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       1/7/2013 6:02:09 AM

BTW Shooter, I’d appreciate it if you would start backing up your claims with some evidence other than a book that nobody else has, a few Wikipedia entries and your alleged personal experience. I have provided extensive information so if you are going to contradict it, please do so on the basis of verifiable facts.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/7/2013 1:58:30 PM
Shooter why do you persist in these comment when you have been proved wrong so many times?
 
to use your own source Mike Spick (please note the CORRECT spelling of his name, which on its own indicates that you havent actually read his books) states that turning is a vital characteristic of a good fighter as it is the PRIMARY defense against a diving attack from behind, if you build a fighter than is only boom and zoom you end up with a fighter than is only any good if you can control the enviroment, as soon as you are forced to fight on someone elses terms then you become a target.
 
In Mike Spick's book he makes the point that both the US top scorers both flew aircraft that were generally outclassed in the ETO (page 198 allied fighter aces) he also mentions that Don  Blakeslee not only prefered the Spit but reckoned that the P47 was very reluctant to leave the ground and far too keen on returning to it.
 
In his Luftwaffe aces he mentions that one ace is quoted to say that of all the allied fighters onky the spitfire worried him, the P51 was mainly a threat due to it arriving in such large numbers, reckoning that in 44 onwards 8 P51 would chase every 109 or 190 germany could field
 
oh and according to him Hartman had NO kills against RAF opposition and only 7 against USAAF
 
it is also worthy of note that the vast majority of Luftwaffe aces racked up the majority of kills in the east and many were shotdown shortly after transfering to the west
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 7:54:42 PM

JB,

Did you know that the P-38 with maneuvering flaps at 10% can out turn all other figher planes in WW-II at low speed? Even the much vaunted Zero, Ta-152 and easiest of the three mentioned ANY Spitfire! in case it ran out of sky while diving.
 
The Fiat CR.42 could out turning the P-38. 
While that MAY be true at some speeds, how quick can it turn at 400MPH? But wait, it can't go that fast, so how quick can it turn at 300MPH? I would say that it would be a mirical if anyone ever shot down A SINGLE P-38 from one of those crates, but I do know how many Fiats were downed by P-38s in return. I also bet that in a Mano-A-Mano contest between the two types as stipulated before, that it would be almost, if not TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any pilot in history to survive the contst Vs a P-38 with a competent pilot in it!
Specifications (CR.42)

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 8.25 m (27 ft 1 in)
  • Wingspan...:
    • Top wing: 9.70 m (31 ft 10 in)
    • Bottom wing: 6.50 m (21 ft 4 in))
  • Height: 3.585 m (10 ft)
  • Wing area: 22.4 m² (241.0 ft²)
  • Empty weight...: 1,782 kg (3,929 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 2,295 kg (5,060 lb)
  • Powerplant...: 1 × Fiat A.74... RC38 radial air-cooled, fourteen cylinders radial engine..., 627 kW (840 hp at 2,400 r.p.m./12,500 ft)

Performance

Armament

  • Guns: First series : Breda SAFAT... 7.7 mm (0.303 in)
    • Later 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda SAFAT... machine guns, 400 rpg.
    • 2 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) machine-guns in underwing fairing on some.
  • Bombs: 200 kg (440 lb) on 2 × wing hardpoints
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 8:24:44 PM

Shooter, if you are going to tell us that the paddle bladed prop P-47's zoom climbing performance equates to it "out climbing the Spit", then there is no hope for you. But that IS the exact point! In a combat, once engaged, only zoom climb matters over 90+% of the time! Would you rather give up the +90% to get some small and largely ilusory advantage? But wait, what you quoted above high lighted in yellow, is not what I wrote! I wrote that the padel bladed prop on the P-47 let it out climb the Spitfire! Not relating to the ZOOM CLIMB, but to all climbs! The links I have already provided show unequivicolly that the Spitfire Mk XIV, The P-47D-16, D-20, D-22 and D-23 were similar to the P-47D-15 with minor improvements in the fuel system, engine subsystems, a jettisonable canopy, and a bulletproofwindshield. Beginning with the block 22 aircraft, the original narrow-chorded Curtiss propeller was replaced by propellers with larger blades, the Evansville plant switching to a new Curtiss propeller with a diameter of 13 ft (3.96 m) and the Long Island plant using a Hamilton Standard propeller with a diameter of 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m).  the contemporary mark to the PBP Thunderbolts could outclimb it by 60% to 100%! Zoom climbing is useful under a limited range of circumstances, but once the inertia has worn off the Spitfire will overhaul a zoom climbing Thunderbolt in a very short time indeed. Since you cherry picked the best performing Spit of the war and ignored it's contemporary 'T-Bolt and every other plane of import, I thought I list this;

The XP-47J began as a November 1942 request to Republic for a high-performance version of the Thunderbolt using a lighter airframe and an uprated engine with water injection and fan cooling. Kartveli designed an aircraft fitted with a tight-cowled Pratt & Whitney R-2800...-57(C) with a war emergency rating of 2,800 hp (2,090 kW), reduced armament of six 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, a new and lighter wing, and many other changes. The only XP-47J was first flown in late November 1943. When fitted with a GE CH-5 turbosupercharger, the XP-47J achieved a top speed of 505 mph (440 kn, 813 km/h) in level flight in August 1944, making it one of the fastest piston engine fighters ever built. However, by that time Republic had moved on to a new concept, the XP-72....

PS. Exactly how many planes were shot down by pilots flying Spitfire Mk-XIVs? ( Hint, total 21, or 22 aces only, made their bones in the Mk-XIV!)
Finally, I would stipulate that any P-47 from the "D" on, that had had the field ADI kit installed and thus had at it's disposal 2,800 HP and the paddfle blade props required to use them all could out SUSTAINED climb any Spitfire that saw service in WW-II and actually shot something down! ( Mk-XIV included!) 
The links I have already provided also show that a Thunderbolt outrolled a normal winged Spit at over 280mph.

Thank you!
They built over 12,000 P-47Ds most of which, after the first batch, which was by the way, the one tested for comp to the Spit in England, could have had the ADI field kit installed, as almost ALL of the survivors did in fact have done! That kit and the paddle blade props gave the P-47 2,800 HP to play with and the blade area to use it all! All I have to do to eat any Spit ever made, is to take off with less gas than the max, but enough to OUT RANGE the Spitfire! At reduced combat weights, vs equivilant weightes in the Spit required to match that range, and the Spit is Dog MEAT!
As a detailed explanation of above the Mk-XIV takes off with full tanks, ammo and consumables and then climbs to 40,000'! The P-47D-25 with the ADI and 2,800 HP or later takes off with 1/4 to 1/3 load of fuel and races the Spit to 40,000'! Who would you bet the house on to get there first? Or if 40K' is to high for you, pick a lower altitude of say 20-30K'?

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 8:36:58 PM

BTW Shooter, I’d appreciate it if you would start backing up your claims with some evidence other than a book that nobody else has, a few Wikipedia entries and your alleged personal experience. I have provided extensive information so if you are going to contradict it, please do so on the basis of verifiable facts.


I am sincerely sorry about that! But, I AM a book person and have tens of thousands of dollars invested in over a thousand books over the last four decades, and I am not good at all looking things up on the internet!
When I make a simple statement of fact, like the heavier plane out ZOOM CLIMBS the lighter plane at equal speeds, I do not expect to have to proove the truth of it. Or that it only takes four G of pull to track a target pulling 6 G when starting as little as 300 yards astearn. Those statements are ABSOLUTE TRUTH and If you do not have enough knowledge to know the truth of them, I would like it very much if you say so now!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 8:51:57 PM

Shooter why do you persist in these comment when you have been proved wrong so many times?Exactly what comment have I been prooved wrong about! Please specify post number andcut and paist the refferance text, just to make sure we are all talking about the same thing?
to use your own source Mike Spick (please note the CORRECT spelling of his name, If I do not spell his name right, it is either a typo, dyslexia, or my faulty memory, not any slight or lack of knowledge on the subjext. So please stop trying to derail the argument by changing the topic?which on its own indicates that you havent actually read his books) states that turning is a vital characteristic of a good fighter as it is the PRIMARY defense against a diving attack from behind,This tels me that you have not read his books, or you would know that the "PRIMAry" DEFFENSE IS TO SEE THE OTHER GUY FIRST, BEFORE HE GETS INTO FIRING POSS! Drats! Bit on the butt again by the dreadded caps lock monster! if you build a fighter than(T) is only boom and zoom you end up with a fighter than is only any good if you can control the enviroment, as soon as you are forced to fight on someone elses terms then you become a target.I have never disputed this fact! What I have asked time and time again, which scenario would you rather have your personal plane optimised to fight; The 93% who never see it comming, or the 7% that fight in out in close ACM?

  Deleted non realivant ancidotal statement. 

  In his Luftwaffe aces he Deleted non realivant ancidotal statement.  

  oh and according to him Hartman had NO kills against RAF opposition and only 7 against USAAF Please refer to the original QUESTION that I made!
it is also worthy of note that the vast majority of Luftwaffe aces racked up the majority of kills in the east and many were shotdown shortly after transfering to the west


This is realivant how? 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/8/2013 3:10:20 AM





Shooter why do you persist in these comment when you have been proved wrong so many times?Exactly what comment have I been prooved wrong about! Please specify post number andcut and paist the refferance text, just to make sure we are all talking about the same thing?
Shooter the list is endless, examples Spit performance, lancasteer bomb loads, B17 bomb loads (remember the 2x tallboys you rekond the B17 could carry or maybe the 4x2000lbs you thought the B17 could carry internally not to mention the massive mistakes in engineering like not know what a tollerance was 
 

to use your own source Mike Spick (please note the CORRECT spelling of his name, If I do not spell his name right, it is either a typo, dyslexia, or my faulty memory, not any slight or lack of knowledge on the subjext. So please stop trying to derail the argument by changing the topic?which on its own indicates that you havent actually read his books) states that turning is a vital characteristic of a good fighter as it is the PRIMARY defense against a diving attack from behind,This tels me that you have not read his books, or you would know that the "PRIMAry" DEFFENSE IS TO SEE THE OTHER GUY FIRST, BEFORE HE GETS INTO FIRING POSS! Drats! Bit on the butt again by the dreadded caps lock monster! if you build a fighter than(T) is only boom and zoom you end up with a fighter than is only any good if you can control the enviroment, as soon as you are forced to fight on someone elses terms then you become a target.I have never disputed this fact! What I have asked time and time again, which scenario would you rather have your personal plane optimised to fight; The 93% who never see it comming, or the 7% that fight in out in close ACM?
Spelling it wrong once is a mistake, multiple times spelt wrong and WITH THE SAME MISTAKE is not dyslexia (which by the wayI also suffer from so know what I speak) 
so you want an aircraft opimised for an attack in which the target doesnt see you, an attack that could be flown in anything! not one that does not rely on the world niceely following your plan. yet you triumph the P47 and P38 the two biggest fighters in WW2 and therefore easest to see and therefore the worst by your defiinition 
 


  Deleted non realivant ancidotal statement. 
you mean it did not fit your view
 


  In his Luftwaffe aces he Deleted non realivant ancidotal statement.  
you mean it did not fit your view



 
oh and according to him Hartman had NO kills against RAF opposition and only 7
against USAAF
Please refer to the original QUESTION that I made!

you asked how many RAF and USAAF aircraft did he shoot down!
it is also worthy of note that the vast majority of Luftwaffe aces racked up the majority of kills in the east and many were shotdown shortly after transfering to the west

  
  This is realivant how? 
just a point that it is often the enviroment that plays a bigger part than you will admit
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/8/2013 3:33:29 AM
JB,
 
Did you know that the P-38 with maneuvering flaps at 10% can out turn all other figher planes in WW-II at low speeds? Even the much vaunted Zero, Ta-152 and easiest of the three mentioned ANY Spitfire! in case it ran out of sky while diving.
The Fiat CR.42 could out turning the P-38. 
 
While that MAY be true at some speeds, how quick can it turn at 400MPH? But wait, it can't go that fast, so how quick can it turn at 300MPH? I would say that it would be a mirical if anyone ever shot down A SINGLE P-38 from one of those crates, but I do know how many Fiats were downed by P-38s in return. I also bet that in a Mano-A-Mano contest between the two types as stipulated before, that it would be almost, if not TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any pilot in history to survive the contst Vs a P-38 with a competent pilot in it!
You specified low speeds, don’t change the criteria to high speed performance just because you were proven wrong.
 
But just ability to out turn at low speeds any other aircraft in the war does not make it the superior fighter. The Fiat could defeat anything that tried to turn with it, and lost if they refused and use the high speed passes.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 2:19:17 PM

Shooter why do you persist in these comment when you have been proved wrong so many times?Exactly what comment have I been prooved wrong about! Please specify post number and cut and paist the refferance text, just to make sure we are all talking about the same thing? Shooter the list is endless, But you fail to list numbers? examples Spit performance,So you equate minor details with major mistakes? lancasteer bomb loads, But wait, I was right about Lanc bomb loads??? B17 bomb loads (remember the 2x tallboys you rekond the B17 could carry I still think and am right, in that the B-17 could certaily lift two tall boys! or maybe the 4x2000lbs If you remember I posted pictures with captions of B-17s dropping both 4X2000 Lbs and more X 2000 Lbs bombs! you thought the B17 could carry internally not to mention the massive mistakes in engineering like not know what a tollerance was I did and still do know what tollerances are. You failure to keep up with the flow of the discussion and assume that original detractors were right when in fact they were wrong is more than a little dissapointing.  
so you want an aircraft opimised for an attack in which the target doesnt see you, That is 93% of the time! Yes! an attack that could be flown in anything! Yes, but, I freely admit and exclaim that some planes are very much better at it than others! yet you triumph the P47 and P38 the two biggest fighters in WW2 and therefore easest to see and therefore the worst by your defiinition 
Like everything else there are trade offs and you also fail to note that I, like so many others like the Me-109 witch is the smallest and hardest to spot of the lot! You also seem to forget that I championed the XP-77, or some variant of it because of it's size? 
just a point that it is often the enviroment that plays a bigger part than you will admit NO, I claim the environment plaies a huge part, just not how you think. I believe that by maximising the attributes that increase the chances of both success and staying alive increase the planes effectiveness and you believe that maximising the requirements that help the 7% at the expence of the other 93% is smart! Is that about it?

The last responce says it all.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 2:24:32 PM

JB,

Did you know that the P-38 with maneuvering flaps at 10% can out turn all other figher planes in WW-II at low speeds? Even the much vaunted Zero, Ta-152 and easiest of the three mentioned ANY Spitfire! in case it ran out of sky while diving.

The Fiat CR.42 could out turning the P-38.   

While that MAY be true at some speeds, how quick can it turn at 400MPH? But wait, it can't go that fast, so how quick can it turn at 300MPH? I would say that it would be a mirical if anyone ever shot down A SINGLE P-38 from one of those crates, but I do know how many Fiats were downed by P-38s in return. I also bet that in a Mano-A-Mano contest between the two types as stipulated before, that it would be almost, if not TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any pilot in history to survive the contst Vs a P-38 with a competent pilot in it! You specified low speeds, don’t change the criteria to high speed performance just because you were proven wrong.
But just ability to out turn at low speeds any other aircraft in the war does not make it the superior fighter. The Fiat could defeat anything that tried to turn with it, and lost if they refused and use the high speed passes.
You are absolutely right! But the fact that I forgot, or ignored obviously obsolite by-planes does not add to the argument, does it? We were talking about real fighter planes not targets, were we not?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics