Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2 [Archive]

View Full Version : Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 22:36

What do you think? The P-51 gets a lot of attention...

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 22:54

I left off the jets because I feel they need their own category and I was really aiming at a comparison of the classic prop fighters of the war.

This seems far less obvious than the typical T-34 Vs Panther tank polls. All the major combatants fielded strong, comparable fighters.

Also, fighters like the BF109 and the Zero were clearly outclassed, but had a huge contribution during the war. The definition of "best" is debatable as well.

TinCow

11-16-2007, 23:01

I suppose it depends on the definition of "best." This is a lot like similar debates we've had here (and identical ones on any other WW2 history board I've ever seen) about what the best tank was. If you're talking about sheer technical ability in a 1 on 1 contest, the general consensus on tanks was that the Panther or Tiger I would be the leader. If you base it on other factors, such as production costs, ease of replacement parts, etc. the T-34 or Sherman start looking like better contendors for the title.

If you apply that same analysis to WW2, I think you get a similarly split result. The Me-262 was clearly the technical champion. It was simply unmatched in the sky through the end of the war and it only failed to win the air war because of a lack of pilots and machines. However, the 262s were good for only one thing: short to medium-range air defense. That was fine, since that was what Germany needed it for (despite Hitler's demands that it be used as a bomber early on). However, it was totally useless as an escort since it was too fast for any bombers to keep up with and had a relatively short range. Compare that to the P-51, which had a totally unmatched range, very decent handling, and relatively low production costs.

So... pick you definition of best. If you want to go for a "1 on 1 dogfight" definition, I choose the Me-262. If you want to go for a true "overal achievement" definition, I choose the P-51. One other possible contendor would be the P-38 simply because it excelled at so many different roles. It could serve pretty much any need with the right outfit. Jack-of-all-trades aircraft are very useful in war, as reflected by most modern air forces switching over to multi-role aircraft instead of single-purpose machines.

[edit]Doh, was replying before you nixed the jets.

Northnovas

11-16-2007, 23:12

Tha's a hard one to say best. Who wouldn't want a P-47 loaded to knock off some ground targets and the P-38 with it's design. The top two would be the P-51 or the FW-190 and under the circumstances at the time I would go for the FW-190 as the best on the list for me.:2thumbsup:

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 23:22

I chose the FW - 190 as well. Although my decision included some measure of nationalism, the 190 was truly a great machine, and its ability to be upgraded and stay potent throughout the war was impressive. Not many fighters introduced in 1941 were just as viable in 1945.

wiki:

The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger ("shrike"), often called Butcher-bird, was a single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft of Germany's Luftwaffe, and one of the best fighters of its generation. Used extensively during the Second World War, over 20,000 were manufactured, including around 6,000 fighter-bomber models. Production ran from 1941 to the end of hostilities, during which time the aircraft was continually updated. Its final incarnations retained qualitative parity with Allied fighter planes, although Fw 190s lagged far behind in production numbers.

The Fw 190 was well liked by its pilots, and widely regarded as superior to the front line Supermarine Spitfire Mk V on its combat debut in 1941 [1]. Compared to the Bf 109, the Fw 190 was a "workhorse," employed in and proved suitable for a wide variety of roles, including ground attack, long-range bomber escort, night-fighter and (especially in the "D" version) high-altitude interceptor.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Fw_190As_in_flight.jpg

KrooK

11-17-2007, 00:12

Where is Messerschmidt 262 - they were undefeated into sky

Whacker

11-17-2007, 00:23

My favorites:

In the European theater is definitely the Fw-190. Those are beautiful planes and could generally go toe to toe with anything the USAF or RAF had until the Mustang, which had an edge on everything. The Me-262 is a jet which PJ disqualified, even if he hadn't, I still wouldn't list it as tops. It had insane speed and power, but it was also incredibly cantakerous mechanically and prone to runaway engines and then-poorly understood Mach tuck.

In the Japanese theater, I'd have to say the F-4U Corsair. Step 1. take insanely high output powerplant. Step 2. build an airframe around it. Step 3. go like hell. It was pretty mean looking, faster 'n snot, and packed some good firepower, but it couldn't turn well. Playing some of the more realistic modern WWII flight sims really made me appreciate how much power that thing had and why the "hit and run" slashing tactics won the US navy the air war, instead of trying to turn with the A6M Zeroes which could turn on a dime, but do maybe 90-100 kts airspeed tops.

