Which was the best air superiority fighter of WWII: Supermarine Spitfire v. Messerschmitt Bf 109?

Question

Since the Germans shot down more Spitfires and lost fewer Messerschmitt during the Battle of Britain, does it imply that Bf 109 was superior to the Spitfire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t84dVdKuVDc

Answer 1

Look at it this way, Germany's losses of aircraft were so high and the RAF proved such a hard nut to crack that Hitler abandoned plans to invade England.



While tactics had a lot to do with that, and by switching the bombing from the airfields to attacking London, the Germans gave the RAF a huge "let off", the aircraft had ultimately to go up and fight.



That they were successful indicates that they did the job best, but it was not so much the Spitfire as the Hurricane which did the job, simply because there were far more of them.



In terms of which was the better aircraft, both Spitfire and Me109 evolved considerably over the term of the war, although major development of the 109 ceased fairly early on.



While I have not flown an Me109 I know guys who have and have also flown various Marks of Spitfire. Universally, they tell me that the Spitfire is the far better machine to fly. I can personally say that it is a far better machine to dogfight in than is, for instance, the P51

Answer 2

Actually, no -- the Spitfire was the better fighter. But it's a reasonable question.



Look at the context. The Messerschmitts had as their sole mission attacking the Spitfires. They were flying air cover for German bombers. The Spitfire pilots, no the other hand, were mainly trying to shoot down bombers. They HAD to -- the Battle of Britain depended on convincing the Luftwaffe and Hitler that they could not afford to conduct an air war over Britain.



That strategy worked. The Germans lost a huge number of bombers -- but the Spitfires had to leave themselves open to attack from the Messerschmidt to make that happen.

Answer 3

Your statistics are way out. The Germans lost a lot more planes than the British, and more Me109s than the British lost Spitfires.



Seeing as the British lost fewer Spitfires, and the Germans lost more Me109s, then, clearly, the Spitfire was the superior plane.

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

Answer 4

If you are speaking of the Battle of Britain ONLY, I would say that would depend on the skill of pilot. The ME-109e4 could out-climb/dive both the Spitfire and Hurricane due to its fuel-injected Damlier/Benz engine but both British fighters could out-turn the 109. The British Merlin engine was carburetor-fed and prone to fuel starvation in hard maneuvers/dives/climbs; anything dealing with negative-gs could cause the engine to quit. The chief drawback to the 109e4 was its range/endurance; it carried an 88 Imperial gallon internal fuel tank giving it @ 90 minutes flying time for @ 430 statute miles. You COULD get to London and back IF your navigation was perfect, the weather was good, and the British didn't object to your visit too much, otherwise you had @ 15-20 minutes combat time before having to turn back. The e4 was incapable of mounting an external fuel tank; that would come later with the e7 and F(and later) models but by then the Battle of Britain had been deceided and Hitler went for Russia instead. In terms of firepower, the e4 carried two 7.7mm (30-cal) machine guns and two 20mm Orlikon cannon against the .303 (also 30-cal) Browning machine guns of both British fighters. Both could put out @ the same amount of metal in a 3-second burst, the cannon having a harder hitting power. The cannon however was a copy of the Swiss gun built under licence and had a slower fate of fire as well as a low muzzle velocity. In either case, you had to get in close to effectively fire and score hits. The cannon also carried 60 rounds; the 109e4 had roughly the same firepower as the A6M2 Zero but not the performance of the Japanese fighter. Hope this helped and thanx.

Answer 5

are you sure you're not tossing a fair share of Hurricanes destroyed into the Spitfires killed bag? Spitfires were a FRACTION of RAF inventory during the Battle of Britain.

Answer 6

The Spitfire

Answer 7

No, it does not imply that at all. You cannot simply compare statistics and reach such a conclusion. They do not tell the real story. You've got a lot of reading to do to understand the reason for those numbers.