England with grand parents (now deceased) who were present at the time with both my grandfathers in the RAF in WW2 (though non flying). The Spitfire is such a symbol of resistance and victory for us against overwhelming odds, which is now almost bread through the generations in our DNA in Britain. It's very hard to be truly objective when a machine is so beloved by a group of people.
The 'Spitfire' was a military-fighter-aircraft of undeniable beauty - and also British-engineering, which captured the hearts of Britain and its allied-forces during their hour of need. The Spitfire is also tinged with sadness, for although the fighter has a definite romance about it, we will never forget the brave-pilots who lost their lives or were cruelly-disfigured during the battle of Britain. Lest We Forget.💐
I met a few old Luftwaffe pilots when I was stationed in Bavaria. They seemed very happy to have flown the FW190 instead. And two had flown the Me262, being ecstatic in their praise! (it helps to speak Deutsch at times!)
Nothing could keep up by late war, due to the sheer number of Allied planes. But the 109-K4 was still among the best propeller fighters until the end of the war.
@@scratchy996I mean on paper but they had many problems. Rather that be the quality of the pilots, logistics, reliability, etc while this isn’t exactly an issue with the plane itself though.
The plane itself kept up really well with the developments of allied planes. The problem was that avarage German pilot skills kept going down and they were outnumbered.
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. I greatly appreciate what must be a considerable effort to create this and then include others knowledgeable in this as well.
A while ago there was a BBC documentary about this, and they decided it was about equal performance. However, the Spitfires ergonomics, visibility and pilot protection were superior.
In George Lovings book _Woodbine red leader_ he relates how armor piercing rounds cut right through the backplate of Spit V's in a test his squadron performed on the ground. His Squadron would have been using .303 AP for that.
@@bbb462cidInteresting. Spitfire backplate spec created just for .303 ball ammo, not AP? Many of the 109s in the Battle of France lacked backplates, and Galland didn't even want it fitted ... until he borrowed his wingman's aircraft which was equipped, and it got hit.
@@stingingeyes I had typed a detailed reply but TH-cam has apparently eaten it. I didn't say anything about ball, or the spec for armor. I can provide the ISBN if you'd like to read the book.
I’m British so I will always be biased towards the Spitfire. It was a thing of beauty and deadly in the hands of a skilled pilot. Overall, the Spitfire and 109 were very comparable with minor strengths and weaknesses. They both lasted the duration of the war and were heavily updated to out preformed each other.
Fighter aircraft can be rated in two ways: in terms of capability (objectively) and greatness (subjectively). Climb speed, dive speed, straight line speed, kill-to-loss ratios, altitude performance, visibility firepower, maneuverability, and even ruggedness are capabilities that can be objectively measured and compared. Greatness is a subjective measure of impact in the battle space and the overall impression the aircraft made, especially in context with its assigned mission. Both can be used to rate aircraft.
@@viper2148 the comparison is between two aircrafts only, the rest is tactics, training, doctrine , experience and individual skills etc. Bf-109 performed better than Spitfire apart from turning. It was the result of the objective technical evaluation by German test pilots that time. By the end Bf-109 had better kill-loss ratio for fighter plans than any other during ww2: 1 loss to 7 kills.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 no, not at all. A common misconception is fighter aircraft are like boxers who both square out in their corners, tip their gloves and when the bell rings they both come out fighting. It never happens that way. Fighter aircraft are designed around operational systems and fighter pilots are trained to operate within those systems. The Bf109 was dominated by Spitfires during the Battle of Britain because it didn’t have the range to fully deploy tactics and despite the fact it was better armed the flurry of gunfire from the Spitfire’s eight Browning machine guns would almost guarantee hits from pilots with little combat experience. The Bf109’s superior diving capabilities mattered little when they were already operating at low altitude. Because of radar the Brits were able to pull the Germans into a horizontal battlefield where they dominated. Combat operations aside, individual combat always distills down to man-mission-machine (in that order). Btw the F6F Hellcat had a 19 to 1 kill-to-loss ratio.
@@viper2148 kill ratio must be used cautiously as there are too many variables involved on both sides. One must also consider the numbers game and how effectively they coordinate their teamwork and what tactics are used. In North Africa, the P-40s were inferior, but the allied bombers flew at about 12,000' forcing the 109's to come down off their perch vs just peck and zoom. Good teamwork in finger four sections and out numbering the LW gave the P-40's an advantage. By late 1942 they also had spitfires and P-40F's for top cover.
It is sad that there are so few people who spoke to Vet's of the wars these days always glad to hear from experts who have. I was lucky to talk to vet's of both world wars as a kid, asked them questions when they allowed. it was a pleasure, and a memory that i will always cherish.
Until the Spit got cannons to complement the machine guns it really was at a damage-caused disadvantage to the 109. It is interesting also to note that Gunther Rall in fact removed his wing armament on his 109 in favor of just the cowl and engine weapons to better increase his roll rate.
That is incorrct, with 8 MGs not only were the Spitfire an Hurricane the most heavily armed fighters at the start of the war, the damage they caused was unknown in 1940. A huge number of LW planes ditched in the Channel, crashed in France countryside or airfield or landed and never took off again.
@@johnbrewer8954 heavily armed in terms of number of guns, sure. But not in damage caused. As early as 1938 it was realized that they needed cannon. Look at the size comparison between a .303 round and a 20mm shell. It's laughable.
@@gerarddelmonte8776 And by 1940 they were getting cannon, which fighter was more heavily armed in Sept 1939? The cannon fitted to Bf 109s in 1940 had 6 seconds firing time, leaving them with 2 rifl calibre MGs. Comparing one round is laughable, the Spitfire Hurricane had 8 with a high rate of fire. It may have escaped your notice, Goering gave up in 1940 because he had lost too many bombers, all to rifle calibre guns.
I can remember an analogy about the Spitfire vs The Mustang and the 109. If you are fighting in the Neighbors back yard you want to be in the Mustang, It will get you there fight and get you home, If however you are fighting in your backyard you want to be in a Spitfire, and Vs the 109 He who sees the Enemy first normally has the advantage and the Spitfires had way better visibility, compared to the cramped confines of the 109, sure the higher rudder pedals on the 109 let's you pull more G but it restricted the joysticks movement, a trade off, of course I would say if We are talking FW-190, all bets are off as at the time of its introduction it was a far superior aircraft, At the beginning when Spitfires came into contact with the 109, German Tactics were far better than the British, We still flew in close formation , The Germans in contrast had polished their tactics and skills in places like Spain. I appreciate the Experts analysis, What was the best fighter out of the Two, I can't say, But it does come down to the Guy in the cockpit at the Time having the faith and Trust in His aircraft to get the job done and get Him home safe, and Both sides pilots had that I think in equal measures of their respective Aircraft
There are also soft issues to think of. The Spitfire was a relatively forgiving aircraft to fly, for example if you pulled too many G's in a turn the wings would start to flutter long before they tore off. This meant Spitfire pilots were far more willing to push the aircraft to the limit because it would WARN them if it was going to fall apart under heavy manoeuvres. This was NOT the case with the 109. In other words a skilled 109 pilot could get the best out of the aircraft, but less skilled 109 pilots would be much less willing to take their aircraft to the limit than the Spitfire pilots. Sometimes the soft aspects of the aircraft are as important as their hard paper stats. If an aircraft WARNS you before you tear its wings off you are more likely to trust the aircraft and push her to the limit. If it does not warn you, then thats something you have to keep track of to ensure you do not tear the wings off, its something you have to KNOW, not something you FEEL....
You can't compare Battle of Britain fighters with Mustangs or FW190. By that time there where Spitfires MkX, MkXII or MkXIV and Bf109Gs, all of them hugely improved.
@@vascoribeiro69 The FW-190 was Operational and flying in squadrons over France just 3 months after the " Battle of Britain" concluded , So in My mind it is in the time period
There is a line that I think came from James Holland's Battle of Britain book that stuck for me. "An experienced 109 pilot can get much more out of their aircraft than a novice pilot, using fine tuning controls over the engine. But in the Spitfire, the novice pilot could get just as much out of the aircraft as the experienced pilot."
Flying (stick and rudder) skills are one thing, but the next two levels are gunnery and then situation awareness. Those aren't learned overnight. At least a Spitfire could give a rookie the performance advantage to survive long enough to develop the latter two skills.
It's very fascinating to see that these characteristics of planes that one can experience in certain games seem to be very accurately translated from their real life counterparts. It is a great experience to use the own planes advantages and the competitors disadvantages to succeed in a fight at a time in aerial combat when that still mattered more than who has the more advanced on-board tech.
Comparing hardware is just easier than comparing the other variables which matter more. Namely pilot skill, tactics, situational awareness, weather conditions etc.
Well, if you're flying an inferior machine, then you'd better have much better skills and SA. Unfortunately, in attrition warfare (especially the Battle of Britain) the young replacement pilots were not that skilled.
I had a friend, now dead, who was a Pilot in 19 Sdr from just after the Battle of Britain until the end of the war. Although he liked the Spitfire he rated the Mustang as a better aircraft. But that is probably a matter of 'horses for courses', the Mustang of course not being available earlier. He did praise the Mustang for its ability to always get him home even with a few holes in it.
The purpose of the two planes were different. At an early stage the first Mustang were not so good because they were fitted with an Allison engine. Also the Spitfire which was design for mid level altitude was far more agile. But later when the Mustang was fitted with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine all in a sudden the plane revealed brilliant. And especially in high altitude. In high altitude reaching high speed the P38 and P47 encountered problems when reaching 70% of the sound barrier. And it happens that the Thunderbold lose all control and did a death dive, hitting the ground straight ! It was showned that the Me 109 and the Fw 190 were still good at 75% of sound speed. And .. the Mustang could reach 78% ! So Doolittle in charge of the 8th Air force decided to go for P51. Excellent in high altitude but weak un low altitude even the P39 Airacobra could outmatched it.
There wasn't just one Spitfire model though, Just as the 109E was replaced by the F, G and even K, the various Griffon engined and 20mm cannon armed Spitfires were very different beasts.
Is it even possible to judge ? I mean considering the huge amount of development stages would require a date stamp which versions were discussed cause both improved a lot but in different ways and I can remember some claims of german BF109 pilots (I guess in africa) that suddelny the Spitfire was outperforming their BF109 significantly. And that also changed over time from one side to the other side - again recogniced by the pilots. Of cause pilots impression but I guess that you know the difference if you feel your plane falling behind cause it will scare you. You would need a 1940 comparison based on mark and Ausführung to get that once right. Regarding sources I would assume that after 1955 and the new foundation of the Luftwaffe the german industry could have asked the fighter aces about their war experiences. Of cause 10 years after the war and with the meanwhile happened introduction of jets and rockets it might not make much sense from our 2023 point of view, but if you are Messerschmidt Management and the government might ask for a next fighter you would prepare the best for that case , but obviously you could not got to the british or american manufacturers and ask what is needed for a nowadays fighter. Therefore I would bet they might have asked and gathered all data from the pilots in the last 2 years 1944 and 1945 regarding performance and what a manufacturer had to look for. There should be some manufacturers reviews in the archives of these companies cause they were benefitting the most from these impressions and reports. Why should they have not tried to get all the Waffenamt reports into their hand and even more to judge better about future developements and priorities. These companies were still independent regarding research, each one keen to get more contracts than before and always competing against each other. So I would try to get in contact with the german manufacturer especially since the german companies nowadays have bigger historian departments focussing on WW developements and slave labor. There might be some treasures to find. But of cause tough work and it always depends how well they are prepared and what focus they have had in the past. Some tend to ignore the progrees achieved by the company during the war and might not have a clue while other can show you documents of early considerations. An awfull lot of work, but I guess the Messerschmidt archive has a strong connection to their history, even though now part of airbus and much harder to find.
I would like to know what the British official evaluation of the BF109 was. Also what was the cost of the aeroplanes in question. I believe the Spitfire was much more expensive to make than the Hurricane. What about the BF109? And how long did it take to make each and how difficult was it? In wartime these are often the most important factors. Also the training required to fly each of them.
The one thing not mentioned that I've heard with several comparisons between the Spitfire and the 109 is that the Spitfire was more forgiving to fly. It needed a very good pilot to get the best out of the 109 whereas a relatively inexperienced pilot could fly the Spitfire. This was really important for the UK during the Battle of Britain.
Yes, Extremely important when so many young lads are being trained and need to survive their first dozen missions before starting to become competent. The Spitfire was the best handling fighter of the war and a pilot could ride the edge of the stall with lots of confidence without flick rolling.
Another thing to consider. Engineers at the time at different airfields were likely tinkering around with each aircraft independent to pilots preference to squeeze more performance out of an early design. i.e Carb settings at certain Alts , Engine timing., Higher octane fuels, control linkages ,Adding or removing control surface tabs. So potentially a BF109 could be facing A mk2 for example that is either worse performance than normal or unusually better than the standard factory issue. This could be related to pilot skill if they had an engineering background.
That's why Squadron leaders had the pick of the bunch. No two Fighters performed the same. And let's remember. Stats are taken from a performance air-test. Which are handed down for us to row over. But many other of the same mark would fly worse or superior to the said performance tested aircraft.
However as this clip amply explains pilot perceptions could often be a deciding factor. One example that comes to mind is a story my partners Grandad told me about a brief encounter with a Me 262 over Germany. Cliff was escorting a bombing raid in his P51D Mustang when he spotted the 262 coming straight towards him at a higher altitude and an even higher velocity. His overwhelming thought in the moment was simply keep going mate, keep going… And of course certain pilot perceptions of enemy aircraft characteristics come into play in situations such as this. They were often accurate. Despite the 262 having many undeniable deficiencies, high speed and devastating firepower were not among them.
Something you might have mentioned was that the Spitfire was apparently much kinder to inexperienced pilots than the Bf109. As mentioned in the report, the Spitfire was easy to fly and didn't have sudden stalls. The Bf109, by contrast, was a much harder plane to fly, but rewarded skilled and experienced pilots with outstanding performance (in 1940 at least). Inexperienced pilots were particularly prone to crash the Bf109 on take-off or landing, due to its tricky low speed handling.
Very good observation Davd. I read many memoirs and reports of German fighter pilots and several of them complained about how fragile and rather unstable was the Me-109's carriage, making it a difficult plane to land smoothly.
I think the battle of Britian fighers were comparable. A couple of big issues that are overlooked is the time over target and the fact that a Brtish pilot had a good chance of flying again if he was shot down because they were fighting over England.
From what I gather, I think each fighter fitted a specific role in regards of each factions position. Germans had to deal with different problems than the British, due to distance to cover and being the more focused on bombing and escort, while the British needed a plane that could deliver a quick reaction time for defensive interception. It's still quite interesting to see these takes on the matter.
At the time of the Battle of Britain, on which this analysis seems to focus, the Bf109 probably had slightly superior overall combat performance. By the time of the Spitfire Mark IX, it had overtaken the 109, and would not relinquish that advantage. But I agree with James Holland: the Spitfire was dazzling beautiful. To my eyes, one of the most beautiful works of human hands ever made.
From a 24-year Air Force pilot's perspective, I believe you will always have objectivity issues when it comes to one-on-one aircraft comparisons. All air forces develop tactics optimized for their pilots and aircraft, and those become deeply ingrained over time, and I say only half-jokingly that I wouldnt be too surprised if you could find an A-10 pilot that thinks they could take on a whole squadron of Migs. Engineers with no significant flight background are always going to be your best source of raw, unfiltered performance data.
Operational context is more important than one-on-one comparisons, although in attrition warfare a rookie will last longer in a machine with higher performance... maybe long enough to learn gunnery and SA.
"Spitfire vs 109" is not granular enough! There are so many different matchups to talk about i.e Mk 1 vs E, Mk V vs F, Mk IX and XIV vs G etc. It's impossible to say one was better than the other in broad strokes. You could do a very lengthy series covering every single one of them. Particularly after 1942/43 the Fw 190 becomes the main rival of the Spitfire and a more important threat to deal with too. The Spitfire LF IX vs 190 A is another of the great closely matched aerial rivalries of the war.
At this stage of the war Germany had advantage in machines ,firepower and experienced pilots . Dowding was right worrying about his pilot numbers , but getting up to ceiling was as your speaker said an important fact . My Grandfather served in the Coldstream Guards at Dover, during what is termed the Battle of Britain by Churchill. with a machine gun section helping to protect the important Radar stations from the divebombers , which was an important part of the preparations to overcoming the defence . A 'bollocking' from Biggin Hill came for the section as the Ju-87 climb rate left RAF pilots following them in line of ground fire he admitted. But that friendly fire went both ways ,so had the British fighters been equipped with 20mm cannon early he may not have survived. Interesting PoV , the 109's and dogfights over the channel, in both directions, were mainly watching vapour trails.
The way I learned it is that the Spitfire and the BF109 were near equals but the decisive advantage that the Spitfire had was it had a lot of fuel when it got into a fight with BF109s. The 109s has to cross the channel and could only fight for a few minutes whereas the Spitfire could just keep on attacking.
It's pretty rare to have a fighter that's objectively better than one of its counterparts in all aspects. It's more about identifying its strengths and weaknesses relative to each counterpart and then working out and widely adopting tactics that try to maximize your identified advantages and mitigate your known weaknesses vs that other aircraft.
Wasn't that rare, many smaller nations utilized bi planes and often forgotten interwar planes, even the Ussr early on. These planes stood little chance against the modern planes of Germany/Japan.
By late war, Japan was totally out matched by allied plane models as well.
@@pickleman40 the zero was probably a better plan than the wildcat.. the hell cat hands down outclassed the zero. but yeah, I would say more often than not. Plans were greatly missed matched in performance.
@@Reggiestreet agreed, hence why i made the late war distinction. Saburo Sakai says it himself, japan was completely outclassed by american models after the early period fighting cobras and wildcats. It was utterly hopeless to attempt engaging the b29, sakai saying he knew of only one pilot who could and it required a good condition j2m2.
Thats to say nothing of the failure to develop better tactics or communocation
Ultimately its down to the pilot if plane performance is close. But Bf109 gets underrated because people forget its high level of automatic pilot aids, which significantly aided the Bf109 in dogfighting and pilot endurance. The Bf109 suffered in the Battle of Britain, because it was fighting on half empty tanks and the enemy had radar.
@@brokeandtiredhigh level of pilot aids? You mean the FW-190? That was a clever plane!
I read a great book by an RAF Spitfire pilot. He flew at Dunkirk the Battle of Britain. He states how at the beginning of the war it was hard because of the experience of the German pilots then towards the end it was a lot easier because the Germans were only sending boys across to fight. He was killed in 1944 aged 26, it really puts a perspective on how young and brave all the airmen were from both sides.
Slightly off topic, but we were sending young and inexperienced pilots into battle later in the war (USA) as well. There were also numbers of experienced pilots from the beginning of the war no longer on the front lines. However, instead of attrition, the US voluntarily sent the experienced pilots home to train the new generation of pilots and pass on their knowledge. When you think things through, regardless of how good someone is, eventually their time will come. Look at the Red Baron. At some point you will lose a good pilot. So, may as well pull the plug before the inevitable happens and bring them home anyways. Then you still have them as an asset to use outside of combat. And also to send to advanced leader training and go back as higher leadership. Not sure if Jimmy Doolittle had leadership training or just got promoted, (the info I have access to says he just got promoted and given a command), but after his famous raid he went into higher leadership. He did fly some combat, but much less. He was the one to develop better tactics for fighter cover for bombers. Japan and Germany would have just kept him on the front lines until he burned into the ground. Literally. The US eeked out much more value from him and his experience.
@@nomadpurple6154 This happened in late 42 early 43 when the USAAF Eagle Sqn pilots were transitioning to the P47 The pilots in the P47 challenged the Spitfire pilots to mock fights because they though the new P47 would be better than the Spitfire. It turned out bad for them after 4 were lost quickly trying to stay with the Spitfires in the turns . So much so that the P47 WERE NOT to take on the Spits below 8000ft Source; Spitfire A Complete Fighting History by Alfred Price page 83
only sending boys ??? who do you think was flying spitfire's lol
@@topbanana4013 Yes we forget that.
I am sure I heard the average age of a RAF fighter pilot was just 20 ! Seems incredibly young.......at the time you needed to be 21 years old to vote !
I remember my father's friend, who had been a Mosquito pilot in the European war theatre, had extremely fast reflexs and spatial awareness when playing tennis. He was never shot down and very rarely lost a tennis game. So I would say it depends on the pilot providing he is flying a good machine.
I know it's fiction but that reminded me when Hangman was playing darts in Maverick and he hit the bullseye three times, once when his co pilot covered his eyes. Maybe that was included in the film based on similar stories of pilots having great spacial awareness.
I have read an account from an ace that was much more nerdy than that. He described surviving combat as being similar to looking both ways even though you are emerging onto a one way street.
I remember hearing the raf liked to recruit motorbikers. As a pilot and biker myself, I absolutely think it is a advantage. Aircraft turn like a motorbike (you have to balance the speed and rate of turn) not like cars, where it's a 2d affair.
Mike Spick wrote a book called _'The Ace Factor'._ in which he concluded that situational awareness was more important than pretty much any other attribute.
And pilots who had hunted birds before tend to be better aerial marksmen since they're aware of how to aim ahead of the target.
I am old enough to have met a few Battle of Britain fighter pilots who were friends of my father. I think the biggest advantage the RAF had was fighting over home territory so they could engage for longer and have a better chance of fighting another day if they were shot down. Thanks for an interesting video.
