Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Aussiegunneragain       1/2/2013 9:55:08 AM

1. P-51B on overall strategic usefulness.
Should read "P-51B onwards".
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Length of service.   1/2/2013 11:52:42 AM
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't consider length of service a valid measure of utility.  The A6m was used from China until 1945, but mostly because there was no adequate replacement in the pipeline.  I'd argue much the same thing about the Bf-109.
 
The Spitfire yes, because the later Marks were very competitive, but the Bf-109, not so much.  It was what "we" could turn out, so we turned them out...doesn't mean it was a particularly good a/c by the end.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/2/2013 4:34:57 PM

2) Soviet Aircraft used turbo/super-charging and fuel injection, IIRC.Wrong! On both counts!
I am un-aware of any service aircraft that used "Turbos"/tubines driven by exhaust gasses to drive the "Super Chargers"
Furthermore, I am also ignorant of any with fuel injection that were not diesels, which is a much larger question as these things go and not related to "Fuel Injection" as we use it to describe the differance between those planes with it and those planes that use carburators.
See, I have a source that disputes your claim, that's how it relates to what you claimed. 
 

I understand and can see your point. I would sincerely like to see examples of Soviet planes in full service, not T&E with those features during W W- II, because I am completely ignorant of them. I am also a information junky of sorts as I relate to the Big One!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/2/2013 4:52:08 PM

Based on strategic merit alone I'm going for the P-51 from the B model onwards as the best all-round fighter. It was the only type produced that gave any significant length of service, that  you can say that you could have used as a single fighter type for your entire air force in all theatres. The only fighter mission was the sorts of extremely high altitude interception missions that the later model Spitfires could perform against reconnaissance aircraft, but then there were experimental and post-War versions of the Mustang which could do that, which proves it could have done that as well if the need was there. It was also successfully tested as a carrier aircraft, but again there was not a need. Finally it was significantly cheaper than any of the competition, which matters a lot in the context of getting the most out of wartime resources. 

Neither Spitfire nor the 109 was/would have been comprehensively useful in the Pacific so that needs to be considered separately. On that count I rate the P-38 as the best, as its because it served from just before Pearl Harbour until the end of the Pacific War. In the Pacific it's range and twin-engine reliability outweighed the performance imperative and cost considerations of the ETO and with upgrades it could do the same or better job as any of the later types in that theatre right until VJ Day.

So in summary "The Best All-Round Fighter" might be considered to be:

1. P-51B on overall strategic usefulness.
2. Bf-109 and Spitfire for the ETO if length of service is considered.
3. The P-38 in the PTO if length of service is considered.

I know I'm going to get arguments about the P-47 being the best for it's survivability, but the fact is that it couldn't do all the required missions to be considered an all rounder until the N model in 1945, which I reckon is too late to count. It was also no interceptor whereas the Mustang could concievably do that job adequately with the right modifications.
In reply, I would point out that with the simple addition of wide cord propellor blades, the so called "Paddle blade props" The early P-47 would out climb most of it's contemporaries! ( By large margines!) It was considerably more maneuverable at high altitude than the Spitfire, or any other non-turbo plane, for instance in that it had a higher "Specific Excess Power" and could sustain high load cornering longer, it was also much faster than any of the Merlin engined variants, except the clipped wing "Clipped-Cropped and Clapped" bunch at very low altitudes. Those types were virtually useless at high altitudes where the P-47 shown brilliantly. At high altitudes and larger throttle openings, the P-47 could easily out cruise any Merlin engined fighter plane! In fact, cruise speeds higher than any speed the early types could go at ANY throttle setting!

As a counter argument to the P-51; At range it was heavy and required a very strong pilot to hope to match most of it's comps. It was no match for the Fw-190 in some venues, at any time. When the fuse tank was heavy, it was both a dog/handfull and dangerous to fly, let alone fight with. It has wing mounted guns. While they are of a type and number that are most desirable, they are restricted to much less than half, some say 1/3rd, of their effective range by the wing instalation! Lastly, it was not a very durable plane and subject to easy destruction by a single bullet/fragment hole in the cooling system!All reasons why I do not like it for the title under discussion!
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/2/2013 5:00:57 PM

Nothing personal, but I wouldn't consider length of service a valid measure of utility.  The A6m was used from China until 1945, but mostly because there was no adequate replacement in the pipeline.  I'd argue much the same thing about the Bf-109.

The Spitfire yes, because the later Marks were very competitive, but the Bf-109, not so much.  It was what "we" could turn out, so we turned them out...doesn't mean it was a particularly good a/c by the end.

I would argue that all things considered, it was the Me-109 that was the more capable of the two and long past when the Spit should have been retired.
Secondly, I would ask which later marks? None of the War time Marks did extencive service after the war, not even the much vaunted Mk-XIV! Which by the way not competitive with it's then current Me-109 G/K and certainly not with planes like the P-47, P-38L, P-51H, Ta-152 (all), Do-335, and if restricted to a turning fight, not even the lowely Zero! All of the War service planes were retired just as soon as the RAF could afford to replace them. The Me-109 flew on in other guise long after the Spit was gone.

