Why was this plane so dismissed IRL?

[percydanvers]

Any time I read real world war 2 history, whether from an allied or axis perspective, people seem pretty dismissive of the 109 K4, and I really don't get this. Sure 109s weren't the cutting edge they were in, say, 1941 but the K4 still was plenty fast and well armed. I know the tactics you can use in a game aren't what you'd use in real life, but even sticking to the strict "one pass haul ass" mindset you'd use in actual combat I still find the K4 to be among the best. And yes, late war 109s did get shot down quite a lot, but seemingly to no worse degree than other more widely celebrated German planes.

For example, books will absolutely heap praise on the FW-190 D9, which was an admittedly great plane from a technical standpoint, but it's combat record wasn't particularly glamorous. In fact most accounts of late war FWs seem to play out exactly like my flights in them: They make a diving pass on a target, try to get away, can't, they wriggle around a bit, and then get chewed to pieces by the pursuing allied plane.

What gives? I think this plane is awesome and I don't get why the history books treat it as an obsolete piece of junk.

Edited December 18, 2021 by percydanvers

[Mr_sukebe]

Several thoughts spring to mind:

 - By the time the K4 arrived on the scene, the Luftwaffe had already had most of it's experienced pilots shot down.  What you had coming through were new Luftwaffe pilots with nothing like the level of experience or flight time.  So chances are that the quality of pilots using them was well below the typical allied pilot

 - Fuel was a distinct issue for the Luftwaffe by 44', limiting not only training (linked to the above) but also the viability of using the aircraft

 - The ratio of allied to luftwaffe aircraft by 44' was VERY much in the favour of the allies

 - Whilst for example the Spitfire "scaled" pretty well, all the way up to and including the addition of the Griffin engine, from what I've read, the 109 (being an even older design than the Spitfire) didn't fare as well.  So whilst it was massively faster than the earlier versions (with a hugely more powerful engine), I go the impression that it became harder work to fly well

 - The allied tactics were very much honed by 44', with their aircraft employed to their best advantage where possible, so whilst the K4 was fast for a 109, it was not really an issue for a P51 running on 150 octane

 - As I understand it, the Luftwaffe by 44' were primarily used as bomber interceptors (hence the inclusion of the massive 30mm cannon).  When I've read about their employment, I did think that they were mostly based such that they could intercept bomber groups inbound towards Germany, whilst avoiding the shorter range RAF interceptors (i.e. Spitfires).

So the K4 was probably a scary aircraft to see if you're in a B17 / B24.  If the K4s are focused on shooting down bombers, it's not really going to be worrying the P51 pilot so much, as it's the P51s prey, NOT their adversary.

 

In short, I don't believe that the K4 was a poor aircraft, rather that it was so outnumbered and had such restricted fuel, that I wouldn't be surprised if most allied fighter pilots never saw one, or if they did, it was because the K4 was likely to be trying to shoot down a bomber.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Mr_sukebe

[Mogster]

I think Galland suggested the F series was the peak of 109 development and his preferred fighter. After that you have an overloaded basic design, increased wing loading reducing manoeuvrability, engine power that caused take off and landing difficulties. Controls got very heavy over 350mph. This doesn’t make a bad aircraft, just sub optimal in a pure fighter..

[ARM505]

I'm sure somebody will correct me, but I seem to remember reading that they'd pretty much wrung all the power they were going to get out of that powerplant, so it was taking quite a bit of strain at max power output, and engine reliability wasn't wonderful.

[percydanvers]

7 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Several thoughts spring to mind:

 - By the time the K4 arrived on the scene, the Luftwaffe had already had most of it's experienced pilots shot down.  What you had coming through were new Luftwaffe pilots with nothing like the level of experience or flight time.  So chances are that the quality of pilots using them was well below the typical allied pilot

 - Fuel was a distinct issue for the Luftwaffe by 44', limiting not only training (linked to the above) but also the viability of using the aircraft

 - The ratio of allied to luftwaffe aircraft by 44' was VERY much in the favour of the allies

 - Whilst for example the Spitfire "scaled" pretty well, all the way up to and including the addition of the Griffin engine, from what I've read, the 109 (being an even older design than the Spitfire) didn't fare as well.  So whilst it was massively faster than the earlier versions (with a hugely more powerful engine), I go the impression that it became harder work to fly well

 - The allied tactics were very much honed by 44', with their aircraft employed to their best advantage where possible, so whilst the K4 was fast for a 109, it was not really an issue for a P51 running on 150 octane

 - As I understand it, the Luftwaffe by 44' were primarily used as bomber interceptors (hence the inclusion of the massive 30mm cannon).  When I've read about their employment, I did think that they were mostly based such that they could intercept bomber groups inbound towards Germany, whilst avoiding the shorter range RAF interceptors (i.e. Spitfires).

So the K4 was probably a scary aircraft to see if you're in a B17 / B24.  If the K4s are focused on shooting down bombers, it's not really going to be worrying the P51 pilot so much, as it's the P51s prey, NOT their adversary.

 

In short, I don't believe that the K4 was a poor aircraft, rather that it was so outnumbered and had such restricted fuel, that I wouldn't be surprised if most allied fighter pilots never saw one, or if they did, it was because the K4 was likely to be trying to shoot down a bomber.

 

A lot of very good points in this! I recall reading somewhere that by late '44 most german fighter units had abandoned the finger four/schwarme formation because the pilots they were getting didn't have the level of training to actually fly that formation. Contrast that against allied fighter pilots gaining more experience, both institutionally and individually and you get a huge disparity of pilot quality. 

My guess is that the spitfire was probably about as obsolete as the 109 by the time of the griffons and K4s, but you can accomplish things with high quality fuels and stable production facilities that the Germans couldn't. That's more of a gut feeling though, I have no hard facts. In either case both were intended to be discontinued in favor of the Tempest and D9/Ta-152 pending the introduction of jet aircraft,
 

Edited December 18, 2021 by percydanvers

[FoxxyTrotty]

If you look at aircraft numbers, it's a wonder Germany ever got anywhere. The RAF alone out produced the Luftwaffe year on year throughout the war. The RAF had around the same numbers of planes as war began.. but so did France. France alone had more tanks and more soldiers. So before America even got started, Germany was heavily out numbered, men, tanks, planes, ships, you name it, they had less... I know this is wondering more and more off topic, but trying to study the war objectively is really quite difficult. Often the official version of events on a certain issue, differs from the personal accounts of the allies and the axis, which oddly enough marry up much more often.

[Mogster]

12 hours ago, FoxxyTrotty said:

If you look at aircraft numbers, it's a wonder Germany ever got anywhere. The RAF alone out produced the Luftwaffe year on year throughout the war. The RAF had around the same numbers of planes as war began.. but so did France. France alone had more tanks and more soldiers. So before America even got started, Germany was heavily out numbered, men, tanks, planes, ships, you name it, they had less... I know this is wondering more and more off topic, but trying to study the war objectively is really quite difficult. Often the official version of events on a certain issue, differs from the personal accounts of the allies and the axis, which oddly enough marry up much more often.

The UK was on a war footing very early in WW2, plans had been made for war long before. Food and fuel rationing, production of luxury goods terminated, women deployed in the fields and factories, engineering companies told what to make, even if it was their previous competitors designs.

Germany did very little of this till it was too late, Hitler thought it was important that German housewives could still buy a piano… German aircraft production increased even in the face of the allied bombing campaign, its unknown what the German population and industry could have achieved if it had been fully mobilised early like the UK population.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Mogster

[Skewgear]

On 12/18/2021 at 4:43 AM, percydanvers said:

In fact most accounts of late war FWs seem to play out exactly like my flights in them: They make a diving pass on a target, try to get away, can't, they wriggle around a bit, and then get chewed to pieces by the pursuing allied plane.

What gives?

You've more or less answered your own question there. Most Luftwaffe pilots were poorly trained and inexperienced novices by 1945 so lacked the ability to use the aircraft to the full. Unlike us in DCS, they couldn't respawn after learning from fatal mistakes. Allied air superiority kept them firmly on the back foot too.