Edit - Voted Gah! because I refuse to pick between the two.

Uesugi Kenshin

11-17-2007, 02:22

Where is Messerschmidt 262 - they were undefeated into sky

Ummm they actually had really bad engines which accelerated extremely slowly, meaning that if they were taking off or landing they were sitting ducks, and if they lost speed for some reason they were doomed as well. If they had a good bit of speed behind them they would outrun, out-climb and out-dive just about anything out there, but maneuvering with that much speed is pretty tricky, and the engines had a really short lifespan and tended to burn or explode....Let's just say they could be extremely effective but I'd never want to fly one.

Whacker: I'd also have to go with the FW-190 or F4U. I think a 190 could go toe to toe with a P-51, and was even better in some ways, especially when it comes to armament, there's no comparison between fighters armed with machine guns and those armed with cannon despite US doctrine at the time. The only major disadvantage the 190 had was range, but in the war Germany was fighting at the time the P-51 started rolling off assembly lines range wasn't their main concern anymore.

As for the F4U it is one of the few US planes that I have ever really enjoyed flying in IL2, but that's mostly because the F4U-1C carried four 20mm cannon instead of puny .50 cal's. When it comes to power the Corsair had all you needed and more, and despite some annoying stall/spin issues at times due to the massive torque of the engine the plane was quite capable of dogfighting and though very few of them carried the 20mm cannon having a heavy armament wasn't a huge concern over the Pacific because the Japanese perennially underestimated the importance of self-sealing fuel tanks, armor and other safety/survivability related components of an aircraft.

Between the 190 and the Corsair I'd probably have to pick the 190 just because it was almost always far better armed than the Corsair and didn't suffer from torque issues that made the Corsair quite difficult for some pilots to master. The 190 was also produced in larger numbers iirc and I may be wrong but I think the late-war long nosed "Doras" were pretty much as powerful as the Corsair, but again I could be wrong.

Hound of Ulster

11-17-2007, 02:36

The p-51D ruled the skies and looked really pretty doing. Speed, range, and firepower all outclassed everything the Axis had, even the dreaded Butcher-Bird. If Hitler hadn't screwed around with the plans for the ME 262, it would have been a whole differant ball-game...

A close second for the Nakajima Raiden, which arrived too late to save the Japanese. It was just as powerful as most of the allied fighters in the Pacific, but literally ran out of gas...

Peasant Phill

11-17-2007, 09:55

Performance wise, you can't compare them because although they are all fighters they have different roles and/or are from a different period (technology evolves very fast during a war).

For instance, you can't compare allied fighters from the pacific theatre with those from the European theatrre as they had different specifications they had to fullfill.

Mount Suribachi

11-17-2007, 18:08

This is a really tough one - there is no clear winner on this, every fighter has their advantages and disadvantages, and of course, one has to make a distinction bewteen different variants. Take the Spitfire, so many variants, upgrades etc, yet its pilots regarded the Mk.IX as the best even though it didn't have the greater speed and firepower of Griffon engined variants.

If I had to choose just one, then I would go for the P-51. I can really only think of 2 "weaknesses" and they are minor - its liquid cooled engine (one hit to the coolant lines and its done) and its lack of cannon, although given that it was up against fighters in the main 8 x 50cals was enough ~:) Apart from that, fast, agile, good visibilty, and incredible range. No other aircraft did more to destroy the Luftwaffe (didn't Eisenhower have it in his 5 war winning weapons?)

edyzmedieval

11-17-2007, 18:29

For the best technicity, clearly the Me 262 was the best fighter ever. Nothing could match it, absolutely nothing. The usefulness overall, I would say the Hurricane or the Spitfire / Focke Wulf 190.

Every nation had great planes.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2007, 19:27

The Me 109 was, overall, an extremely good plane, even only in terms of lasting power. It could compete with other Allied aircraft right up past the Battle of Britain, and had excellent turning, climb, and speed. While there is no doubt that Allied aircraft surpassed it by '44 or so, it was a competitive aircraft all through the war.

Veho Nex

11-17-2007, 20:15

P38 is the one and only plane for me

spmetla

11-18-2007, 19:56

Uesugi Kenshin

11-18-2007, 21:22

I put the Fw 190. It was between it or the P51 and I think the armament gives it the edge over the P51. Also the power that the Dora version gave make it a fantastic plane.

I'm also partial to the G.55 but I honestly know very little about the Italy or Russian aircraft of WWII.