 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       1/3/2013 2:10:30 AM
Some time back in this threat I believe I mentioned that the only officer to command both a P-51 and P-47 wing preferred the P-47.  Besides some of the performance advantages listed recently it was far more likely to bring you home and was a much better ground attack platform.  All this aside it was not a carrier plane.  I'd certainly include that factor under "best all-around" and thus I'd suggest the Corsair, in production from 1940 to 1953, was "best" if "fighter" also includes air to ground and carrier performance.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/3/2013 4:32:35 AM

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/3/2013 4:42:46 AM

JFKY,

No offence taken. Perhaps "competitive length of service" would be a term that better clarifies what I meant to say. I do think that it matters because the question is about the best all-round fighter for the entire war. It seems to be an unfair comparison to ignore the fact that fighters like the Bf-109 and the Spitfire were giving leading edge service from Day One of the War and remained competitive till the end, while the likes of the P-47, P-51B and Tempest served for half or less the amount of time but win purely on their technical advancement. On the competitiveness of the Bf-109, I agree that it slipped behind allied types from the G model onwards, probably by about 6 months to a year, but in my view it was still competitive enough to be a serious threat and its achievements early in the war offset the lag later. It could certainly never have been considered obsolete. In contrast the Zero, your example, was an outright obsolete design by the middle of the War. 

Shooter,

Your arguments are characterised by their usual cherry picking inanity so I will keep this brief:

1. To suggest that the Spitfire should have been retired before the end of the War but that the Bf-109 remained competitive is idiotic. The Spitfire Mk-XIV was at or near the top of the piston engined fighter class in the majority of performance parameters, including top speed, acceleration, rate of climb, operational ceiling and rolling/turning ability under 200 mph from introduction in early 1944 until the end of the War. Anybody else who wants to find that out for themselves can look at these sites, as I don't have time to interpret them for everybody else  - but if you don't decide to do so don't listen to any interpretation that Shooter puts on it because he is a liar.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html" target="_blank">link
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org" target="_blank">link

2. I don't know why you went off on a rant comparing the Spitfire to the P-47 because I certainly didn't start such a conversation and don't intend to have a stupid debate with you on it, where you cherry pick the bits of each types performance to suit your argument. I think they were both excellent fighters with their more numerous strengths and less numerous weaknesses, and fulfilled their roles well. The only undeniable point that I will repeat is that the Spitfire remained competitive from 1938 till the end of the War, while the P-47 didn't get into service until April 1943.I think nearly three times the competitive length of service might count for quite a lot.

3. Regarding the P-51, the facts are that it could do jobs from late 1943 onwards that no other fighter could until the War was almost over and was the one American piston engined type that the USAF chose to keep around and continue to develop after the War.  I accept those facts over your analysis. I also note that had the P-51 not been developed it is entirely possible that USAAF bomber losses in the ETO would have been much greater and that the War in Europe may well have been longer, something that can't be said for any other fighter . You might also want to read some of these encounter reports about how it went against the the Fw-190, it is clear that it handled itself very nicely.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html" target="_blank">link

 LB,

The problem with that Officer’s view of the P-47 vs the P-51 is that he is looking at it from the perspective of the preference of the pilot, for personal safety. In the military any individuals life is subservient to the objective of winning the War. The P-51 was the only aircraft in the ETO that could do the long-range escort mission in time for it to make a difference to the war effort, plus every other role that the P-47 could do and it could do it all for cheaper.  The escort missions also undoubtedly saved many bomber crewmen’s lives for every extra pilot lost because he was in a Mustang rather than a Thunderbolt.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I don't understand   1/3/2013 2:57:26 PM
how ANYONE could argue that the Bf-109 was competitive post-WWII.  It was used post-WWWII, it is true, but never by any major powers or in any major conflicts.
 
The Spitfire and the Bf-109, as aerial combat platforms, were obsolete by 1945, technically, made so by the jet.  The Meteor, the M-262, the P-80 all were the HMS Dreadnought to piston-engined fighters.  So, yes the RAF turned it's back on the Spitfire like, as A2A platforms because they were no longer useful.
 
Doesn't mean that the Bearcat, the various piston-driven ATTACK aircraft that lingered on in USAF, USN, FAA, and RAF service were chopped liver, but their days were clearly numbered, true in the case of the Skyraider it's day was 20 years long, but even in the attack role jets were the future.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 3:12:10 PM


Some time back in this threat I believe I mentioned that the only officer to command both a P-51 and P-47 wing preferred the P-47.  Besides some of the performance advantages listed recently it was far more likely to bring you home and was a much better ground attack platform.  All this aside it was not a carrier plane.  I'd certainly include that factor under "best all-around" and thus I'd suggest the Corsair, in production from 1940 to 1953, was "best" if "fighter" also includes air to ground and carrier performance.

 

 

I would counter that Carrier Opps are so demanding that they degrade performance to the point that the Corsair as the second best carrier prop plane, was not competitive with land based planes like the Mk-XIV Spit, Me-109K and Ta-152H, and even the P-47M/N?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics