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
45-Shooter    I tried to delete the picture and irealivant text, but failed?   1/8/2013 10:01:49 PM
I tried to delete the irrealivant text and picture but failed, why? I highlighted the offending parts and then hit delete, where upon it all dissapiered. But low and behold when I look at it now, all the stuff that dissapiered is back! Does any one know why?
As proof, I offer this from Wiki:

List of World War II aces from Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

This is a list of fighter aces...... in World War II...... from Germany. A flying ace or fighter ace is a military aviator...... credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft...... during aerial combat.[1]...... German day and night fighter pilots claimed roughly 70,000 aerial victories during World War II, 25,000 over British or American and 45,000 over Russian flown aircraft. 103 German fighter pilots shot down more than 100 enemy aircraft for a total of roughly 15,400 aerial victories. Roughly a further 360 pilots claimed between 40 and 100 aerial victories for round about 21,000 victories. Another 500 fighter pilots claimed between 20 and 40 victories for a total of 15,000 victories. It is relatively certain that 2,500 German fighter pilots attained ace status, having achieved at least 5 aerial victories.[2]...... These achievements were honored with 453 German day and Zerstörer (destroyer) pilots having received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cro.... 85 night fighter pilots, including 14 crew members, were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross.[3]......

German losses on the other hand were very high as well. Roughly 12,000 German day fighter pilots were killed or are still missing in action with a further 6,000 being wounded. The Zerstörer (destroyer) pilots suffered about 2,800 casualties, either killed or missing in action, plus another 900 wounded in action. German night fighter losses were in the magnitude of 3,800 pilots or crew members killed or missing and 1,400 wounded.[4]..

This is supposed to be how it should look?
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Don't cite wiki.   1/9/2013 1:16:49 AM
Not helpful. 
 
Belisarius
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Then you've never heard of...    1/9/2013 1:22:47 AM
....Sir Douglas Bader?
 
Belisarius




the P47 might produce more power but it also bleeds more energy False. and does so faster, False again. a P47 is out turned by a spit, True under some conditions. it is also loses out in sustained dive and climbs, Not nearly as badly as you think. And depending on the model of Spitfire might easily out dive it for ANY distance! why would the spit run out of gas? Poor throttle and flight management! Even over home field. unless it was forced to fight outside its designed range It's "Designed Range was over 400 miles, yet there was no way to reach even HALF of that figure IF it was required to do so at the so called "Combat Cruise"! an argument you can apply to the p47 if you engage a p47 from norfolk over berlin And the Spit can get to Berlin how? then its going to be short of fuel, stop adjusting the argument to fit your choice, NO, it is a fact of life that the Spit was one, if not THE shortest legged plane of WW-II! Poor throttle management MAY have killed more Spits than any other plane in history! if the fight was over the spit base then the p47 loaded down with 700miles worth of fuel is going to be a sitting target (oh and with that amount of fuel on board its going to roll like the hinderburg) Wrong in so many ways! It is still going to out roll any early Spit with any load of gas up. p47 did not worry luftwaffe pilots That is not what they said! (even the few flown by allied aces) the Spits did, the Jug was a tank and if flown correctly was a dangerous opponent but it was never a true fighter Tell that to Jonny Jonson's targets, or the guy who shot down five Me-109s and Fw-190s in one dogfight! and would have been a libility in another enviroment it was basicaly addiquate given the roles it was asked to do (and by the way 20mm cannons made a right mess of a p47)



Who was it that counted 22 hits from German Cannons with their three times more powerful 20 MM shells and over 200 13 MM holes,

FROM JUST ONE SID
E OF HIS P-47?


No one ever brought a Spitfire home with ten 20 MM hits that I have ever heard of!

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 3:17:35 AM
What rubbish you speak, the Lanc could fromthe earlest models carry the same bomb load as the later ones except the 12000lbs tall boy that needed special rack, the upkeep that was a specialiszed weapon and the grand slam which was another specialised weapon, the only other change was they fitted bulged bombbay dorr to accomadate the 12000lbs light case bomb (which wasnt a tallboy)
Most lancaster flew with 12000lbs to 14000lbs bomb loads from the word go not as you claim some arbitary figure in later years (it was the B17 that was very restricted in early service it having to give up half its bomb load to fuel tanks to enable it to fly to germany
 
all lanc could carry more than 10000lbs regardless of when they were built (you are aware are you not that the other than the specials there were only 3 mks of lancaster used in cobat during the war Mk1 and Mk3 were just RR v Packard engined and Mk2 were hurcules
 
so documents that show that the B17g could not fit more than 2 x 2000lbs are somehow out of date- ok you provide a source of a B17 with more than 2 2000lbs internally (and not some garinly pic tha you claim show it - actual proof as all the evidence so frsays ou are wrong)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 3:28:29 AM
If you have the best plane in available you are not going to swop it are you! however does this make it the best plane, no the 109 was inferior to teh 190 in many ways, it was however superior to it in others, however by late war the 109 was inferior to the lastest spits in fact the MKIX is generally regarded as being a match for either the 109 or the 190
 
many german aces wanted to switch to Fw190s many did not, a few liked the 262 others hated it, horses for courses old boy.
 
as for logic, something you saddly lack, if everyone stops at a broken bridge do you blindly fall off as surely everone else must be wrong!
 
if you design an aircraft on very narrow criteria then you usually end up with a failure - take the defiant a basically sound idea that failed to anticipate and sowed its own seeds of failure. if you design a fighter as purely zoom and boom then if you are forced to fight wher zoom and boom is not possible (ie escort) you end up either sitting ducks or failing  your mission
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 3:56:08 AM

your problem is that you dont ignore minor defects but all defects of your argument. ????
Few people will rate the P38 as the best fighter in ww2,So What? If everyone else jumps off a bridge...

