Supermarine Spitfire vs Messerschmitt BF 109
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2024
- Check out the Military playlist from the Buzz: • 10 Most Expensive Mili...
------------
• Video description: The Battle of Britain which occurred from July to October 1940, was a World War II military operation in which the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm defended the United Kingdom against large-scale attacks by Nazi Germany's Luftwaffe. During the battle of Britain, Super Marine Spitfire Mk1 were generally tasked with engaging Luftwaffe fighters-mainly Messerschmitt Bf 109E-series aircraft, which were a close match for them. So which one of the two aircraft was more powerful?
• The scope of the assessment has been limited to the period between 1939 and 1941, when these aircraft fought each other on roughly even terms. So we shall mostly stick to the variants that were in service in this timeframe: the Spitfire MK1 and the Bf 109E
• The Supermarine Spitfire MK1 is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that served with the Royal Air Force and other Allies before, during WWII. The Spitfire operated in a variety of missions, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, and trainer, and it continued to do so until the end of the war. While The Messerschmitt Bf 109E on the other hand served as the backbone of the Luftwaffe's fighter force during World War II. With an all-metal monocoque structure, a closed canopy, and retractable landing gear, it was one of the most sophisticated fighters when it initially emerged. The Supermarine Spitfire was a strong competitor to the German Me 109E, and it evolved into a worthy opponent during the Battle of Britain, but with distinct flying abilities.
------------
Credits:
www.spitfireperformance.com/sp...
www.aviationmegastore.com/
www.largescaleplanes.com/arti...
www.jumbliesmodels.com/blog/2...
www.flickr.com/
------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - บันเทิง
![บุษบา - วงชานเมือง [LiveCoverVertion] Original : เมนทอล](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dm81sKcd9rs/mqdefault.jpg)
Can you pls do a vid on FW-190 vs. the P-51, OR the P-40 vs. the ME-109?? Thx.
oh i love focke wulf....i consider it to be best ww2 airplane
@@zagrepcanin82 best GERMAN WW2 plane or best airplane period?
@@dodoubleg2356 best german ww2 plane.....yak 3 was flying tank and p51 which came late had been sophisticated plane so it can be said that p51 is best overall ww2 plane
@@dodoubleg2356 Germany had huge flaw in the ww2....they had best scientist but scattered around many companies and they competed each other for contracts.If they had been working together they would win the war. for example...Hemischel had jet engine BPs before ww2 even started and Germany produced Horten 229 the first flying wing plane....imagine if that plane came earlier in the war...and if all those constructors were working together they could accomplished wonders.Another example is nuclear bomb...two facilities competed which one will achieve nuclear fission and each had 50% of plutonium cubes needed.if they worked together.....
In war time there is no competition.Everybody should work for mutual benefit....as it should be in the peace time
@@zagrepcanin82 I mean this with ALL DUE RESPECT my friend, but as soon as you said "if they had been working together they would win the war..." I stopped reading. I'm sorry, but no matter what Germany did, there's absolutely NO WAY they would've won the war, for several reasons which I won't go into...but the 1 reason I will mention is that they weren't a nuclear power...& they were fighting a war on 2 fronts w/2 global powers, 1 of which was a nuclear power, & the other which was soon to be a nuclear power.
A good video to do is fw190 vs la5
Pls do better research, the 109 E was only in service until 1941, then it was replaced by 109 F, G and in the end K version.
EXCELLENT video. THANKS very much. It is very difficult to compare these two aircraft, the Me-109E had the endurance and range handicap over Britain, the Spitfire was the upper hand given by the Ground Radar intercept and fighting over their country. However, you are right, the Spitfire over all had a better grade, slightly ¡
Both are legendary! So it came down to the pilot.
Stukas weren't good enough for dogfights or close air combat but they did it duty as accurate dive bombers in the beginnings of WWII
The Spitfire and Hurricane had one major design flaw that no one wants to discuss. The designers couldn't resist putting a fuel tank right at the center of gravity in front of the pilot. Although many pilots survived bailout, they were not returned to combat due to massive facial burns. The British started the very first plastic surgery unit for the military due to the excessive burns their pilots received. The German pilots, although they often went into captivity after bailout or crash landing suffered remarkably few facial burns by comparison.
You're forgetting the fact that until Merlin XII, all previous Merlins used ethylene glycol as a coolant, which could easily catch on fire even on the airfield while being serviced. Mechanics were "delighted" to work on them, I guess. Fuel tanks on Spitfires were protected from the start. So I guess those burns were more likely caused by the burning ethylene glycol instead of fuel.
@@redrickschuhart1530 You're forgetting that the BF-109's also used ethylene glycol and suffered far less burns at bailout than the British. Their fuel tanks were under and behind the pilot so the flames went back behind the pilot (at least from the fuel tank) The engines on both burned quite well when ignited from enemy fire. The British were concerned that the Germans who bailed out over Britain suffered very few burns compared to their Pilots. They started a special major burn hospital and attempted to reconstruct pilots faces.
That why Britain’s RAF went begging 20 countries for help summer 1940. The slower spitfire got the 100 octane from America and the higher boost finally enabled it to compete against Germany’s me109. The 109 used 87 octanes
The Spitfire fuselage tank was somewhat protected, the Hurricane's not at all and it was the Hurricane that torched most of its pilots when rounds went through the header tank and firewall. The Hurricane wing tanks were also more vulnerable from many angles and of course its wood and doped fabric rear fuselage was flammable. A real fire trap with less performance, hence the Hurricane was most vulnerable.
Please make a video on The Best AWACS systems in the world
I prefer the 109 for the price of 1 Spitfire slightly more than 2 109's could be built,the Spit And Hurricane were good turners but the 109 was the better energy fighter,an engine change on a 109 took a fraction of the time as on the British fighters,the Spit was a easier to fly for a rookie pilot and soft on the eye aircraft,the Hurri was a bit slow, but a more steady gun platform and the closely spaced .303 were better suited for bomber attack,the fuel injected DB was a 'vorsprung dur teghnic' on the 109' side...i can go on and on they all had pros and cons, but i personally like the 'ugly duckling' 109 it looks like a real war machine.
you should have continued.. you seem to be less bias than she and better informed anyway (in a comparative way)
Not too bad of a video, you did a good job on your research and I really didn't have a whole lot to disagree with... kind of surprised.
In fact the statement that the 109 E was in service until 1945 is wrong.
@@andyz.5431
If that was said that's obvious, the E was obsolete by the later stages of the battle of Britain and replaced with the F model, and by the daylight bombing campaigns in 1943 the F had been replaced by the G models... by 1945 only late G models and K models were in service, the earliest variant of 109 in service by 1945 was the ME-109G-6 and even most of them were modified beyond what a original G-6 was set up as, and the Luftwaffe was pretty much just hanging on tight for dear life with what ever else they had...
But my statement still stands because in a lot of these videos you find yourself correcting a lot more than that, they will get a lot of crap wrong and make a lot of statements based on biased opinions or based on fairy tales and stories rather than facts or truth.
Worth noting is that it also says mk 1 spit was in service till the 60's, which is obviously quite wrong. The service dates are for the aircraft as a whole. Not the specific variant of the video
Correct! The wording wasn't intended to mean that, what they inteded to mean was that many variants and subvariants of these aircraft were in service from A to Z.
@13aceofspades13 ironic considering there was a bf109z hehe
Like video
Bf109 is such a classic design plane, I love it, BTW I am back hope u remember me.
Deutschland Quality of course
And obligatory German over-engineering producing an aircraft more finicky and difficult to produce. On the other hand British quality control problems are legendary.
@@eddecook9252
Good points 👌
German Aces have won many more victories than Allied Aces
@@steelwind2334 yes...like Erich Hartmann
but i still support british because it successful defended the nazi's attack
It’s Mach as in mark not MKAY
the spitfire mark 1 didnt retire in 1961 it retired soon after the battle of Britain and then it was replaced by the mark 2
Its not refering to the mk1 there, the spitfire last went out of service in the 60's, plus you could argue that the mk2a spit is still technically in raf inventory and is serviceable till today with the bbmf.
Sister balle of midway please
Next:
Mitsubishi A6M (zero) vs P51
*mantap* 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Both beautiful and powerful planes, but definitely prefer the spitfire!
I think the Bf 109 was better.
well german pilot from that era,grandpa,flew spitfire a few years ago and was amazed with it.he was Messerschmidt pilot....he said it really felt good to fly it and that britain was worthy oponent
German pilots had little fuel to fight the British fighters because they wanna have an upper hand in speed and some pilots were shot down because they spend too much fuel in combat so they had to abandon their plane
Thats called a tactical and design flaw. The british fighters defending dunkirk made the reverse work....
Lets be honest early spitfire was not as good as The bf 109 but The later spitfires got better then bf 109 in ever way (still negativa g problems May still been a problem)
You just watched a video that shows spitfire to be superior in nearly every metric, and still say that ? Why ? Cause bf109 shot down more enemy fighters ? The brits were targeting the bombers. Im interrested to hear your reasoning. (Edit, in 1941/2 they added a better carburetor that semi fixed the negative g issue, and in 43' they brought out the mk 9 spit which had fuel injection and a supercharger which fixed the issue entirely)
What is often ignored in history, is that Britain declared war on Germany, they were not victims in this battle. I’m no apologist, but Hitler never wanted war with Britain.
Of course, Messerschmitt!
@Victor Lungu for you!
@Victor Lungu The simple answer is that the Spitfire was never better than the Me-109! EVER!
The Spit was probably the second, or maybe third best answer to the wrong question! Mitsubishi Zero was undoubtedly first best Dog Fighter and then the Hurricane, or Spit, as opinions vary. Dog Fighting was the Pinnacle of WW-I tactics, and as history shows WO a doubt, the wrong way to go!
The Me-109 on the other hand was the first of the new breed of aerial assassins That was designed not to Dog Fight, but kill with un-merciful precision! Which it did beyond all expectations and other performers! 109’s shot down more Spits during the BoB than Spits shot down 109s. 109s also shot down more Hurricanes than Hurries shot down 109s in that same battle! To be honest, the RAF shot down more planes, but most of them were helpless twin engine bombers! The un-armed chickens of the contest!
Next year when the new 109 was pitted against the new Spit, they lost 5-7 Spits for every 109 lost in Rhubarbs and Circuses over France. Then the FW-190 showed up in 1942 and it immediately jumped into second place! The pair of them never looked back. Shooting down more Enemy Aircraft than the next six, eight, or ten types combined! (Depending on who’s numbers you look at!) (SIX, if you count the 190 as part of the six!)
So the simple answer is that the Spit was Never even in the same league as either the 109, or 190!
@FireFury he just hate britain, so he don't want to admit spitfire is better than 109
@@tsloo1620 spitfire was carburetor and was slow until the American 100 octanes. Lies only last so long people are smarter than British propaganda.
Fw-190 was the best fighter all round...my x wife's stepfather was Polish and a pow for the whole war he was forced to work in the Fulkawulf factory in Bremin...they built new and repaired shot up planes ...he had a lot of unbelievable stories...he was 95 when he passed away about 8 or 9 years ago...his short term memory was bad...but he remembered everything about the war...he had potato or turnip soup every day 3 times a day for the entire war....
❤
*the best non-jet fighter used in the war.
Germany didn't have the right kind of planes for such a fight.
Neither did the RAF that’s why the lost France in 1940.
👍👍👍👍👍👌👌👌👌👌
Britain lost and went begging America for help and also supplied spitfires the 100 octanes to increase boost. Spitfire got smashed over France in 1940. In all the Bf109 was superior and had the highest scoring aces in all history all on cheap pump 87 gas!
Bollocks. England were the only European country to stop a full on invasion by the Germans. That's after Germany had gathered many resources from the countries it had invaded. Later models of the Spit 43 - 45 outperformed the 109 in many areas. The graphs and stats bear this out. America did not win WW2. You've been watching too much Hollywood.
do your research before you dis a spitfire and country
@@officialJoebiden go ahead i am a historian what are you going to teach me?
@@Heaven-dy9lj stats are biased you should know that so where am I wrong? Britain had to beg 20 countries to come save them I mean how many countries do the brits need to defend yourselves? “So much owed to so few” I mean how many shots of liquor was Churchill drinking when he said that?
@@garyseeseverything8615 first of all we never begged any country they are part of a alliance Britain was fighting in a the war all by there selves before any country helped them British spitfires never got smashed they lost more planes due to the Germans have double the amount and they still lost the battle of Britain only had 13% Americans helping the rest where all British
What a beaut of a plane Spitfire
Very inaccurate due to multiple other planes. And your not talking about how Britain had a lot more supplies to build planes that Germany, so each loss was 10X more valuable that 1 spitfire loss
NONE OF YOU SAW THE SYMBOLS OF NAZISM
Spitfire had virgin machine guns while Bf 109 had Chad cannons.
Only The early ones duh The later spitfires are giga chad then
First test spit with cannon was flown in combat in january 1940
Yesssssssss BTW who is nazi Germany fan.
Literally nobody. People admire their gear but not them. If you say Hitler was good then your crazy
@@magnum6763 true I admire German machinery but not the Nazi philosophy.
@@garyseeseverything8615 german machinery was semi decent, planes were some of the best of the war, but the tanks. not so much lol
@@magnum6763 what are you taking about Germany was an economic powerhouse for a reason prior to WW1 thats due to craftsmanship.
@@garyseeseverything8615 well military wise no, but industrial wise holy shit they did good. Even after having to rebuild everything from the ruins, they still had a decent time until 1933