As for the P38, don't you wish they could have replaced those allison engines with Rolls Royce merlins like they did in the P51?

Eh, I think the P-38 suffered from bad maneuverability more than a lack of power. I'd bet it suffered against smaller fighters when compared to the P-51 and other single engine planes but performed far better against bombers due to its heavier armament. I don't know much about how good it was against either though, I'm basing most of this off of IL2 because the P-38 never interested me that much.

Hound of Ulster

11-19-2007, 04:50

The p-38's one weakness was it's wide turning radius. Other than that it was big, fast and heavily armed, proving itself effective in both theaters of war.

Spino

11-19-2007, 23:52

Nice poll...

This is a tough one. One of my favorite planes of WW2 is the FW-190, the infamous 'Butcher Bird'. It created a quiet panic amongst the Allies when it made its debut in 1941 and was almost single handedly responsible for the creation of the Spitfire Mk IX. Technologically speaking the FW-190 was cutting edge and extremely pilot friendly. It was also tough as nails, had a small compact airframe, possessed excellent all around performance (it had an incredible rate of roll) and was a virtual flying anti-aircraft battery thanks to its four 20mm cannons and two machine guns. The FW-190 was an amazing plane whose performance was handicapped in late-war marks due to the need to carry additional armor and armament packs needed to tackle the allied strategic bomber formations destroying Germany's industry. The FW-190A5 was the last true 'fighter' mark of the series and it wasn't until the appearance of the FW-190 'D' marks that the Butcher Bird returned to its dogfighting roots.

Despite my love for the FW-190 I had to give my vote to the P-51. The P-51 may have been late to the war but once it received the Merlin engine it really did have it all; excellent speed & firepower, impressive climb & dive capabilities, decent turning radius and above all, fantastic range... especially when fitted with drop tanks.

FYI, in the years immediately following the war Chuck Yeager got a chance to pilot all sorts of Allied & Axis aircraft and after much testing he thought the FW-190 was the second best fighter of the war, second only to his beloved P-51.

Beirut

11-20-2007, 01:20

While certainly not my favorite, the P-51 would have to be it. It had the speed, range, performance at altitude, and firepower to better any other plane.

The most beloved and glorious plane would be the Spitfire.

The coolest plane could be the P-38, the FW-190 D-13, or the F4U Corsair.

Papewaio

11-20-2007, 01:41

You'd need to break this down by year or even less... otherwise you can almost give it to the latest plane that was built and fought in a significant amount of combat.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-20-2007, 01:52

Fighter on fighter?

P47M -- rugged as only a Jug could be; faster and with a much better cieling than the P51D; 4 Ms deuces with ammo bins for 8 guns :yes: ; significantly better range (with tanks) than the Mustang.

2nd choice -- F6F Hellcat. Better range than P51, same hitting power, nearly as rugged as a Jug. Top speed 376mph made it competitive.

Me-262 Schwalbe -- good Interceptor, easily the best at this role in the entire war. NOT as good in air-to-air (though still no slouch).

Uesugi Kenshin

11-20-2007, 03:02

You'd need to break this down by year or even less... otherwise you can almost give it to the latest plane that was built and fought in a significant amount of combat.

Yeah, if it was on the list I'd be tempted to go with the Do-335A or B. Those were great planes, faster than a Mustang, better armed and armored and with excellent maneuverability for a twin engine plane, almost able to match single engine fighters in fact. Add a decent bomb load and even a small bomb bay to it and the fact that it was the first production aircraft with an ejection seat and you've got one great plane.

Furious Mental

11-20-2007, 09:41

Me-262 Prince of Turbojet! Junkers Jumo 0 0 4!

PanzerJaeger

11-21-2007, 01:19

The BF109 hasn't gotten much love in this poll - probably because of Paps point - but maybe it should get some attention despite being outclassed later on.

The Bf 109 was the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter force in World War II, although it began to be partially replaced by the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 from 1941. The Bf 109 scored more aircraft kills in World War II than any other aircraft. At various times it served as an air superiority fighter, a bomber escort, an interceptor, a ground-attack aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft. Although the Bf 109 had weaknesses, including a short range, and especially a sometimes difficult to handle narrow, outward-retracting undercarriage, it stayed competitive with Allied fighter aircraft until the end of the war.

The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring fighter aces of World War II: Erich Hartmann, the top scoring fighter ace of all time with 352 official victories, Gerhard Barkhorn with 301 victories, and Günther Rall with 275 victories. All of them flew with Jagdgeschwader 52, a unit which exclusively flew the Bf 109 and was credited with over 10,000 victories, chiefly on the Eastern Front. Hartmann refused to fly any other aircraft in combat throughout the war. Hans-Joachim Marseille, the highest scoring German ace in the North African Campaign, also scored all of his 158 official victories in the Bf 109, against Western Allied pilots. The Bf 109 was also used with good result by non-German pilots, including Finnish fighter ace Ilmari Juutilainen with 94 victories — the highest scoring non-German fighter ace in history.

wiki

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-21-2007, 02:16

I'm sure someone will probably correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Erich Hartmann, the world's all-time leading ace, stay with the Me-109 all through the war? I do know he turned down an offer to fly Me-262's, but I don't recall him flying with Focke-Wulf's either.

EDIT: Confirmed, his whole Jagdgeschwader flew only the 109, and accounted for over ten thousand victories.

Spino

11-21-2007, 03:55

Most of Germany's leading aces cut their teeth in the Bf-109 so it's understandable that they would be reluctant to stop flying a plane that was still deadly effective in their capable hands and one whose abilities and limitations they were quite intimate with. Trading up to a Me-262 was an entirely different experience though, that being a revolutionary step up as opposed to an evolutionary one.

Interestingly enough Japan also 'catered' to its aces, many of whom were also extremely reluctant to give up the Zero even though it, unlike the Bf-109 which remained relatively effective throughout the war, became seriously outclassed by the Hellcat & Corsair less than two years after Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until planes like the N1K1-J Shiden ('George') and Ki-84 Hayate ('Frank') were forced on Japan's pilots that they began to accept the fact that these new planes were far more effective at holding their own against America's fighters than their beloved Zero and Hayabusa (Ki-43).

The Bf-109 may have been loved by the Luftwaffe's top aces but it's a safe bet that the main reason why it was manufactured until the end of the war was because it was cheaper, required less materials to construct and was probably easier to manufacture than the more modern FW-190.

Bava

11-21-2007, 11:42

The "best" (as in significant impact over the longest period of time) should be
the Bf 109. Technically the P 51.

Based on my experiences with IL Sturmovik and its derivates (I know, I know...~D), the Yak 9 has always been my favourite.

caravel

11-21-2007, 15:41

I'm amazed that no one, apart from myself, has voted for the A6M.

Also the Mosquito wasn't really a fighter so I don't think that deserves to be measured against the others.

Vladimir

11-21-2007, 16:18

The one "I" would like to fly would be the P-38 in the Pacific theater. A good multi-role aircraft with excellent speed and two engines. The two engines part is critical for me as it not only gives you another lease on life but it allows the firepower to be concentrated from the center of the plane. It also tore through Zeros. I also enjoy it's extended range capabilities which took a bit of research to develop. It was quite revolutionary for it's time. I suppose a better question would be: If you could only have one fighter/pursuit plane from WW II in your air force, which would you choose?

Ramses II CP

11-21-2007, 17:42

It's really unfair to compare some of these machines from late in the war to the aircraft that served years on end and helped engineers spot the changes to make the late era craft more effective. That being said, all things considered, I took the Hellcat. Excellent range and firepower, very survivable, quite reliable, could take on a very wide range of missions, and adequate speed for an end-of-war aircraft. I would rate it near the top, if not at the top, of every meaningful statistic.

Of course within two years of the end of the war virtually every single one of them had been retired, and the jet age had well and truly begun. Very short term of service, which certainly makes me sympathetic to the other craft mentioned, but if I were heading into a generic large scale WWII engagement (If such a thing can be usefully imagined) I'd bring the Hellcat with me in quantity.

:egypt:

Brenus

11-21-2007, 20:31

Focke Wulf 190 (all the serie) much better tha ME 109. for the Germans
Allies: Weell, difficult: Spitfire, but s well P51 ustang I did like the Thunderbolt as well. Yak and Lavockine wer ar to be bad.
Start of the wr, the French Breguet and Dewatine 520

Kraxis

11-22-2007, 22:54

I have decided NOT to vote at all...

It is practically impossible. First of all, fighters aren't fighters. They are Dogfighters like the Spitfire and Zero, they are All Purpose (AP) like the Jug, P-38 and Focke Wulf 190, they are Interceptors like the Do 335 and Ta 190.
And add in the timeframes. Some are early planes, others are late and some are even consistently in service.
Yet again we have planes adapted for long ranges (Pacific), others for bad weather... A plane that would rule the skies in one role, at one point in time in a specific location, would be utterly outclasses by otehrs if you change that just a little.

