fw109 f and g - Aircraft of World War II

mlpractice · 11-05-2006, 07:01 AM

how effective were these variants? what were typical loads and variations onloads? wrere they effective in defending themselfs? what was best f or g?

mlpractice · 11-05-2006, 07:07 AM

what were there different roles? dive bombing, light bomber, tank busting, straffing, strike, groung support, battlefeild mulit purpose fighter bomer? where they good at it?

mlpractice · 11-05-2006, 08:14 AM

could it defend itself adequatley?

Brain32 · 11-05-2006, 10:37 AM

There is no such thing as FW109

There is either FW190 F and G or ME109 F and G.
Fw190 F and G were JABO aircrafts, they were very fast and well armoured.
Me109 was interceptor fighter aircraft, F is just an earlier variant of G version, their purpose was same.

Gnomey · 11-05-2006, 10:42 AM

It is BF109 not Me109... (only Me designation after the BF-162)...

Brain32 · 11-05-2006, 10:53 AM

Both designations are correct, officially by RLM, designation is "BF", but Messerschmit often used "ME" designation in their official documents, including some manuals especially the ones for export

Also Allies called them "Me" throughout the war...
But if one is to look only by RLM standards then you are apsolutely correct, however what RLM wanted and what was actually used often did not match

Soren · 11-05-2006, 02:06 PM

Brain32 is correct, the designation "Me" can be seen in German documents from as late as 1944-1945.

Erich · 11-05-2006, 02:09 PM

getting back to the original question(s), some F-8's had the standard four 2cm installed and even with two could defend itself in the fighter vs fighter role, slightly OT but in the west Reich defense A-9's the pilots had the two outer 2cm removed plus the ammo of course to lighten the load and make them more agile while engaging P-51's.
As nothing is in print of individual Luftw. ground attack formations we will never really know just how successful they were with the Panzerblitz rockets

Soren · 11-06-2006, 08:47 PM

Erich you wouldn't happen to know wether any A-9 ever saw combat in clean condition without the ETC-501 rack ??

mlpractice · 11-07-2006, 07:43 PM

yeah, sorry bout the initial multiple postings, wont happen again. so there is really little known bout how 190f and g's performed in ground attack and as fighters? i thought they looked pretty tough, fast and versitile

Erich · 11-07-2006, 07:47 PM

Soren I am not sure at all, local Reich defense units kept the thing off, why have a drop tank when the enemy is over your head, but when transferred to the Ost front in January 45, yes for the extra fuel but also replaced by the lower fuselage mounted bomb carrier

Soren · 11-09-2006, 08:41 AM

Ok, thanks Erich.

11-05-2006, 07:01 AM	#1
mlpractice Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 17	fw109 f and g how effective were these variants? what were typical loads and variations onloads? wrere they effective in defending themselfs? what was best f or g?

11-05-2006, 07:07 AM	#2
mlpractice Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 17	what were there different roles? dive bombing, light bomber, tank busting, straffing, strike, groung support, battlefeild mulit purpose fighter bomer? where they good at it? Last edited by mlpractice; 11-05-2006 at 07:45 AM.

11-05-2006, 10:42 AM	#5
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 15,224	It is BF109 not Me109... (only Me designation after the BF-162)... __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

11-05-2006, 02:06 PM	#7
Soren Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,116	Brain32 is correct, the designation "Me" can be seen in German documents from as late as 1944-1945. __________________ It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not

11-06-2006, 08:47 PM	#9
Soren Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,116	Erich you wouldn't happen to know wether any A-9 ever saw combat in clean condition without the ETC-501 rack ?? __________________ It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not

11-05-2006, 08:14 AM	#3
mlpractice Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 17	could it defend itself adequatley?

11-05-2006, 10:37 AM	#4
Brain32 Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 35	There is no such thing as FW109 There is either FW190 F and G or ME109 F and G. Fw190 F and G were JABO aircrafts, they were very fast and well armoured. Me109 was interceptor fighter aircraft, F is just an earlier variant of G version, their purpose was same.

11-05-2006, 10:53 AM	#6
Brain32 Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 35	Both designations are correct, officially by RLM, designation is "BF", but Messerschmit often used "ME" designation in their official documents, including some manuals especially the ones for export Also Allies called them "Me" throughout the war... But if one is to look only by RLM standards then you are apsolutely correct, however what RLM wanted and what was actually used often did not match

11-05-2006, 02:09 PM	#8
Erich the old Sage Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere Posts: 10,775	getting back to the original question(s), some F-8's had the standard four 2cm installed and even with two could defend itself in the fighter vs fighter role, slightly OT but in the west Reich defense A-9's the pilots had the two outer 2cm removed plus the ammo of course to lighten the load and make them more agile while engaging P-51's. As nothing is in print of individual Luftw. ground attack formations we will never really know just how successful they were with the Panzerblitz rockets

11-07-2006, 07:43 PM	#10
mlpractice Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 17	yeah, sorry bout the initial multiple postings, wont happen again. so there is really little known bout how 190f and g's performed in ground attack and as fighters? i thought they looked pretty tough, fast and versitile

11-07-2006, 07:47 PM	#11
Erich the old Sage Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere Posts: 10,775	Soren I am not sure at all, local Reich defense units kept the thing off, why have a drop tank when the enemy is over your head, but when transferred to the Ost front in January 45, yes for the extra fuel but also replaced by the lower fuselage mounted bomb carrier __________________ Rip it up !

11-09-2006, 08:41 AM	#12
Soren Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,116	Ok, thanks Erich. __________________ It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode