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
Maratabc       4/20/2013 6:08:00 PM


WORMS formula?

Are you insane, one called shooter?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-11/Ch5.htm

I laugh at you. I utterly laugh at you.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Part two.   4/20/2013 6:23:50 PM


As to the two engines, this was because Lockeed knew that given the engines available at the time to be able tvo reach the range requirement of the USAAF for a bomber destroyer for homeland protection, one engine was not going to give the power, so they built a US version of the Me110 with all the compromises entailed, they did an amazing job but in the end is was a flawed idea and was always a step behind the best
  Not worth answering!



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/20/2013 6:47:36 PM
Again when the one called Shooter cannot answer, he seeks to dismiss. This is intellectual cowardice on his part..
 
 
I can answer and with correct information. Succinctly; the P-38 was a bomber destroyer; a fairly good one, but it was not that good an angle fighter. 






As to the two engines, this was because Lockeed knew that given the engines available at the time to be able tvo reach the range requirement of the USAAF for a bomber destroyer for homeland protection, one engine was not going to give the power, so they built a US version of the Me110 with all the compromises entailed, they did an amazing job but in the end is was a flawed idea and was always a step behind the best

  Not worth answering!







 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/21/2013 6:23:31 AM
How would you know? By what criteria do you judge? Did they have a better W/L ratio than Spitfires "Verifiable claims"? ( YES!)  been over this many times and you still don't get it
 
Did they have less opportunities and more difficult missions? (YES!) - No they didn't they had easier time
 
Pointability derived from the CR Props made getting Victories at longer ranges easy and made winning at shorter ranges positively sublime! yet as pointed out history does not agree

Yet results dont actual support this, Wrong! no its a fact of history
 per combat engagement the P38 scored less kills than the P47 or the P51, True. the P38 converted less chances to results, True. now this could be many causes, inferior pilot (nope same training), Less training per engine/complexity of the plane? joke right~?
 inferior tactics True! (nope same as the others), or inferior plane (seems likely), No, it all boils down to how they were used. but when they were used the same as the P51 and P47 they lost more and scored less,
also thier is NO evidence False, read the after action report of the Yamamoto shoot down! Absolute proof that long range shooting was done and was effective!
no you reads it, both betties were shot down at 300-400yds
Getting hits at longer range, something the P-38 did with regularity,  not according to history, in fact p38 pilots were specifical told not to open fire at long range
Not according to after action reports, the P38 like all other squardons were taught that long range shooting was a waste of ammo
While it is absolutely true that all pilots were taught as you state in training, there are many who thought and did otherwise! Se the report above. yes see the actual report and you will notice that the claimed long range kill was of a zero yet no zero's were lost that day
or Gun Camera Film, unlike the 1,000 yard Spitfire claim!
ok you provide a link to them because I cannot find a single gcf of a 1000yd kill and neither could Mick Spick and a lot of other historians than have investigated, yet they have found supporting evidence of the Spit kill
 Further more as any trained sniper knows range estimation is almost impossible at those ranges WO much time and effort, things a fighter pilot just does not have!
try reading up on Beirling, his distance skill were amazing
  500 yards is almost nothing and WO GCF, the claim is either completely BOGUS, or pure fabrication! Take your pick! 
yet you make the claim for the P38 how hypocritical
   
PS -  you do realise that less then 10% of gun camera shots actually show hits?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/21/2013 6:44:36 AM
Never and with good reason.

yet I have never heard of one that would refuse it, see an unsupported statement can work both ways    
But I can and have posted the supporting evidence to the above claim! Read Fork Tailed Devil, the P-38 story!  
  Why Mavel's Captain America is about as accurate