They also had the best radar network in the world to track and intercept German air raids. Everything Germany did played perfectly into the strengths of Great Britain's defenses.
RADAR meant all the fighters could be waiting on the ground and still be ready and waiting for the German formations when they arrived at altitude.
Without RADAR the Poles and French needed continuous fighter caps to protect their forces from raids. This reduced the availability of aircraft due to wear and tear on both aircraft and crews. Britain never had a shortage of aircraft but always a shortage of pilots.
@@Blizofoz45 That is half a myth. Sure, Britain had a functioning RADAR network that was very advantageous in scrambling for defense, but it certainly wasn't the best. The Germans actually had more sophisticated RADAR at the time that could measure plane type, height, position and bearing with more precision, which they forwarded not just scrambling fighters, but also AA-batteries.
The British bombers felt the reverse punch and more. It is not just spoken of in the standard narrative. Later in the war, it became a different thing. Britain and US developed and surpassed Germany on that technological field. Also, Germany's network wasn't as coherent due to a diffuse, larger and newly conquered territories borders.
So yes, Germany played into British strength by trying to fight an air war across a channel they didn't control and was detected by "a" radar network. But what I am saying is that if Britain had had German radar tech, the situation would have been far worse.
And let's remember. They (Germany) weren't that far off from succeeding anyway, but there are many other and more important factors than the RDF.
@@henrikg1388 Hitler had zero chance of a successful invasion of Britain. Just one cruiser or destroyer in amongst Hitler's invasion fleet would have wrecked the entire operation. And Britain had hundreds of such ships, and air support. Hitler's surface navy was very weak compared to the Royal Navy.
Even with radar, it required a fighter capable of climbing to meet the enemy of superior numbers having an extreme altitude and speed advantage, meet on the enemies terms and still dominate. The spitfire did that.
A further point regarding the Spitfire's effect on the populace. My parents were teenagers during the war.. and not only did the Spitfire have this incredibly beautiful aesthetic but, its engine had an absolutely incredible sound unlike anything else.. a deep roar that exuded power, fortitude and a fighting spirit. This, married with its beauty proved not only an inspiring harmony but also a motivating and lifting of morale. My father was in the airforce too.
Even to this day, the unmistakable sound of a Spitfire is remarkable, so one can only surmise its effect in its day.
Even today the sound of a Merlin engine will get me running outside to see what's flying over. Very distinctive sound.
I used to live on a hill near the flight path to Eastleigh airport and in the airshow season we'd have allsorts of iconic WW2 aircraft low flying on a circuit to land there.
Yep -- I heard the Packard version in Mustangs at an airshow years ago. --fantastic sound. (Chuck Yeager was flying one.)
Other British engines get me going too,
Perkins Diesel 204
Triumph 650
Didn't the Hurricane's similar Merlin engine not make exactly the same sound as that of the Spitfire? The sound of the Merlin is legendary but it was used to power not only the Spitfire and the Hurricane but also the Mustang, the Mosquito and the Lancaster and variants of other aircraft such as the Halifax and the Beaufighter. The sound of the Merlin isn't only the sound of the Spitfire.
You obviously haven't heard the sound of a Pratt and Whitney R2800-1850 18 cylinder twin wasp with a two speed two stage supercharger on the Hellcat, Corsair or a P-47 it rumbles much lower than a Merlin.
Both the Spitfire and 109 were amazing and iconic machines.
I say we all agree on that!
@johnharris7353 yes we do, i was at RAF cosford today, one of the things i wanted to do was I wanted to see which i "liked" best, i honestly tried to be as objective as possible (considering im an englishman - but also an engineer). The ME is undeniably a beautiful machine to be sure, but the spitfires wings (and lines) are just magic.
2 of my favorites
But the Spitfire is way more beautiful.
I've read a few James Holland books and he is an excellent source.
In WWI and WWII, given a competitive fighter, it's pilot skill, doctrine, and other factors that will be important. Part of this is knowing the both your plane as well as the enemy's planes.
The Spitfire and BF109 were competitive with each other.
Werner Voss's famous final flight proves this, as a case example.
@@WanderfalkeAT Yes! But from the MkVII onwards and the best of the bunch, the MkXIV Griffon powered Spitfire, the later 109s were no match.
Interesting but not of that era. While I was at LUKE AFB. New Jersey Guard sent down 5 F4E Phantoms to fly DACT against our F16 and F15. We got our behinds kicked. Why? Because the Guard pilots had many more hours on type and a good many of those hours were in combat with real bullets! Experience and knowing your aircraft counts for an awful lot.
To me it's not just it's outright performance. how easy were they to maintain and build. No point having 100 excellent fighters if they are facing 1000 decent fighters and they can only do a 5:1 ratio on downing the enemy. Having a super manoeuvrable aircraft is no good if the average pilot cannot land it. So many factors are involved, it's not a game of Top Trumps.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 if an F-16 got beat by an F-4 in a dogfight, he should be embarrassed. The F-4 sucks big time to the F-16. That is like getting beat in an F-22 by a Mig29.
It's interesting that 303 squadron equipped with 'inferior' Hurricanes was the highest scoring unit in the Battle of Britain because of it's highly skilled and ferocious Poles and Czechs.
Most of the Polish pilots in 303 Sqn had about 10 years flying experience in inferior aircraft. Despite this they still performed well against overwhelming opposition in the Battle of Poland. Give them Hurricanes and a chance of revenge against the beastly Hun the result is only to be expected .
@@philhawley1219 That revenge must have tasted good, I envy them that.
And 303 only joined the battle half way through. The pilots would attack the bombers head on. Most of the crew were at the front of the aircraft (HE 111 in particular) under plexiglass so the effect of 8 brownings converging at 300 yards was utterly devastating.
I've often wondered if, given the inferior planes that Poland had, it is not likely that a high proportion of Polish pilots having survived Poland's invasion where exceptionally skilled ones. Not that I want in any way diminish their merit as I truly admire them and find their ulterior treatment by the British disgusting.
@@liamquigley4670 But they also shot down an amazingly high number of Me-109's while flying the Hurricane. I suspect the fact that Goering ordered the German fighters to stay close to the bombers at this point in the Battle contributed to the tally however when you look closely at these guys performance at this point in the Battle you can see they were a major contributor to Britian's victory. They were an unexpected and strong counterattack at the moment of the Luftwaffe's greatest weakness.
An important consideration is that there was no single “Spitfire” but rather a very large variety of them. The performance of a Mk-IV was significantly different than that of a Mk-IX for example. So it is no surprise that there were a range of evaluation scores over the course of the war. The same can be said if the Me-109, it too evolved greatly from 1939 to 1944. This wasn’t mentioned in the video, but regardless I thoroughly enjoyed it!
This is a really good point. It served throughout the whole war and with upgrades remained highly competitive.
Um...do you mean the Mark V compared to the Mark IV? Typo?
The actual Mark IV was the first Griffon-powered Spitfire and only two were made, but, yes, there would have been a significant performance difference then to both Mark v and Mark IX...
Then there was the indifferent performance of the two-bladed Watts propellor and the old Vic tactics with an inexperienced wingman often watching the leader and sometimes easy meat for an opponent.
Similar things can be said about the Mustang and the Corsair. The Mustangs got better after the British put Merlin engines in them and after a more bubble canopy was added. The Spitfire was beautiful and sounds awesome, but my favorite plane of WWII is the Corsair used by US Marines. Different designs for different combat roles.
Exactly. The Spit VII had a top speed of 426 mph at its critical altitude.
My father was a bomber pilot in that awful conflict. He grew up in London. During a conversation he said prior to WW2 he went to an air show and was "dazzled" by the Hurricane and I think a Wellington. They were a quantum leap forward in design compared to previous RAF types.
Bomber crews were some of the bravest people to ever live.
There was an "ebb & flow" to the Spitfire vs BF 109 rivalry. The 109E had some clear advantages vs the Spit Mk.I in the Battle of Brittan but the limited range of the 109 and fighting over enemy territory was a major handicap. Then the Spit V had the advantage until the 109 F/G models were introduced with upgraded engines & aerodynamics. Once the Spit IX was introduced the upper hand was secured until the end of the war for the Spitfire in a dogfight scenario especially in higher altitude engagements. You also have to factor in the aircraft design priorities as the war progressed... once bombs started falling on the Reich it was far more important to the war effort to shoot down a bomber than a fighter.
The Spitfire Mk V with the single speed supercharger Merlin 45 was not that hot, the 2 speed supercharger Merlin XXs were put in the slower Hurricanes! The much improved Bf 109F was not inferior to a Mk V.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Agreed but the Spit V was operational for almost a year before the 109 F series were.
@@HansJakobGrimmelshausen Me262 was a great plane, coming as a nasty surprise to the Allies. But the Allies had the comfort to have DEDICATED airplane types DEDICATED to specific tasks. In other words - to defeat an enemy, you just need to make his life troublesome. Allies kept using Spit IX for sweep and tactical support, but to defeat Me 262, Tempest V was a great choice. As KG 51 Me 262 pilot Hubert Lange reminds: “The Me 262’s most dangerous opponent was the Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed.” P.S. And do not forget about the Griffon-engined Spit XIV - it really made life short to Fw190D & Me262 crews...
@@HansJakobGrimmelshausen Just talking about the topic of the video; Spitfire vs Bf 109.
@@madmoses7830 Well yes From the MkIX on the Bf109 was beaten and badly, the bF109K was their only hope But the Mks XVI and XIV beat it
I have this recollection, that what really made the Hurricane actually more valuable than Spitfire in the overall battle, was it's faster, turnaround, I suppose. Something like, it took a landed Spitfire an hour to get rearmed and refueled, but only half of that for a Hurricane. The best plane is the one you have flying....
Also cheaper, much faster to produce, easier to repair etc.
Statistically during the battle Spitfire was more likely to bring its pilot home and if not far less likely to cook him
That had them so they used them. Holland puts it perfectly, stating Hurricane pilots wanted Spits
It was more valuable because there were many more of them. The Spit was hard to produce too.
Without calling bs , it used the same engine, had about the same fuel capacity, used the same number and calibre machine guns with the same round count. And the spitfire had easier engine access. So..how could the hurricane take half the time to turn around?
It is also interesting to know if the Spitfire from the first example was evaluated with 100 octane fuel and a constant or variable speed propeller. Gregs airplanes and automobiles channel mentioned the Germans evaluated a Spitfire captured in France before the BOB. It had a variable speed propeller and they used I believe 90 octane fuel. According to Greg they didn’t rate it very high. They were apparently unpleasantly surprised when they encountered the versions with constant speed propellers and 100 octane fuel later in 1940.
The Bf109 was equal to the MkV but by the MkIX was falling behind by the VII VIII was way behind The MkV was beaten badly by the Fw190 Equalled by the MkIX and was falling behind so much that it was an easy kill to the MkXIV It always had the best Roll rate I would recommend Eric Browns Wings of the Luftwaffe He extensively tested both the Bf109 and Fw190 He loved the harmony and control of the Fw190
Look how many German pilots scored over 100 kills !!
@@johnmaxwell3165 Nonstop combat tends to result in high scores or dead.
@@barryfortier6377
Yes,you either got the Iron Cross,or wooden one.
Russia. There were only a relative handful of Luftwaffe pilots who exceeded 100 kills exclusively on the Western Front. Werner Molders and Adolf Galland are two who immediately spring to mind.
An Englishman here, I love the superb content and the objectivity as well as respect shown. Kudos to you!
the guest speakers were much appreciated for their alacrity and clarity
In the early 2000's I knew Gunter Rall, I asked him one day about the Bf109E vs Hurricane Mk. 1. Without hesitation he answered " came down to the pilot " One of my Grandfather's flew Hurri I's in the B.o.B. That summer he spanked two 109E's!
Thanks to Dr Wehner and Mr Holland for their expert perspectives - I hope that you'll show up on MAH again soon.
It might have been a one trick pony, but that one trick was defeating the Luftwaffe, so of course they're not going to like it
thatd be true of the Battle of Britain was an equal battle.. it really wasnt.
Well, Goering called the Battle of Britain a draw.
He used to fly in Richthofen's circus. Can't say what his opinion was then.
@ZoomerStasi Well on this point I have a general principle...the best fighter, tank, rifle, ship is the one you win with. All the rest is academic.
@ZoomerStasi no it is not, because you are using racist, anti immigration rhetoric to compare weapons of war which is the height of stupidity. It literally means you are a moron.
But you do you, because that one sentence proved you are essentially stupid.
It is perhaps a double bladed sword that you think you are actually capable of free thought.....
@ZoomerStasi Well if those countries were at war with Britain boats might well be the best weapon. If they win. War is about winning and the best thing is the thing that causes you to achieve that aim. If you can build 10000 good planes it does not matter if your opponent can build 100 better ones for instance.
The key point about pilot skills being the determining factor is shown by devastating success of 303 (Polish) Squadron when only equipped with Hurricanes.
An often-forgotten factor is the poor performance of the Me109 in landing and take-off. Once the Luftwaffe advanced to the French coast and had to use grass airstrips, they lost 10% of their planes in ground accidents due to the 109s narrow wheelbase and poor rudder authority at low speeds. The situation grew worse when many of the experienced pilots had to be replaced with newbies.
By the time the war started the 109 was already a mature design but the Spitfire was only just coming out of prototype phase. From the first to the last Spitfire mark, it's power and rate of climb doubled.
I’m certainly not an expert by any means but if this makes sense to anyone who has a greater understanding and knowledge of the subject - a Spitfire was an aircraft that pretty much every pilot was able to get the best performance possible from it, but the Messerschmitt 109 had to be piloted by an extremely skilled pilot in order to get the maximum results of that aircrafts capabilities.
I hope this is a straightforward and understandable explanation.
Thanks to all the contributors to this vid. Are there any longer video's in the works with Mr. Holland & Dr. Wehner, Chris?
So much like Sherman vs Panzer IV vs T-34 or Gewehr 98 vs SMLE:
You get close enough that other factors are overwhelmingly more important than the marginal advatanges inherent in them.
Exactly. I really think the main fact that matters is that they are "good enough" for the intended job. Something of which the Panzer IV/T34/Sherman definitely fit into that category.
@@williamrori1274 And the tiger I - with only some 1400 build - got the best crews, which likely explains its reputation more then anything else.
@@Gruoldfar Well, there is the part where, at the critical part of the war, nothing could compare to it in armor and firepower 😝
@@WanderfalkeAT Maybeeeee. Realistically any of the later P4's w/ the KwK 40 L/43 were lethal to nearly anything the allies fielded all the way until the end of the war. The 30mm added front armor was a solid addition though, and I can't help but wonder how much better Germany would have fared if the development of the P5 & P6 was scrapped in favor of improving the P4 and TD's further.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 yet even then the British could reliably knock it out with smaller guns. Also ignoring the fact the Churchill Mk.III onward had thicker frontal armor then the Tiger.
Would love to know what Spitfire pilots thought of flying a 109.
Eric Winkle Brown wasn't so complimentary, though he loved the Fw 190.
The 109 was a bit of a swine to fly in comparison to the Spitfire, with a cramped cockpit and heavy controls that only got heavier as speed increased (and could not be fully deflected in the lateral axis due to the size of the cockpit), and lacked rudder trim which would allow you to fly "hands and feet off", unlike the Spitfire which had very benign characteristics and was much easier to fly and control. Neither were easy to taxy on the ground but the Spitfire took off and landed a lot less dangerously.
Not much. Didn't like the narrow undercarriage, cramped cockpit with poor rear view and that you couldn't trim it to fly 'hands off'.
@@blockheadgreen_ He's the one who stole a 109 to escape a POW camp, right?
@@clicheguevara5282 No, he's the most experienced test pilot in history lmao.
@@blockheadgreen_ Anyone not familair with Eric Brown should learn about him if they're an aircraft enthusiast. No other pilot came remotely close to the variety of airframes he tested.
2:28 There was a fairly simple fix credited to Ms Beatrice Shilling who devised a restrictor plate to solve this problem. It was a brass thimble with a hole in the middle (later further simplified to a flat washer), which could be fitted into the engine's carburettor without taking the aircraft out of service. She was know as Tilly Shilling and her device was know as Miss Shilling's Orifice. There's a pub in Farnborough named after her.
What did the device do?
Restrict fuel or air?
Well said. The pseudo-historians and USAAF fan boys tend to ignor any mods that improved the Spitfire beyond the wiki disinformation, like Shilling's Orifice, metal ailerons, increased boost on various Merlins, s/c gear ratios, Aboukir air filter and dozens of other refinements.
@bobsakamanos4469
USAAF fan boys know nothing about the early war when things were in the balance. The USAAF turned up when the eventual outcome was already decided.
It’s fun to talk about these two planes. Both had their own strengths and weaknesses, and both were very, very good. I really like hearing both sides of the story, because it tells the whole story of the plane and the war. So, we’ll done bringing those perspectives to the presentation. Now, let’s hear about how the Luftwaffe thought of the P-51 Mustang.
I can tell you now they hated it......up until the P51, Luftwaffe pilots could stand off and wait for any fighter escort to turn for home leaving the bombers exposed. When the P51's arrived with their extended range it was a completely different kettle of fish.......
First of all, it was the "D" version that got a name.
Kurt Bühligen, the third-highest scoring German fighter pilot of World War II's Western Front (with 112 confirmed victories, three against Mustangs), later stated:
We would out-turn the P-51 and the other American fighters, with the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. Their turn rate was about the same. The P-51 was faster than us, but our munitions and cannon were better."[85]
German fighter ace Heinz Bär said that the P-51:
was perhaps the most difficult of all Allied aircraft to meet in combat. It was fast, maneuverable, hard to see, and difficult to identify because it resembled the Me 109.[86]
(Wikipedia)
Thank you very much for such interesting and important testimonies. @@2nolhta
@@garymoore2535Later Mks of Spitfires were better than the P51s outside of range.
The USA bombers were the ones delivering the key punch to knock out German War Production & refineries. Very very difficult to do whilst being mauled by the Luftwaffe during daylight hours. The P51 escorts with Merlin engines were a game changer ! Capable fighters with the range to escort the B17 bombers all the way to the target ! The P51s presented the Luftwaffe the dilema of whether to focus on the US bombers and run the very real risk of being shot down or tackle the P51's and ignoring the bombers ? Also imagine the effect on the morale of the US bomber crews, the chances of surviving a 25 raid tour dramatically improved !
I have to agree, one pilot's comments are an anecdote, multiple pilot's comments, taken together, make a more realistic assessment.
I appreciated both of your guests. I have seen Jens multiple times on MHV and it is always a pleasure to hear his thoughts and revelations.
there was many on the Bismarck that said they scuttled and sank there own ship, but there was a few below who said the sink was sinking before it was scuttled,. read history books it says the Germans sank there own ship. also Adolf Galland lol he wanted a squadron of spitfires in the battle of Britain ??>? seems history been twisted along the way and top aces comments forgotten let alone the stupid comment made after Jutland. the myth of Trafalgar has been broken or something on them lines lol can you see there not giving credit they never did and you cant compare them 2 battles but obvious its stuck in there heads to even mention it. the greatest sea battle ever never to be repeated surly did bother them
Also, by definition if you are interviewing a pilot he survived at least one encounter with a Spitfire.
I'm sure if you could interview the pilots that were KIA, their opinion of the spitfire would be different.
@@kelainefes how very true !
I always felt like Hollywood central casting was involved in the battle of Britain, the 109's look angular and the grey villain, and the spitfire curves and earthly colors represent the good guys.
Of course, how much of that is cause and how much is effect?
They were genuine 109s from Spain.
That was the proper camouflage for the time. The Germans had progressed from ground camouflage to air camouflage. The British were always worried about ground attack. The Squadron books on the BF-109 covers this.
Yes, when I think of a me109 it brings to mind Darth Vader's helmet,odd but?
Form follows function in German asthetic, no?
There is another important factor. It can be easy to get hung up on superior turn performance. While this may indeed provide a huge advantage in an isolated 1-on-1 encounter with no one else around, that is not what frequently happened. Quite often you'd find yourself in a furball with many other friendlies and hostiles, and getting bogged down in a slow turn fight would expose you to the risk of getting shot to pieces by someone you just didn't even see while you were fully focused on the plane you were turning with. I believe most pilots shot down never even saw the plane that got them.
In the 1st World War every pilot knew the advantage of attacking from altitude out of the sun. The difference is that the speeds were much slower and weaponry far less destructive (Twin Vickers as opposed to eight Brownings etc). This often resulted in extended dogfights and pilot on pilot duels each trying to out manoeuvre the other. In WW2 every fighter had advantages and disadvantages and was capable in the hands of experienced Pilots of evading the enemy attack. This led to the tactic of "bouncing" the enemy, making a single surprise attack from altitude and, whether successful or not, using superior speed to then get away to fight another day. Most fighter pilots did not ever see the plane that shot them down, it was over before they knew it had begun.
And that is where the FW190 left the spitfires into dust when it appeared. It would just split S disengage and go hunt other plane. IT was really hard for the MK V to fight the FW190 on a furball.
@@tiagodagostini true enough, at first. The P-47s couldn;t handle the 190s either (before paddle blades) but in the climb. This is why the Spit IX was rushed into service in '42 before the Spit VIII and it set the 190 pilots back on their heels. LW pilots not knowing which Spitfire Mk was being targeted saved a lot of Mk.V pilots. Later, the LF Mk.V Spits were hot rods and gave the 190s a run for their money.
@@tiagodagostini the inferior performance of the MkV was why the MkIX was hurriedly brought into action. It was better than the FW190 and stayed in production until the end of the war. It was a combination of the Mk5 and an upgraded model of the Merlin Engine.
That however, did not prevent Supermarine from improving Spitfire Marks (including Griffon MKs of Spitfire,) the MkIX was continued in use until the war ended.
@@donyoung1384 MK IX against the FW of same period had inferior roll rate, inferior instant turn rate over 450 km/h, Inferior top speed, larger drag coefficient (so it accelerated slower in dives), less firepower. It had higher max climb rate, better sustained turn,better low speed handling,
Hardly anyoen woudl cosnider the mk IX definnitely better than the FW 190. The MK IX only became a match later when it got allowed to use very high octane fuel (that woudl kill the engine in a short lifetime, but at that point in war UK had no problems replacing the engines anymore)
So far, as I understand it, the Spitfire did undergo several updates (same with the 109). So, we cant talk about "THE" Spitfire or "THE" 109. Early in the war, it seems, German aircraft were superior. However, later in the war, the aircraft were equally matched or even outperforming German planes. The Griffon Spits were a different beast then the early ones with the Merlin engine.
There were 24 different recognised Marks of Spitfire. There were also dozens of upgrades in between the recognised Spitfire Marks.
Yes, but by that time there were superior beasts at prey: P51, FW190, etc
@@yepitsme4065 What I said applies also to other aircraft, like the P51 and the FW190. They were upgraded constantly during the war.
Yes absolutely, but they started at a better point and were always superior, overall, to the Spitfire. @@Gentleman...Driver
@@yepitsme4065 there were only a relative few Spitfire 14s and frankly the P51 was only superior to the Spitfire Mark14 in one aspect, range. In all other aspects the Mark 14 was superior. Mind you, the torque produced by that Griffon engine and five blades propellor was horrendous!
The British continued to use Spitfire Mark IXs until the end of the war and they were considered to be as good as any German, piston engined fighter.
Thank you Christoph, Jens and James. Good video.
I knew, he's gone now, a guy who was a fighter pilot in 109s and 190s back in the 1970s and early 1980s. He loved the FW 190s, he was mostly a 109 pilot until he was sent to a FW 190 squadron.
@@WanderfalkeAT I forgot that he mentioned that, he said the Bf 109 was always looking for new ways to kill you when low and slow. Thanks for the reminder
@@kirkmorrison6131Makes sense it was so finnicky at the low and slow- It's a LOT of torque going through that engine and such a small airframe. The fragility of the 109 is also something to consider.
@@Birdy890 Yes, it was strong in some ways but fragile in others. Then all airframes are compromises. You can't have a single airframe do it all
Didn't know the Luftwaffe were still flying 109's and 190's in the 70's and early '80's.
@@ray.shoesmith I knew that pilot then. He flew them from 1942 to 1944 then FW 190s
First of all, thank you for your serious and in-depth researches!!! Much needed, especially in these times. IMHO, i think that the overall quality of a system (detection, GCI direction, training plans and logistics to support all this), means that, provided you have on-par equipment, you can withstand any opponent's attacks. The climb-dive-turn-speed capabilities thing becomes secondary.
Hi Chris. Great video. It was good to hear from your experts. One thing that has also to be taken into account when answering this question is that both the ME Bf109 and Spitfire evolved rapidly, even throughout the Battle of Britain. As they evolved, one marque out-performed its opponent until a newer version was released.
A very good point.
We shouldn't forget the incremental arms race aspect to war. Rolling out new designs into the field to gain the advantage was critical. Germany started the war with the wheels of industry churning out war machines; Britain started late, much less prepared. Surviving was Britain's primary objective for three years.
Germany starting a war with Russia (June 1941) and America entering the war on the Allies side (Dec 1941), left the Axis powers with an unsurmountable industrial and manpower disadvantage, which took a few more years to play out to it's conclusion.
This summary is a massive reduction of detail. I recommend everyone finding a specific old war topic (there are so many to choose from) and study every gruesome detail until you feel the gravity of it in your bones. "To understand Peace, study War. Conversely, to understand War, study Peace"
A key difference between Spitfire and Hurricane was that the latter did not have a self-sealing fuel tank. A large proportion of the RAF fighter pilots who were badly burned flew Hurricanes. I think that many of the experienced pilots in the Battle of Britain knew this - though they might not have emphasised it to less experienced pilots, who already had enough to worry about.
Exactly ! Return fire from bombers was especially troubling as rounds could penetrate the unprotected header tank and firewall. The resulting fire would torch through the firewall burning the pilot.
The reason for Adolf Galland saying he wanted a squadron of spitfires was that Goering was forcing them to use tactics that a spitfire would be better at than a ME109. Goering was forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers despite the fact that this would allow the british to engage them in dogfights at will where the spitfires superior turning ability was an advantage. A less manuverable but faster plane like the ME109 should be free to come in high and use zoom and boom tactics. Adolf was trying to get across to Goering that he was forcing the Luftwaffe to use tactics that would give the RAF the advantage
I remember watching a documentary years ago, that spoke specifically to Hurricane pilots from the Battle of Britain. They where most indignant that any shot down German pilots would swear it was done by a Spitfire, never a Hurricane!
post war accounts should always taken with a bti of salt. Even when they were the only ones that had the most credible system of confirming kills (gun cameras).
@@Keckegenkai
Post-war the actual figures of losses on each side were available.
@@20chocsaday im not talking about documantary work but of personal pilot accounts. All were great guys but biased towards themselfs and their machines
"Achtung! Orkan!"
- the one honest German pilot shot down by a Hurricane.
In all seriousness though I can imagine the RAF's command had a hand on that, supposedly they directed the Spits towards the enemy fighters and the Hurricanes towards bombers.
What I found notable was that when aces from both sides got to examine / fly their enemy's aircraft then & now, they always said they preferred their own .. even while acknowledging the strengths of the other aircraft. These included Bob, Tuck, Galland, Bader ... they all liked what they knew best :)
To compare two aircraft we should be in the same time frame as you did. We should note that in the first report the propeller had a fixed pitch maybe the early wooden two blade Watts propeller. This was before the Battle of Britain for sure. Then the technical stuff like aircraft performance at different altitudes, firepower, tactics in use, etc. Due to the understanding of limitations, both the Spitfire and Bf-109 had new improved versions until the end and after the war. One of the main decisives factors in the Battle of Britan was that the downed pilots, could rejoined fight.
You mentioned post war production of both acct. Interestingly the Spanish HA1112(I believe used a Merlin engine in a Bf109 airframe and some of these were used in the film "Battle of Britain" Also the Czechs put Jumo engines in their 109 airframe and sold them to the Israelis.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 yes, it was a Merlin engine. But I was referring to the Spitfire (and Seafire) that had exclusive post war versions. The F.21 was active in the last days of war, the F.22 and 24 came after, the FR.47 even went to Korean War.
@@vascoribeiro69 I think their were late model Spits in Malaysian crisis also.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 yes, FR 18 and F.24
That first German report was very soon outdated as all Spitfires were then fitted with a variable pitch propellor and started using 100 octane fuel that greatly improved its performance. The Luftwaffe pilots reading that report had a nasty surprise when they found a Spitfire could suddenly keep with them in a climb. Also the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain was very often at a disadvantage of height, being bounced time and again.
One of the best accounts of possibly the first prolonged dogfight between a Sptifire and a Me109 on equal terms, is in Al Deeres book, Nine lives.
It happened just before Dunkirk, the two pilots had a extended low level dogfight where Deere managed to fairly easily get on the 109s tail. The German pilot couldn't shake him off, but Deere couldn't quite get his guns to bear for a killing shot, it ended with both breaking off the fight unhurt. A good example of a tactical situation that initially gave neither pilot an advantage. With evenly matched pilots it showed how evenly matched the airplanes were as well.
One thing regarding agility and manouverability and the Spitfire, was the semi eleptical wing; where part of the wing would stall in advance to the rest of it. This enables a new or mediocre pilot to fly at the edge of the turn envelope with ease while Me 109 pilots needed more experience and ability if the were not to spin out. Even if it were the case at optimum speed and leading edge slats a Messerschmitt might be as agile, a Spitfire pilot had stick shake indicating when his aircraft was close to the edge of the flight envelope and so could maintain control with confidence (Hurricane pilots just chucked the aircraft around and relied on the sturdiness of the airframe, which neither the Spit or Me109 could).
A wing design suggested by Mr Prandtl I read.
at the same time that wing made Spitfire manufacturing take longer time.
quite true. A rookie Spitfire pilot could learn to ride the edge of the stall quite quickly, the 109 would flick roll (and the slats either didn't open simultaneously or they'd slam open and closed making gunnery difficult. Some slats were therefore wired shut.)
The Hurricane was also susceptible to wing drop at the stall without much warning. Another reason why it was used against slower, less nimble bombers.
@@AlistairNY Prandtl cribbed the work of Englishman Fredrick Lanchester who originated the benefits of the elliptical wing design in 1908. As for supermarine, Mitchell had been using the elliptical planform for years prior to the Spitfire. Don't believe the nonsense on Netflix or BBC revisionist history.
I like the comparison of the Hurricane/Spit as the latter just looking more sleek and modern. I think that may be why the Corsair is so much more popular than the Hellcat. The Corsair just looks better while the Hellcat appears sort of old and stumpy and looks not much different than the crusty Wildcat to the average onlooker.
The Spitfire was sleeker and more modern. While that might not have made it decisively better in 1940, the more modern Spitfire had the room to grow
The same can be said regarding the P-51 and P-47.
Corsair was also faster than Hellcat.
The appearance meant a lot. It is reflected more recently by the number of Lamborghini posters on teenage boys bedroom walls. They just look more way out and exciting than Ferraris!
To a point but the unique linebacker looks of the P47 gave it a big following, By contrast the Hellcat looks basic and simple and doesnt stand out unless you take a much closer look.@@R760-E2
Perfect timing Chris!
I'll be watching them mixing it next month at the Battle of Britain Airshow at Duxford. 😁
So first, another video that blew away my expectations. Well done! I personally would break the question into two parts, those being how did the Spitfire's technical characteristics compare to those of the Bf-109, and how did pilot skill impact that performance. It was really gratifying to see both Dr. Wehner and Mr. Holland touch on the second point as a factor that is more difficult to quantify. It was also important that the discussion seemed to focus on the period of the Battle of Britain: Considering how many models of Spitfire were developed, comparing it with the Messerschmidt is something of a moving target. For myslf, I would say the Spitfire was more anesthetically pleasing, but the two aircraft were both very well designed. I would have to ask if other aircraft characteristics were markedly superior to either of these. For example, how did the P-51 compare to the Bf-109? How did the Focke Wulf 190 compare to the Spitfire. You can really go down a rabbit hole with this topic. A very interesting discussion, up there with your best. Thanks for sharing!
Why would you want to, when we have the history, we know what aircraft was better, it's not even up for debate, just known facts.
I think the best (if unwitting) friend the Fighter Command pilots had was Herman (fatty) Goering, with his order that the German fighter pilots must fly in close support of the bombers. They wasted so much fuel weaving to stay in close formation to the bombers that they had very limited “linger time” over Southeastern England.
I never could understand why they didn’t fit extra fuel tanks, or drop tanks to the bf 109s.
The Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle of Britain in the minds of those brave young men from all over the world who fought the Luftwaffe [flying circus, to use a matching pejorative]. If they really had inferior equipment, all the more kudos to them; but they humiliated an enemy already drunk with early, easy conquests.
Not forgetting the first generation Spitfire was fighting the 5th generation 109E.
Not bad for starters.
Something thing to consider regarding the Germans perspective on the RAF, is that the US did not start supplying 100 octane aviation fuel to Britain until 1938. It took until just before the BoB that the testing, and associated modifications to the Merlin engine, were completed. This meant that the Hurricanes and Spitfires that the Germans met earlier over France had poorer overall performance than the ones they met over Britain.
Another issue with the 109 was its armament. The two 20mm MGFF had a relatively poor muzzle velocity compared to its two 7.9mm machine guns. So bullet spread could lead to fewer rounds impacting on a maneuvering target (there’s a video of a Bf110 shooting at a Hurricane, where the 7.9 machine guns are hitting, but the 20mm shells track harmlessly below). The Spitfire and Hurricane with their eight .303 machine guns, while of a rifle caliber, could be tracked on target more consistently.
Re "the Hurricanes and Spitfires that the Germans met earlier over France," a clarification. Spitfires were no committed to the Battle of France. The only ones that appeared "over France" were those covering the evacuations at Dunkirk and other ports. Mixed armament is indeed an issue, as the bullet trajectories will virtually never be the same.
This is an underrated consideration and is why I tend to fly American planes with their all .50 cal armament. It's so much more consistent to hit with ALL your guns at the same time and not have to worry about the differences.
@@Birdy890 Oh yes, the armament performance is ALL IMPORTANT in selecting which aircraft to fly today.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS not exactly true. Spitfires were engaged over France and the Netherlands prior to Dunkirk. A total of 67 Spitfires were lost over Europe, including the evacuation of Dunkirk. However I don’t believe any of them were operational with the 100 octane fuel/modified Merlins yet.
If you aren't already aware, and are interested, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles has deep dives related to that subject. His recent ones cover damage potential of various aircraft weapons, but .50 cal and up.
One thing about the Hurricane, it wasn't as advanced as the Spitfire or 109, BUT - it was still very capable & available in large numbers exactly when it was needed the most. One veteran pilot even preferred it to a Spitfire due to it being tougher, & most importantly, the nose tapered down, which gave better visibility, which was crucial in air combat.
And could be repaired very quickly even with severe damage , had a wider landing gear , was much quicker to rearm , and as you say many pilots that flew both thought the hurricane was a superior plane for getting you home with damage that they would have had to bail out of a spitfire .
Tough for a Hurricane pilot to use that visibility when the 109's and 110's are on his tail. The Hurricane was useful in numbers in 1940 over its own territory, but it was obsolete as a front line day fighter after that.
@@charlestaylor8566 nonsense. Any pilot who flew both knew that the Hurricane was lacking in every fighter metric except turn radius - a game that the LW fighters didn't play until ordered to stick with their bombers.
Eric “Winkle” Brown did a great interview on this, he flew both Spitfire, 109 and the FW190 (and many many more aircraft types). He rated the Spitfire and the FW190, however did not rate the 109 at all. Great video as always and very informative, keep up the fantastic work 👍🏻
Eric Brown flew more aircraft types than any other pulot, dead or alive. He rated the Me262 as the best WW2 machine.
He rated the 262 as the greatest leap forward in development, however not the best…….it’s engine reliability caused issues. But yes, Eric was easily the most experienced test pilot along with the likes of Alex Henshaw
He didn't rate a plane that shot done thousands of enemy planes.
@@almcculloch8906 ... that's not what i understood from listening to his opinion of the 262. He opined that the 262 was 5 years ahead of the allies. He related that the 262 had a vulnerability in its landing phase which required a long slow approach, offering allied fighters an opportunity for a kill and in fact this is how they were destroyed rather than through dogfighting. He did say it was the most fearsome of aircraft. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'best'. For me the most capable means the best. if you simply take (for example) how many enemy fighters a plane shot down as a measure then you're not allowing for how much or little time that type was in service compared to other aircraft types. The 262 was late to the party but in Eric Brown's view was the most capable, fearsome ... and the 'best'.
@@almcculloch8906no, Brown did rate the 262 as ‘without a doubt the most formidable aircraft of WW2, a quantum leap over anything else 125 mph faster than the fastest allied fighter.’ The engine life issue is exaggerated, they cost a fraction to make as a V12 piston engine and took thirty minutes to replace in the field compared to two days, reference Bob Strobel, Watson’s Whizzers.
As an observer, I appreciate the strengths of the 109. I imagine as a fighter pilot I would be very wary of being bounced by the German fighter as a burst from that cannon could be lethal before you even know the fighter is there. I am aware that experienced Spitfire pilots would have their guns set to shorter ranges to enable better concentration of fire. As you say though, pilot skill makes a big difference and experienced pilots lasted longer.
I'm very surprised nobody mentioned the tactics of the battle. Even to go back to Galland's auto biography, the 109s were handicapped when they were forced to close escort the bombers rather than free roam over the battle of britain. After the battle, when the RAF tried to raid france (before the arrival of the 8th Air Force) the reverse of the BoB happened and Spitfires flying escort or raids back across the channel were regulary shot down by 109s.
Exactly... Galland was pretty salty about handicapping the fighters in that way. Not that it matters, but it would be interesting if some future simulation could be run using a different doctrine to estimate if the outcome would have been different.
Galland also complained about the lack of fighter pilot training (even that early in the war) and the fact that many of the more talented/best and brightest young men were gravitating to bomber training.
yes, the change in LW tactics can never be ignored in these discussions. Prior to that, the 110's and 109s were in the offensive hunter role and were decimating the RAF. Even so, the 110's still had the highest kill ratio of the battle.
The excellent and almost Transonic Supermarine Spitfire wing format was Beverley Shenstone's baby. Beverley Shenstone was a highly rated Canadian aircraft engineer who worked with Junkers Aviation inside the peacetime German aircraft industry just before the war. He specialised in developing advanced aerofoils and worked for Supermarine and Vickers to pass his advanced knowledge onto the wartime Vickers Aircraft technologists .
Thank you for what you say about Beverley Shenstone. Just read about him , fascinating.
There was a guy who worked for Napier and De Havilland and another who designed radial Engines for Bristol Rolls Royce have a library full of the marvellous characters who worked in British aviation during both wars.
For the last 20 or so years I have come to realise that pilot skill is the decisive factor when aircraft are relatively similar. And of course the situation the opposing pilots are in when they are shooting at each other. Very closely matched aircraft the 109 and Spitfire.
I wouldn't like to have been a 109 pilot, I had already flown more than 20 miles before I crossed the coast and I wanted to get back after my work was done.
Doctrine also plays a role, one only has to look at the war in Ukraine to see that. The Russian tank doctrine of sending in tanks unescorted by infantry on foot cost them a lot of teams thanks to small anti-tank teams hiding the busses and trees along the roads that the Russians were using. And in the ME with Iraqi and Saudi troops equipped with M1 Abrams getting their butts kicked because they didn't use their tanks correctly.
I raced motocross in my youth and we had the same motto. 90% rider, 10% bike. As long as the bikes were close, it's all rider. A better rider on an inferior bike could also win.
There are many more factors involved than that.
As always you have the ability to get to the point - the problem is of course that pilot skills matter a lot - and as the war progressed the number af Bf 109 versions grew, just as the spitfires versions - this makes it increasingly difficult to make comparisons just between aircrafts - many times the pilots would not be able to se the subtle differences of enemy airplane versions in a dog fight - after all, the speeds and the time they had to judge the enemy, was usually very short.
German tank crews where very scared of the rocket armed Typhoons - yet post battle and post war analysis have shown that their kill ratio was quite lousy. A pilots assessment is colored by so much more than just the airplane.
My father flew in 331 and 19 squadron (MK V and Mk IX - and P51s) He loved the spitfire Mk IX - it was his choice - if he had to be in a dog fight -
But the war changed from 1942 when he flew the Mk V to 44 with the MK 9 and 45 with the P51 - in the beginning the odds were much more equal in numbers. At the end - the odds were heavily stacked against the Luftwaffe.
The moral was if they outnumbered the enemy - they attacked, if not, they turned tail and ran - its bette to live and fight another day - the Germans, very often did not have that luxury ! Airplane/experience/numbers/restitution/tactics and situation - how do you separate these factors ??As you asked - I don't know !
I think that Greg over at "Greg's automobiles and aircraft" said that (in his opinion, presumably) "the Spitfire IX was the best all-around dog fighter of WWII."
You didn't mention Adolf Galland's famous reply when, at the end of an inspection by Hermann Goering , he was asked if there was anything he needed. To which he replied... "a squadron of Spitfires, herr Reichmarshal".
Reference Galland's book "The First And The Last".
Well said.
Just came across this and really don’t know much but I do seam to recall that one of the things of note was when an enemy pilot sat in a spitfire and realised just how much better the cockpit was in terms of visibility and easy of use.
From other reading on comparisons of the Spitfire Mk1 & Bf109 E3/4 it is so interesting that 2 aircraft from 2 different countries fought each other and had such similar performance characteristics in 1940. The major obvious visual difference being the wing profile and corresponding wing loading but having identical, within a few percentage points, performance characteristics of climb rate, turn rate & top speed.
The Spitfire was most definitely decisive for one very good reason. Up to that point in the war the Germans had not encountered an organised force with an aircraft equivalent or better to the 109. You need good ground control, good pilots and good aircraft. Its a team game, if you like.
Another aspect of the aircraft is the unobstructed (or otherwise) view it provides the pilot. It would be interesting to hear the experts' opinions on the importance of this, and which aircraft it favours - those I have heard before felt the British aircraft were better in this respect. Good video!
As far as I have read, being the first to see was deemed very important in term of attack. Seeing a foe about to shoot you down would be even more important! That is why the British eventually changed their formation to allow pilots to concentrate on looking out rather than maintaining formation. So it is likely that a good view was desirable. The bf 109 was deemed particularly bad in this respect because of its bird cage canopy.
There is a interview of the CO of the BBMF inside a 109. He was not impressed by the visibility offered.
@@StuartH922 Some advantages are difficult to assess. Around 5% of all 109 losses occurred during landing and takeoff. Both the P47 and the Typhoon had remarkable strength and could take the pilot home despite being wrecked. Ease of maintenance ensured the success of the Hurricane and the P40, after they'd become obsolete as interceptors. An aircraft which is easy to maintain will double the size of your air force.
@@raypurchase801 The Pilot I was talking about flew Spitfires Hurricanes and the Lancaster in displays. He flew the 109 as a hobby.
@@StuartH922 That's a dream job.
I think it's fair to say that both planes were extremely well made and will remain iconic till the end of time.
@@kpsigSolid argument 👌
@@kpsig On what do you base that incorrect statement?
As someone who has ridden horses nearly my whole life, their is a term.
"A good horse is never a bad colour".
You take what you get and use it to it's strengths.
Was interesting to hear from the experts who in turn have interviewed actual pilots from that era! Thankyou !
I remeber reading that with regard to turn rate, yes, the 109E was perfectly capable of turning with the Spitfire 1 and II, but that whereas the Spitfires manouverability came from its physical shape, the 109's was partly due to mechanisms, ie: the leading edge slats. When the slats operated they caused a banging noise that tended to worry inexperienced pilots, so they didnt push as hard in turns as their more experienced colleagues. It sounds a credible explanation to me, anyway! :-}
Brown in his Wings of the Luftwaffe states something similar I have forgotten exactly what ?
Yeah the overall flap and slat design of the 109E was far more sophisticated than on the Spitfire, which gave it excellent manouverablity when utilised.
Len Deighton mentioned something like this in his book “Fighter.”
He postulated that when a 109 got into a tight turning fight against, (for instance,) a Spitfire, the wings of the 109 would start to vibrate, and some less experienced pilots would ease off on the tight turn, and that would be their downfall!
The 109 also had a very narrow undercarriage, and after a sortie, over SouthEast England, upon returning to their bumpy French Airfields a percentage of them crashed because of the narrow undercarriage.
The Supermarine Seafire had a similar problem when landing upon an Aircraft Carrier after a dogfight, or sometimes just because of rough seas.
@@donyoung1384 I read the book long ago. Did Deighton say the 109E had the possibility of structural failure if it tried to pull the Gs?
@@IncogNito-gg6uh He said in the book that inexperienced pilots would often think the wings would fail during a tight turn. Aces knew better.
A kind word for both suplementary experts now follows:
Both were interesting & informative
German audio technology seems superior to British 🤔
Another great video, thanks Chris
A brief but thorough analysis. Excellent, bite-sized, and comprehensively informative. Thank you!
It is always interesting to hear other's expertise and to listen to from both sides of the war perspective.
I'm speaking from my own personal experience, growing up in the South East of England with grand parents (now deceased) who were present at the time with both my grandfathers in the RAF in WW2 (though non flying). The Spitfire is such a symbol of resistance and victory for us against overwhelming odds, which is now almost bread through the generations in our DNA in Britain. It's very hard to be truly objective when a machine is so beloved by a group of people.
The 'Spitfire' was a military-fighter-aircraft of undeniable beauty - and also British-engineering, which captured the hearts of Britain and its allied-forces during their hour of need. The Spitfire is also tinged with sadness, for although the fighter has a definite romance about it, we will never forget the brave-pilots who lost their lives or were cruelly-disfigured during the battle of Britain. Lest We Forget.💐
I met a few old Luftwaffe pilots when I was stationed in Bavaria. They seemed very happy to have flown the FW190 instead. And two had flown the Me262, being ecstatic in their praise! (it helps to speak Deutsch at times!)
Yeah, Galland said it was "like the angels were pushing" when he flew the 262
109s for early war for sure but they couldn’t keep up by late war
They kept up fairly well- especially with an experienced pilot (those where few and far between at the end of the war).
Nothing could keep up by late war, due to the sheer number of Allied planes.
But the 109-K4 was still among the best propeller fighters until the end of the war.
@@scratchy996I mean on paper but they had many problems. Rather that be the quality of the pilots, logistics, reliability, etc while this isn’t exactly an issue with the plane itself though.
@@scratchy996 I'm not sure a K-4 would ever have flown optimally, late 109 production was just too problematic
The plane itself kept up really well with the developments of allied planes. The problem was that avarage German pilot skills kept going down and they were outnumbered.
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. I greatly appreciate what must be a considerable effort to create this and then include others knowledgeable in this as well.
What a well crafted piece. Thanks. Good use of other experts
A while ago there was a BBC documentary about this, and they decided it was about equal performance.
However, the Spitfires ergonomics, visibility and pilot protection were superior.
In George Lovings book _Woodbine red leader_ he relates how armor piercing rounds cut right through the backplate of Spit V's in a test his squadron performed on the ground. His Squadron would have been using .303 AP for that.
@@bbb462cidInteresting. Spitfire backplate spec created just for .303 ball ammo, not AP?
Many of the 109s in the Battle of France lacked backplates, and Galland didn't even want it fitted ... until he borrowed his wingman's aircraft which was equipped, and it got hit.
@@stingingeyes I had typed a detailed reply but TH-cam has apparently eaten it. I didn't say anything about ball, or the spec for armor. I can provide the ISBN if you'd like to read the book.
I’m British so I will always be biased towards the Spitfire. It was a thing of beauty and deadly in the hands of a skilled pilot. Overall, the Spitfire and 109 were very comparable with minor strengths and weaknesses. They both lasted the duration of the war and were heavily updated to out preformed each other.
Fighter aircraft can be rated in two ways: in terms of capability (objectively) and greatness (subjectively). Climb speed, dive speed, straight line speed, kill-to-loss ratios, altitude performance, visibility firepower, maneuverability, and even ruggedness are capabilities that can be objectively measured and compared. Greatness is a subjective measure of impact in the battle space and the overall impression the aircraft made, especially in context with its assigned mission. Both can be used to rate aircraft.
That is why the German technical evaluation by test pilots is the best comparison.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 you really didn’t understand anything I wrote.
@@viper2148 the comparison is between two aircrafts only, the rest is tactics, training, doctrine , experience and individual skills etc. Bf-109 performed better than Spitfire apart from turning. It was the result of the objective technical evaluation by German test pilots that time. By the end Bf-109 had better kill-loss ratio for fighter plans than any other during ww2: 1 loss to 7 kills.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 no, not at all. A common misconception is fighter aircraft are like boxers who both square out in their corners, tip their gloves and when the bell rings they both come out fighting. It never happens that way. Fighter aircraft are designed around operational systems and fighter pilots are trained to operate within those systems. The Bf109 was dominated by Spitfires during the Battle of Britain because it didn’t have the range to fully deploy tactics and despite the fact it was better armed the flurry of gunfire from the Spitfire’s eight Browning machine guns would almost guarantee hits from pilots with little combat experience. The Bf109’s superior diving capabilities mattered little when they were already operating at low altitude. Because of radar the Brits were able to pull the Germans into a horizontal battlefield where they dominated. Combat operations aside, individual combat always distills down to man-mission-machine (in that order). Btw the F6F Hellcat had a 19 to 1 kill-to-loss ratio.
@@viper2148 kill ratio must be used cautiously as there are too many variables involved on both sides. One must also consider the numbers game and how effectively they coordinate their teamwork and what tactics are used. In North Africa, the P-40s were inferior, but the allied bombers flew at about 12,000' forcing the 109's to come down off their perch vs just peck and zoom. Good teamwork in finger four sections and out numbering the LW gave the P-40's an advantage. By late 1942 they also had spitfires and P-40F's for top cover.
I remember the first time I saw a 109 in person, a real one, I was shocked at how small it actually was.
Saw one at the museum in Winnipeg next to the Voodoo and really you could mount the 109 onto the wing of the beast
@@rivetandbrodiewild isn’t it? No wonder they stayed relevant with the improvements to the models throughout the war.
It is sad that there are so few people who spoke to Vet's of the wars these days always glad to hear from experts who have.
I was lucky to talk to vet's of both world wars as a kid, asked them questions when they allowed. it was a pleasure, and a memory that i will always cherish.
Until the Spit got cannons to complement the machine guns it really was at a damage-caused disadvantage to the 109. It is interesting also to note that Gunther Rall in fact removed his wing armament on his 109 in favor of just the cowl and engine weapons to better increase his roll rate.
Even Marseille shot down a P-40 with just the machine guns.
That is incorrct, with 8 MGs not only were the Spitfire an Hurricane the most heavily armed fighters at the start of the war, the damage they caused was unknown in 1940. A huge number of LW planes ditched in the Channel, crashed in France countryside or airfield or landed and never took off again.
@@johnbrewer8954 heavily armed in terms of number of guns, sure. But not in damage caused. As early as 1938 it was realized that they needed cannon. Look at the size comparison between a .303 round and a 20mm shell. It's laughable.
@@gerarddelmonte8776 And by 1940 they were getting cannon, which fighter was more heavily armed in Sept 1939? The cannon fitted to Bf 109s in 1940 had 6 seconds firing time, leaving them with 2 rifl calibre MGs. Comparing one round is laughable, the Spitfire Hurricane had 8 with a high rate of fire. It may have escaped your notice, Goering gave up in 1940 because he had lost too many bombers, all to rifle calibre guns.
@@johnbrewer8954 true enough. But they switched to cannons anyway.
I can remember an analogy about the Spitfire vs The Mustang and the 109. If you are fighting in the Neighbors back yard you want to be in the Mustang, It will get you there fight and get you home, If however you are fighting in your backyard you want to be in a Spitfire, and Vs the 109 He who sees the Enemy first normally has the advantage and the Spitfires had way better visibility, compared to the cramped confines of the 109, sure the higher rudder pedals on the 109 let's you pull more G but it restricted the joysticks movement, a trade off, of course I would say if We are talking FW-190, all bets are off as at the time of its introduction it was a far superior aircraft, At the beginning when Spitfires came into contact with the 109, German Tactics were far better than the British, We still flew in close formation , The Germans in contrast had polished their tactics and skills in places like Spain. I appreciate the Experts analysis, What was the best fighter out of the Two, I can't say, But it does come down to the Guy in the cockpit at the Time having the faith and Trust in His aircraft to get the job done and get Him home safe, and Both sides pilots had that I think in equal measures of their respective Aircraft
There are also soft issues to think of. The Spitfire was a relatively forgiving aircraft to fly, for example if you pulled too many G's in a turn the wings would start to flutter long before they tore off. This meant Spitfire pilots were far more willing to push the aircraft to the limit because it would WARN them if it was going to fall apart under heavy manoeuvres. This was NOT the case with the 109.
In other words a skilled 109 pilot could get the best out of the aircraft, but less skilled 109 pilots would be much less willing to take their aircraft to the limit than the Spitfire pilots.
Sometimes the soft aspects of the aircraft are as important as their hard paper stats. If an aircraft WARNS you before you tear its wings off you are more likely to trust the aircraft and push her to the limit. If it does not warn you, then thats something you have to keep track of to ensure you do not tear the wings off, its something you have to KNOW, not something you FEEL....
@@alganhar1 I totally agree with you on this Also
And then we have the 24 cylinder Hawker Tempest with the 3000hp Napier Sabre IV engine.
You can't compare Battle of Britain fighters with Mustangs or FW190. By that time there where Spitfires MkX, MkXII or MkXIV and Bf109Gs, all of them hugely improved.
@@vascoribeiro69 The FW-190 was Operational and flying in squadrons over France just 3 months after the " Battle of Britain" concluded , So in My mind it is in the time period
There is a line that I think came from James Holland's Battle of Britain book that stuck for me. "An experienced 109 pilot can get much more out of their aircraft than a novice pilot, using fine tuning controls over the engine. But in the Spitfire, the novice pilot could get just as much out of the aircraft as the experienced pilot."
I believe a sentence like that can really settle this discussion, provided you can back it up with some sources.
tell that to werner molders, adolph galland, and has-joakim marseille
Flying (stick and rudder) skills are one thing, but the next two levels are gunnery and then situation awareness. Those aren't learned overnight. At least a Spitfire could give a rookie the performance advantage to survive long enough to develop the latter two skills.
It's very fascinating to see that these characteristics of planes that one can experience in certain games seem to be very accurately translated from their real life counterparts. It is a great experience to use the own planes advantages and the competitors disadvantages to succeed in a fight at a time in aerial combat when that still mattered more than who has the more advanced on-board tech.
Comparing hardware is just easier than comparing the other variables which matter more. Namely pilot skill, tactics, situational awareness, weather conditions etc.
Well, if you're flying an inferior machine, then you'd better have much better skills and SA. Unfortunately, in attrition warfare (especially the Battle of Britain) the young replacement pilots were not that skilled.
I had a friend, now dead, who was a Pilot in 19 Sdr from just after the Battle of Britain until the end of the war. Although he liked the Spitfire he rated the Mustang as a better aircraft. But that is probably a matter of 'horses for courses', the Mustang of course not being available earlier. He did praise the Mustang for its ability to always get him home even with a few holes in it.
The purpose of the two planes were different.
At an early stage the first Mustang were not so good because they were fitted with an Allison engine.
Also the Spitfire which was design for mid level altitude was far more agile.
But later when the Mustang was fitted with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine all in a sudden the plane revealed brilliant. And especially in high altitude.
In high altitude reaching high speed the P38 and P47 encountered problems when reaching 70% of the sound barrier. And it happens that the Thunderbold lose all control and did a death dive, hitting the ground straight !
It was showned that the Me 109 and the Fw 190 were still good at 75% of sound speed.
And .. the Mustang could reach 78% ! So Doolittle in charge of the 8th Air force decided to go for P51.
Excellent in high altitude but weak un low altitude even the P39 Airacobra could outmatched it.
There wasn't just one Spitfire model though, Just as the 109E was replaced by the F, G and even K, the various Griffon engined and 20mm cannon armed Spitfires were very different beasts.
Spitfire Mk Is were tried with cannon in mid 1940, the Mk II B started being fitted with them in late 1940.
Spitfire Mk IIB got cannon in late 1940
Is it even possible to judge ?
I mean considering the huge amount of development stages would require a date stamp which versions were discussed cause both improved a lot but in different ways and I can remember some claims of german BF109 pilots (I guess in africa) that suddelny the Spitfire was outperforming their BF109 significantly.
And that also changed over time from one side to the other side - again recogniced by the pilots.
Of cause pilots impression but I guess that you know the difference if you feel your plane falling behind cause it will scare you.
You would need a 1940 comparison based on mark and Ausführung to get that once right.
Regarding sources I would assume that after 1955 and the new foundation of the Luftwaffe the german industry could have asked the fighter aces about their war experiences. Of cause 10 years after the war and with the meanwhile happened introduction of jets and rockets it might not make much sense from our 2023 point of view, but if you are Messerschmidt Management and the government might ask for a next fighter you would prepare the best for that case , but obviously you could not got to the british or american manufacturers and ask what is needed for a nowadays fighter. Therefore I would bet they might have asked and gathered all data from the pilots in the last 2 years 1944 and 1945 regarding performance and what a manufacturer had to look for.
There should be some manufacturers reviews in the archives of these companies cause they were benefitting the most from these impressions and reports. Why should they have not tried to get all the Waffenamt reports into their hand and even more to judge better about future developements and priorities.
These companies were still independent regarding research, each one keen to get more contracts than before and always competing against each other.
So I would try to get in contact with the german manufacturer especially since the german companies nowadays have bigger historian departments focussing on WW developements and slave labor. There might be some treasures to find. But of cause tough work and it always depends how well they are prepared and what focus they have had in the past. Some tend to ignore the progrees achieved by the company during the war and might not have a clue while other can show you documents of early considerations. An awfull lot of work, but I guess the Messerschmidt archive has a strong connection to their history, even though now part of airbus and much harder to find.
There were over 9 Marks of the Spitfire, so any comparison has to take in this and the pilots experience.
I would like to know what the British official evaluation of the BF109 was. Also what was the cost of the aeroplanes in question. I believe the Spitfire was much more expensive to make than the Hurricane. What about the BF109? And how long did it take to make each and how difficult was it? In wartime these are often the most important factors. Also the training required to fly each of them.
@pettefar the 109 was thought to cost half that of a Spit to make.
Oh boy, gonna need to pull up a chair and heat up some popcorn for the comments. Maybe put on fire retardant bunker gear too...
The one thing not mentioned that I've heard with several comparisons between the Spitfire and the 109 is that the Spitfire was more forgiving to fly. It needed a very good pilot to get the best out of the 109 whereas a relatively inexperienced pilot could fly the Spitfire. This was really important for the UK during the Battle of Britain.
Yes, Extremely important when so many young lads are being trained and need to survive their first dozen missions before starting to become competent. The Spitfire was the best handling fighter of the war and a pilot could ride the edge of the stall with lots of confidence without flick rolling.
Another thing to consider. Engineers at the time at different airfields were likely tinkering around with each aircraft independent to pilots preference to squeeze more performance out of an early design. i.e Carb settings at certain Alts , Engine timing., Higher octane fuels, control linkages ,Adding or removing control surface tabs. So potentially a BF109 could be facing A mk2 for example that is either worse performance than normal or unusually better than the standard factory issue. This could be related to pilot skill if they had an engineering background.
That's why Squadron leaders had the pick of the bunch.
No two Fighters performed the same. And let's remember. Stats are taken from a performance air-test. Which are handed down for us to row over. But many other of the same mark would fly worse or superior to the said performance tested aircraft.
However as this clip amply explains pilot perceptions could often be a deciding factor. One example that comes to mind is a story my partners Grandad told me about a brief encounter with a Me 262 over Germany. Cliff was escorting a bombing raid in his P51D Mustang when he spotted the 262 coming straight towards him at a higher altitude and an even higher velocity. His overwhelming thought in the moment was simply keep going mate, keep going… And of course certain pilot perceptions of enemy aircraft characteristics come into play in situations such as this. They were often accurate. Despite the 262 having many undeniable deficiencies, high speed and devastating firepower were not among them.
All credit to the Bf 109 guys - fighting out of range with limited fuel!
Something you might have mentioned was that the Spitfire was apparently much kinder to inexperienced pilots than the Bf109. As mentioned in the report, the Spitfire was easy to fly and didn't have sudden stalls. The Bf109, by contrast, was a much harder plane to fly, but rewarded skilled and experienced pilots with outstanding performance (in 1940 at least). Inexperienced pilots were particularly prone to crash the Bf109 on take-off or landing, due to its tricky low speed handling.
Very good observation Davd. I read many memoirs and reports of German fighter pilots and several of them complained about how fragile and rather unstable was the Me-109's carriage, making it a difficult plane to land smoothly.
I think the battle of Britian fighers were comparable. A couple of big issues that are overlooked is the time over target and the fact that a Brtish pilot had a good chance of flying again if he was shot down because they were fighting over England.
From what I gather, I think each fighter fitted a specific role in regards of each factions position. Germans had to deal with different problems than the British, due to distance to cover and being the more focused on bombing and escort, while the British needed a plane that could deliver a quick reaction time for defensive interception.
It's still quite interesting to see these takes on the matter.
At the time of the Battle of Britain, on which this analysis seems to focus, the Bf109 probably had slightly superior overall combat performance. By the time of the Spitfire Mark IX, it had overtaken the 109, and would not relinquish that advantage.
But I agree with James Holland: the Spitfire was dazzling beautiful. To my eyes, one of the most beautiful works of human hands ever made.
From a 24-year Air Force pilot's perspective, I believe you will always have objectivity issues when it comes to one-on-one aircraft comparisons. All air forces develop tactics optimized for their pilots and aircraft, and those become deeply ingrained over time, and I say only half-jokingly that I wouldnt be too surprised if you could find an A-10 pilot that thinks they could take on a whole squadron of Migs. Engineers with no significant flight background are always going to be your best source of raw, unfiltered performance data.
Operational context is more important than one-on-one comparisons, although in attrition warfare a rookie will last longer in a machine with higher performance... maybe long enough to learn gunnery and SA.
"Spitfire vs 109" is not granular enough! There are so many different matchups to talk about i.e Mk 1 vs E, Mk V vs F, Mk IX and XIV vs G etc.
It's impossible to say one was better than the other in broad strokes. You could do a very lengthy series covering every single one of them.
Particularly after 1942/43 the Fw 190 becomes the main rival of the Spitfire and a more important threat to deal with too. The Spitfire LF IX vs 190 A is another of the great closely matched aerial rivalries of the war.
Exactly.
At this stage of the war Germany had advantage in machines ,firepower and experienced pilots . Dowding was right worrying about his pilot numbers , but getting up to ceiling was as your speaker said an important fact . My Grandfather served in the Coldstream Guards at Dover, during what is termed the Battle of Britain by Churchill. with a machine gun section helping to protect the important Radar stations from the divebombers , which was an important part of the preparations to overcoming the defence . A 'bollocking' from Biggin Hill came for the section as the Ju-87 climb rate left RAF pilots following them in line of ground fire he admitted. But that friendly fire went both ways ,so had the British fighters been equipped with 20mm cannon early he may not have survived. Interesting PoV , the 109's and dogfights over the channel, in both directions, were mainly watching vapour trails.
Really enjoyed this thoughtful presentation and the interesting comments from both guests - thank you!
The German estimating of the RAF, the Hurricane and Spitfire was a great advantage in 1940/1941
The way I learned it is that the Spitfire and the BF109 were near equals but the decisive advantage that the Spitfire had was it had a lot of fuel when it got into a fight with BF109s. The 109s has to cross the channel and could only fight for a few minutes whereas the Spitfire could just keep on attacking.