The chances are that they know something you dont, if the bridge is colapsing and everyone jumps back to land do you stay????

  the early P-38 was able to "Cruise at 360 MPH when the early Spit was only good for 352 MPH TOP SPEED!!!!!
According to Lockeed martin the P38L (hardley the earlest model) cruised at 290 not 360 plus those early spits were in combat fro 18 months before the first P38 was even delivered, by the time any number were in service the Spits were on the MkV


top speed is debateable as it wasnt untill very late did they match the opposition  Lets see, the early Spits were good for 352 MPH and the slowest P-38 of all time was good for ~400 MPH??? actaully the E model was sub 400mph and the L model was only 414mph and the fastest P38 the J was only 420mph some 28mph slowertthan a Mk14

oh look a fighter that entered service i 1940 was faster than one in 1939 who would have guessed!

 and even then were difficult to manage Only in that it was VERY difficult to advance the throttle from cruise to combat power! BUT it was almost as difficult to do that exact same thing in ALL fighter planes until the Fw-190!! untill automatic controls But this is not much different than all other planes of the times! and dive brakes (a sure sign that somethingisnt right when you need to fit these to keep the aircraft controlable )You confuse controlability with authority. The P-38 had problems with authority in steep dives at speeds that would cause the wings to come off of EARLY MODEL SPITFIRES! 

citation needed as the thin wing in the spit was hardly known for dive issues, in fact the highest ever recorded speed for a prop plane during the 40s was achived in a spit in a dive which it did without losing wings, yet the p38 and p47 were both dive limited
 


  There are several reasons why; cost, complexity, weight and others, but like retaining NARROW TRACK landing gear, those are all false answers incorectly arrived at! so you admit you are wrong then!

The tactic of converting every argument into an either-or debate is a way to side step the larger issues.

I bow to the expert in this as this is a common trait of yours

 Like all things, it is a trade off and one that is well to be made on the heavy side. Adding a few hundred pounds certainly seemed to help the Spitfire to become a much better fighter plane! ( In more ways than one, cince they did that several times!)

Only by fitting more powerful engines or are you claiming that they just did it for fun?

IF I had to remove say 212 pounds out of the P-38 to make it the uber fighter to end all fighters, I'd chuck the 20 MM and 150 rounds of linked ammo. ( I did not just say that to start a fight, but because it is true!) so why wasnt it done? they did drop the 37mm as it was useless maybe they should have ditched the 20mm because you claim that the .5 was sooo superior then why have it?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 7:47:35 AM
roll rate is nice but not the panacea ypou claim you need it as a package and the p38 was outclassed in the eto Pure wishful thinking?
No factual evidence that the p38 was outclassed as well as the oppinion of your flavorite author Mike Spick
 
counter rotating props are fine Esential! on a twin as you need two props anyway but on a single its just extra weight and complexity and only a benifit on the ground (why do you think they got so little adoption? ) There are several reasons why; cost, complexity, weight and others, but like retaining NARROW TRACK landing gear, those are all false answers incorectly arrived at!
 
why because you say so? sorry but as you a so rarely correct in anything you say I will go with historical fact, yes narrow track undercarrige was a bad choice but it has NO impact of the fighters capability unlike lumber it with counter rotating props (oh and exactly what would counter rotating props do to cl guns?)

plenty of ammo is good but the wieght of the ammo is not, ok by late war the engine power was suffcient to absorb the extra weight but in the early days having loads of extra ammo when you dig a creator in the ground is rather pointless!The tactic of converting every argument into an either-or debate is a way to side step the larger issues. Like all things, it is a trade off and one that is well to be made on the heavy side.
 
actually no, you tend to err on the light side as weight is bad, more weight less speed and as you like to point out speed is life.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 8:06:32 AM
the P47 might produce more power but it also bleeds more energy False.
your dyslexia is showing up again you spelt True F-A-L-S-E, sorry for picking that up 
 
and does so faster, False again.
oops youve done it again
 
  a P47 is out turned by a spit, True under some conditions. it is also loses out in sustained dive and climbs, Not nearly as badly as you think. And depending on the model of Spitfire might easily out dive it for ANY distance! why would the spit run out of gas? Poor throttle and flight management!
oh so would a p47 if you introduce such silly statements
 
 Even over home field. unless it was forced to fight outside its designed range It's "Designed Range was over 400 miles, yet there was no way to reach even HALF of that figure IF it was required to do so at the so called "Combat Cruise"!
Yet they flew combat over the low countries and france - not bad for a plane that was designed to fight close to its home base
 
 an argument you can apply to the p47 if you engage a p47 from norfolk over berlin And the Spit can get to Berlin how?
It takes off from temple hoff thats how
 
then its going to be short of fuel, stop adjusting the argument to fit your choice, NO, it is a fact of life that the Spit was one, if not THE shortest legged plane of WW-II!
 
short legged as longer ranged than the 109?
 