er no, speed is life was a creed of the first and second generation jets, And WW-II! Read the writings of the American P-38 aces in the Pacific ToO.
as the P38 was such a one trick pony then height and speed were life as if you didn't have them you were at the mercy of the oposition
 as if you let it beed off it too so long to build back up, piston engined combat was about useabloe speed and energy management, the P38 bled energy mre than any other fighter, Wrong! The P-38 has one of the very highest SETs of any WW-II fighter and it's long and high aspect ratio wing was much more efficient at preventing bleed of speed! 
Until you turn and then you bleed energy -very quickly - especially if you are deploying flaps
this was made even worse when they added the facility to apply flaps for combat to enable it turn anywhere near To out maneuver any single engine fighter at low speed (not out manoeuvre but to try and match them) ., but you know what happens when the target puts on the breaks in a tight turn and you can not do the same?
you catch up fast, especially as these flaps were required to give the turn radius needed to fight  deploying the flap tightened the turn but slowed you down, a naturally turning fighter would stay with you and limit your possibilities, turning always bled energy and if you bled quicker then you had to stop the turn or stall, stopping the turn before the other guy gives him the upperhand
 Right! and did the control forces needed to manouever the p38, remmeber to get decent performance out of it it need control forces beyond that a pilot could exert (hence the need for power assist)You are very wrong about this! Again read the books!
I have and this is what they say
The P-38 could out roll all but the Fw-190 and Me-163 at speeds above 250 MPH and the power boosted L mods could out roll them by 50% or more even at much faster speeds,
no this is just pure rubbish and shows you have not actually read anything, the earlier P38 were all out turned until they got the power assist
which is why they went to power boosted controls.
Cruising speeds higher than the TOP SPEEDS of early Spitfires and Me-109s. And it could do that for almost three hours.
as the P38 didn't enter service until 42 that well past the early Spits and 109s you were into fw190s 109F and MKIXs
its a non statement
No the early P38 were no faster,
Since the P-38 was the first plane on earth to exceed 400 MPH, it would be very hard to play catch up, would it not?
as it wasn't available until 42 it wasn't an issue was it
 Read any good history about the type! BoB Spits and Me-109s were very hard pressed to go over 350MPH IRL!
and yet they were available something that the P38 wasn't, a 350mph fighter in service is far superior to a prototype than was showing promise
 Yet cruising speeds were 210-220 MPH and you could burn the engine up and have it quit cold before a Spit could accelerate from a 300 MPH "Combat Cruise" to 408 MPH in level flight! Read "Spitfire the history" to know this truth beyond any doubt!
I have read it and cannot find anything to support this rubbish
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/21/2013 6:46:22 AM
seemingly the Germans don't agree with your assessment
 
On 25 August 1943, 13 P-38s were shot down in a single sortie by Jagdgeschwader 53 Bf 109s without achieving a single kill.On 2 September 10 P-38s were shot down, in return for a single kill, the 67-victory ace Franz Schiess (who was also the leading "Lightning" killer in the Luftwaffe with 17 destroyed).Kurt Bühligen, third highest scoring German pilot on Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow.”  General der JagdfliegerAdolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       4/21/2013 5:45:30 PM
Shooter said: Since the P-38 was the first plane on earth to exceed 400 MPH
 
Well, someone better inform the  Fédération Aéronautique Internationale and Supermarine, as they both seem to think the S-6B was the first past 400 mph, in 1931. 
 
You'd also better inform Vought, seeing as they claim:
 
"On 1 October 1940, the XF4U-1 made a flight from Stratford to Hartford with an average ground speed of 405 mph, the first U.S. fighter to fly faster than 400 mph."
 
So, not first aircraft, nor first fighter past 400 mph.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/22/2013 3:00:40 AM
But the S6B was not american so doesnt count, it was rubbish and the figures made up by those untrustworthy Brits, it never flew and was so inferior to Curtis that Curtis withdrew to give it a chance!
 
oh and the fact that by the Time the P38 was making 400mph the Me209 had reached 467mph was not of any importantance (or that a spitfire had made over 400mph)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/22/2013 3:04:36 AM
Shooter , can you explain how both your shooter and shootee are stationary? might work for a sniper but I think a airplane might a have a bit of an issue
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/22/2013 8:46:49 PM



WORMS formula?

Are you insane, one called shooter?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-11/Ch5.htm

I laugh at you. I utterly laugh at you.

I note that the link you provide makes and proves my point beyond any doubt! Thanks! You have to go down until you get to the part labeled "Binoculars" and they call the formula WORM! I merely used the Plural form. But I know how to do it and I bet that you can not do it in real life while flying in a plane with a reflector gun sight.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics