Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by ww2archiver, Dec 31, 2017.
lol. sometimes Alice...
the freakin' Vincennes.
too soon man.
And I'll raise you a ...
With reference to Shooter2018, I will see you with
and raise you
The weak cannons were the reason why they had to use rockets to score so many of their wins. But that also works the other way. Rockets can be used by all fighters and the R4M was the Anti-Bomber weapon of choice and it mattered not what plane it was launched from, but after that singular attack, the launching plane had to survive the escorts and RTB. There the 262 was worthless and was shot down in large numbers with very few kills to show for it. The 109 on the other hand was an excellent anti fighter weapon too. It could turn on it's attacker and fight back effectively, something the 262 could not.
But 109 pilots shot down more Western Front Allied pilots than Vice Verse. In 1943 and early '44 the Germans were badly out numbers, but won anyway. How can you compare the Spit's~4K Victories, or the '51s' ~5,200 and the 'bolts ~5,000 and the 38,39,40s' etc Vs the 109's 37,000?
Yes, for the most part they all had better LERs than most of the Allied types! If you discount the Ruski planes as born losers, the Spit and Hurry because of cross channel losses and most of the American types because the Navy planes never faced real oppos, you are left with only three planes that won significantly more than they lost! The 38, 47 and 51. The 47 and 51 were both too late to face top tier pilots and thus should also be discounted as well, leaving only the P-38 on the Allied side as a fair comp to the Nazi planes. At this exact moment in time, I can not remember how many planes were credited to the P-38s, but there is no way that it was close to the numbers attributed to the 109 post war. That makes the Me-109 the best fighter plane. Having said that, If I had to sit my butt in any one of them, I would rather it be the P-38! It alone had all the attributes but small size to be the ultimate fighter plane. With correct engine management and an electric flight suite, it alone was the most deadly killer in the sky. Zero "P" effect, great real world rate of roll, high aspect ratio wing to turn inside the Spit or Zero at very low speeds, Powerful CL Guns with high rates of fire, BC and best MV and the longest "Point Blank Range" of any WW-II fighter plane, but, saving the very best for last, it was in terms of real speed the fastest prop plane of WW-II!!!
"R4M was the Anti-Bomber weapon of choice "
even this dull tool knows that is incorrect.
many 109 models. there were a few that were successful, a few that were not.
maybe the spitfire was the best. .maybe the mustang.
I like the gull winged corsair. it did work in guadalcanal(?) and Korea.
Well gee whiz, but it was...AFTER 18 March 1945 when it was first employed in action. So it was the "Anti-Bomber weapon of choice" (with or without caps) for 51-odd days.
BTW, oddly enough I cannot find conformation that the R4M was ever fitted to the Bf 109, but given this is in the AltHist section who cares?
a lot of early air victories by 109s were simply because of tech. the Soviets had very maneuverable biplanes which were no match for superior craft, which dictated the fight. was it the 'Rat' that was tasked to defend until USSR could get more advanced craft into the air?
Claimed, my friend, claimed. By mid-1944 the Luftwaffe was practically nonexistent.
The Mustang was in operational service for about a year and shot down 5,200 aircraft, the 109 was in combat since 1937, so 9 years avgs to be about 4,600.
Let's look at it another way...For years, there is no Mustang, but there is the 109. In about one years time, there is Mustang, but there is no 109, or a Luftwaffe, for that matter. Yet, somehow, some way, you claim that the 109 was superior?
The R4M was the weapon of choice? Huh? On March 18, 1945 13 bombers were lost, 8 were to Flak...Perhaps, I should repeat that...8 were to Flak. That means that only 5 fell to fighters. We should also not forget that there were 1,329 bombers sent against Germany. The R4M was not even responsible for bringing down half a percent of the bombers attacking Germany that day
It would appear that Flak was the Luftwaffe's anti-bomber weapon of choice...Always was, always will be.
But, this is what your whole 109 claim is based on...They scored these uber high kill claims, because they did not face any real opposition. Except! Wait! Suddenly they face some real opposition, and then it is...No more Luftwaffe.
And yet the only time 109's faced navy type planes, and for that time frame, a second-string navy fighter at that, the 109's had their butts handed to them.
Wehraboo sites are more your speed.
Rogues, let it go please.
I moved this thread to the Alternate History section so people could entertain their flights of fancy without walking into a shooting gallery. I'm not at all interested in the "What If?" side of things, so I don't post here. Maybe a few other should consider this?
I agree, Otto. I stay away from What if? threads. They are nothing more than flights of fancy. Facepalms don't begin to describe my feelings.
"What if's" are alright, but this is shear fantasy bordering on lunacy.
The Polikarpov I-16 "Rata" was the most numerous Soviet fighter in June 1941, comprising about half the force. About 1/4 were I-15 or -153 biplanes. The remaining 1/4 were new inline-engine monoplanes roughly comparable to German or British types, the MiG-3, LaGG-3, and Yak-1.