Poor throttle management MAY have killed more Spits than any other plane in history!
bad curries the night before MAY have killed more Spits, having american accents MAY have killed more P47 pilots (see a trend here?)
 
if the fight was over the spit base then the p47 loaded down with 700miles worth of fuel is going to be a sitting target (oh and with that amount of fuel on board its going to roll like the hinderburg) Wrong in so many ways! It is still going to out roll any early Spit with any load of gas up.
nope sorry with those drop tanks the p47 rolled like a battleship even with full internal tanks its roll performance was poor - readup on it
 
 p47 did not worry luftwaffe pilots That is not what they said!
oh yes it is
 
 (even the few flown by allied aces) the Spits did, the Jug was a tank and if flown correctly was a dangerous opponent but it was never a true fighter Tell that to Jonny Jonson's targets, who? or do you mean Johnnie Johnson that Famous RAF pilot or maybe robert Johnson ?
 
 or the guy who shot down five Me-109s and Fw-190s in one dogfight!
 
how about the guy who shot down 7 109s in one engagement in a Buffalo! surely that makes the buffalo better than the p47
 
and would have been a libility in another enviroment it was basicaly addiquate given the roles it was asked to do (and by the way 20mm cannons made a right mess of a p47)
Who was it that counted 22 hits from German Cannons with their three times more powerful 20 MM shells and over 200 13 MM holes, FROM JUST ONE SIDE OF HIS P-47?
 
and? the p47 was a BIG aircraft and difficult to miss, however a LOT were lost many to A2A combat so one fluke that recieved so many hits and e missed anyting vital is irreleavent, if it wasnt for the huge engine and huge turbo that aircraft may not have been hit at all
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/9/2013 9:15:31 AM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50649178/Pilots-Manual-for-Boeing-B-17-Flying-Fortress
Refer" target="_blank">link to page 91; flight characteristics with 2 x 4000 lb bombs, (ship-killers) for B-17F.  

What rubbish you speak, the Lanc could fromthe earlest models carry the same bomb load as the later ones except the 12000lbs tall boy that needed special rack, the upkeep that was a specialiszed weapon and the grand slam which was another specialised weapon, the only other change was they fitted bulged bombbay dorr to accomadate the 12000lbs light case bomb (which wasnt a tallboy)

Most lancaster flew with 12000lbs to 14000lbs bomb loads from the word go not as you claim some arbitary figure in later years (it was the B17 that was very restricted in early service it having to give up half its bomb load to fuel tanks to enable it to fly to germany

 

all lanc could carry more than 10000lbs regardless of when they were built (you are aware are you not that the other than the specials there were only 3 mks of lancaster used in cobat during the war Mk1 and Mk3 were just RR v Packard engined and Mk2 were hurcules

 

so documents that show that the B17g could not fit more than 2 x 2000lbs are somehow out of date- ok you provide a source of a B17 with more than 2 2000lbs internally (and not some garinly pic tha you claim show it - actual proof as all the evidence so frsays ou are wrong)
Note that the two bombs are listed as external load condition.
 
Belisarius
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Oldbutnotwise.   1/9/2013 9:38:49 AM
Note that much of what you say is correct. Note that however about half of what you say is incorrect.
 
In fact most of what you say about the P-38 Lightning and about energy tactics in fighters is flat out wrong.
 
Consider your statements about turn rate and the fight in the vertical plane. It matters not how you combine engine power, altitude climb advantage and roll rate to achieve a position and angle solution on a guns target. To wit, the poor performance of the P-38 versus German fighters were traced to two technical problems and one training problem.
 
The technical problems were the poor ETO (bomber engine rated-100 octane) aviation gasoline supplied to an Allison engined fighter that robbed the aircraft of 30% power at high altitude. The turbo-charger set-up with its nightmare plumbing did not help matters as the engineering work that went into it was bungled. There was a power loss due to impeller freeze up, runaways and post- exhaust detonations. 
 
Training problems were with regards to poor aircraft tactics. The P-38 COULD out-turn single-engine fighters to the LEFT. (no engine torque and induced right hand side-slip in the bank to afflict it.). Similarly it could out-climb most single engine fighters at most altitude bands. It was a more stable guns platform.
 
Pilots who transitioned from single-engined fighters did not understand these three factors. Those who did (Richard Bong for one)-were deadly.
 
Know your horse better than the other guy knows his and you out-ride him at the rodeo. 
 
Aside from those kinds of points, keep up the good work. Shooter talks through his hat.
 
Belisarius
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics