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
earlm       5/14/2011 3:30:40 PM
It's extremely difficult to argue against 190D as being the best.  Range was inadequate for US needs and it wasn't carrier capable.  Good against fighters but the armament was a bit light for bomber interception.  What do you think of the P-47?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    A repeat   5/14/2011 4:54:52 PM
I'd go with the P-47...A2A and A2G...better all around a/c, for the ETO/MTO...better than the Bf-109, or the Spitfire or the P-51
 
In the Pacific, I'd say the F-4U Corsair...again A2A and A2G...hits land, air and sea targets well.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/14/2011 6:14:09 PM
The problem with the P-47 is that it cost $80,000 while a P-51 cost $50,000.  The P-47 also used a supercharger and I'm not sure if that was a shortage item.  Even with that cost I still vote P-47.  Here's the list of criteria:
 
1.  Sufficient range
2.  Sufficient performance, mainly speed
3.  Secondary ground attack capability.  This means radial engine and load carrying ability.
4.  Relatively easy to produce, maintain, and fly.  109 is disqualified due to the difficulty in landing and takeoff
5.  Firepower
6.  Toughness

 
 
7.  Agility
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/14/2011 9:22:55 PM
The Fw-190A and D models had a 500 mile range on internal fuel which was better than the Spit and Bf-109 and plenty for the missions the Germans conducted. The extended range G ground attack model could go out to over 1000 miles with two wing drop tanks. Had the Germans needed a long range escort fighter I don't see why they couldn't have built and A or a D with three drop tanks, plus some of the extra internal tankage used in the attack models, to achieve a range well beyond 1000 miles. It was just that the need wasn't there.
 
It is true that the D model had lighter armament than the A's, but the weight of fire was somewhere between the P-47 and the 6 gun US fighters. It looks to be closer to the P-47 though - I don't have time to work it out exactly right now. Check out this link. It doesn't have a weight of fire metric in Table 3 for the D model, but you can extrapolate by looking at the A and estimating the effect of reducing armament by two cannon, then comparing to the P-47.
 
IMV Carrier capability really has to be considered to be irrelevant for fighters that didn't have to operate off a carrier. It is comparing apples with oranges to try and consider it. In any case, we don't know that a carrier capable version of the Fw-190 couldn't have been built.
 
I don't agree that the P-47 was a contender for the best. It was a great fighter but it didn't get into combat operations until March 1943. Additionally the B and C versions had poor climb performance until the advent of the paddle bladed prop versions in early 1944 and there were a lot of problems being sorted out during it's introduction. I don't see how it can be considered to be better than the Fw-190 when, aside from having a shorter range, the later was able to perform to an equal or better standard a full 18 months before the later was introduced.
 
The cost of the P-47 was also a big issue. When you can buy one and a half mustangs for every P-47 the later has to perform that much better to justify itself. It didn't and I suspect that is why we saw Mustangs still operating during Korea, but not P-47's.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/15/2011 12:16:38 AM
According to AG Williams 3X M2 .50cal = 1X Hispano 20mm so give the MG151 the same credit and the 190D = the P-47's firepower.
 
Quote    Reply

burjegol       5/15/2011 3:02:32 AM









 What I was contesting was your assertion that it could outturn the Zero, which is wrong.
 
sir, according to John Landers, in his narrative " the zero turned and I racked big doll in a tight turn. the zero disappeared nose to tail, proof that I was out-turning the zero". He bagged the zero.
If the p-40 was in a  tight turn with the nose down in the speeds above 300 mph, the warhawk can outturn the zero. This is how it happened in Lander's case. He was in a diving-turning attack with the zeke.
On how this is possible, I could not explain as the wing loading of p-40 is higher than the zero. but remember, the p-40 has hydraulic boosted aelerons and above 250 mph, the zero has difficulty in rolling and the turn comes after the roll is complete.
 
Quote    Reply

burjegol       5/15/2011 4:33:57 AM









 What I was contesting was your assertion that it could outturn the Zero, which is wrong.
 
sir, according to John Landers, in his narrative " the zero turned and I racked big doll in a tight turn. the zero disappeared nose to tail, proof that I was out-turning the zero". He bagged the zero.
If the p-40 was in a  tight turn with the nose down in the speeds above 300 mph, the warhawk can outturn the zero. This is how it happened in Lander's case. He was in a diving-turning attack with the zeke.
On how this is possible, I could not explain as the wing loading of p-40 is higher than the zero. but remember, the p-40 has hydraulic boosted aelerons and above 250 mph, the zero has difficulty in rolling and the turn comes after the roll is complete.
 
Quote    Reply

Cromwell       5/15/2011 5:38:10 PM
The claim that the Luftwaffe achieved a 4:1 kill ratio over the RAF in 1941 or 1942 is based on faulty logic.  The Germans deployed roughly 200 fighters in JG2 and JG26 (plus a number of smaller units whose losses are usually excluded from these calculations).  In the latter half of 1941 these units allegedly lost 65 aircraft to non-combat reasons.  The RAF, by contrast, deployed between 1200 and 1400 fighters (depending on whose figures you believe).  Given that all the aircraft involved were of more-or-less equal reliability, this would suggest that the RAF should have lost between 390 and 450 aircraft to non-combat causes - plus a significant number to flak.
 
The main problem here is the different approaches of the two air forces:
 
Luftwaffe: 'Oh, we've lost an aircraft and don't know what happened to it - we will assume that it is a non-combat loss'
RAF:  'Oh, we've lost an aircraft and don't know what happened to it - we will assume that it was shot down by an enemy fighter'
 
Given the equality in performance between the Bf109 and the Spitfire V, and the generally comparable standard of the pilots, it is likely that the actual losses in combat were pretty close to 1:1.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/15/2011 6:23:51 PM
Don't forget that the RAf was actually trying to accomplish missions while many of the Lufwaffe sorties were "free hunt" which is exactly what it sounds like, purely attritional.  A lot easier to run up a count when you can run away at will.
 
Quote    Reply

burjegol       5/15/2011 8:53:49 PM
Sir, were that classic recipe of Jadgfrei (free hunting) given to LW fighter pilots, the RAF would have long been decimated. Instead, OKL insist that the fighters should stick close to the bomber formations. Hence, it was a reaction to attack which hinders the fighter's action to purely defensive.
 
As a german pilot argued with his CO after the stukas were decimated, " we should be fanning ahead of the bombers". His CO replied "what if the roaming fighters missed the intercepting RAF?" He replied "then we could not be worse than it is." the CO commented "the bomber boys want us close" He again replied "Better not to be seen and doing our job rather than close by and failing to do our job properly. Besides, we are the ones being blamed for the mistakes of the OKL".
 
Plus that the 109 has only about 10 minutes combat time over London.No one had thought, nit even  wily willy that before, LW were employing paper drop tanks on its aircraft. They never ever thought of applying it to their workhorse, the Me 109.
The same mistake was being committed by the 8 AF while bombing Europe. This error was corrected when 56 FG proposed that the escorts should fan ahead of the bombers thus giving it a code "Zemke fan" after its CO. Thus, the jugs of the 56th became an offensive weapon, hitting the defending fighters before they can hit the bombers. And this doctrine suits fine with the  US pilots.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics