Best and worst Bf 109?

[Vlad]

I quite enjoyed the Spitfire thread so I'm going to shamelessly steal the idea. Let's make this a bit more general and avoid semantic arguments.

 

Which Bf 109 variant was the "greatest", in the context of the time it operated - including factors such as which had the "best" relative performance against contemporary fighters, but also overall image, success and impact to the war as it was at that time.

Which Bf 109 variant was the "lesser", by the same criteria.

 

I guess the predictable answer would be F-4 for best, a high point in terms of handling. Having said that, I would put forward the iconic G-6, due to sheer ubiquity and the fact it brought much needed upgrades and versatility to the type, while still packing enough performance to be a headache to allied pilots right to the end. Maybe the K-4 is the "ultimate" depending on your definition, but "greatest", perhaps not.

 

For worst I'd probably pick the D, just because by then it was really overdue an engine upgrade, or the E-7 just for being a bit late to the party and oh dear god why would you try to use an interceptor that small and fragile as a fighter-bomber. Or the T just for being a really bad idea (you thought the Seafire had nasty deck handling, I wouldn't want to be in basically an Emil on a carrier).

 

Actually, we may end up with different answers depending on whether people focus on pure performance or operational impact.

[Sturmovik]

On 27/01/2019 at 16:46, Vlad said:

I guess the predictable answer would be F-4 for best, a high point in terms of handling. Having said that, I would put forward the iconic G-6, due to sheer ubiquity and the fact it brought much needed upgrades and versatility to the type, while still packing enough performance to be a headache to allied pilots right to the end. Maybe the K-4 is the "ultimate" depending on your definition, but "greatest", perhaps not.

You said it yourself, the F variant was the best regarding maneuverability, but it was lightly armed, something Adolf Galland complained about because it reduced the opportunities of newer pilots to shoot down the enemy (unless the pilots were super aces such as Marseille). Galland in fact refused to use the F, and kept flying his E-4 until he was given a specially modified F-6 with wing mounted cannons and heavier machineguns in the nose.

The G-6, while faster, was heavier and less maneuverable, even though it was the "ace maker" of the Luftwaffe.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Sturmovik

[Elmer]

I’d say E3/E4 was best in terms of comparisons with the best of its contemporaries and ‘impact,. Certainly the pilots of the time seemed to have confidence in the type (the range issue aside).By same token G6 was ‘worst’ - again compared with its better adversaries like the P51 and the inferiority complex you can detect in the accounts of the pilots - at least those in the west. Looks-wise G6 also no great beauty (all bumps and heavy-framed canopy). Best looking in my opinion would be F3/F4 though I also quite like the G10 and K4 - the bumps ironed-out and the underwing guns gone. None of them a patch on the ugliest Spit.. though!

 

 

[Meatbox8]

As others have said, the F-4 seems to have been the best in its time in comparison to the opposition.  The E-4 must be up there as well though.

[MDriskill]

Just my un-scientific opinion...if you compare the latest 109 version to the very best fighters available world-wide at a given time, it never fell too far behind, but was never vastly superior either.

 

In terms of actual battle situations, it seems to me that E’s in early eastern-front battle against mainly Polikarpovs; and late F’s and early G’s in Mediterranean skies full of Hurricanes and P-40’s; had the biggest advantages. And the G-6/G-14 in the west, hunting bombers against superior numbers of Merlin-engined P-51’s, had the worst time of it.