Just look at the Spitfire. When it encountered the Zero the first time it was used to being able to do what it wanted in a dogfight. Not so anymore, and eth Zero was even faster... But did that make the Spitfire worse than the Zero? No, the Zero would never do well in Europe.

The P-51 gets a whole lot of positive attention, but if it had entered service earlier, when the pilots were worse, and the opposition was better, it would have gotten a reputation much like the Spitfire. Really good, and possibly the best in certain areas, but never the overall best.

Why? Well, the P-51 suffered from a large engine that could barely handle a single hit. Meanwhile the P-47 and the FW 190 could both suffer the loss of one-two-three even four cylinders and fly on. It was to say the least, highly fragile. And that showed when good German aces met the P-51 on even terms (meaning not vastly outnumbered), they generally gave the P-51 a good licking. More so than the P-47, which would generally survive the first attack to make a good getaway.

But in the situation of outnumbering the enemy and having better trained pilots overall, the P-51 was better. It had the awesome range, it was intuitive to the pilot and it was easy on learning (not deadly like both the Spitfire and Bf 109). So if you wanted endless masses of good fighters that were easy to fly, could work at any given height, in most capabilities and at extreme ranges, then the P-51 was what you wanted.
But by damn I would pick a P-38, P-47 or FW 190 for ground attack, a Do 335 for interception, a George for close in dogfighting, a Yak for frozen conditions... I could go on.

If we were to take a Mustang and scale it back in power to make it comparable to other 1941 fighters, it would not get picked. It would lack the required abilities for the time. It was ONLY a pick for the later period of the war.
And honestly, I wouldn't give Chuck Yaeger much weight. He is obviously biased (as was Adolph Galland about the Meteor/Schwalbe discussion, but at least that one was clearly in favour of the German plane), and he flew endless more hours in the Mustang than any other plane. The Mustang saved his life, and as such he would forever hold it in gratitude. There would never be a plane as good to him.

PanzerJaeger

11-23-2007, 00:05

And that showed when good German aces met the P-51 on even terms (meaning not vastly outnumbered), they generally gave the P-51 a good licking.

I'd love to hear more about that if you have the time, or maybe a link?

Thanks

:bow:

Oleander Ardens

11-25-2007, 19:17

Here is an interesting read about the quality of the Soviet and Western pilots from a German point of view. Seemingly they rated on the whole the Soviet pilots roughly as highly as the American and British one. The high counts of kills of the "Eastern aces" are mostly due to the difference in strategy and tactics. The Soviets focused on the close air support, thus flying with few planes slow&low - easy prey for an experienced German pilot. The Allies flew mostly in massive formations fast and high, heavily outnumbering usually the Germans greatly. This influenced also of course the "performance" of each fighter...

The dominant assessment in the "Western World" of the air war on the Eastern Front during WW II in many ways still is rooted in myths and misconceptions. Of course this is due to the Cold War, the dominance in the West of German accounts from this war theater, and the previous Soviet reluctance of offering any insight into their archives.

It is clear that the German fighter pilots were more successful on the Eastern Front than against the Western Allies, and that the war in the air on the Eastern Front cost more Soviet than German aircraft. But the reasons to this are manifolded. One key issue is the development of German fighter aces, and the extreme emphasis that the Luftwaffe placed on individual aerial victories. First of all, the Germans held a superiority regarding pilot training, the experience of their airmen, tactics, and technical outfit in 1941-1942. The tutoring into an aggressive victory hunt tht the German fighter pilots ("Jäger," "hunters," in German) received must be taken into account. The output from German fighter pilot training schools until 1943 can be described as highly trained, self confident, and highly motivated young aerial warriors, tutored to hunt aerial victories and nothing else. They had been brought up to believe that they were superior to anything else. They enjoyed the advantages of the best fighter plane at the time (Messerschmitt Bf 109), highly efficient tactics, and the accumulated result of the experience of other Luftwaffe veterans from the Spanish Civil War and the air war in the West in 1940.

When Hitler launched his attack against the Soviet Union, the surviving veterans of the Luftwaffe had been hardened by the tough lessons of the battles for France and England in 1940-41. Stalin's extensive purges of the Red Army in the late Thirties resulted in huge qualitative deficiencies. Many of the best commanders, down to unit level, were executed. The conservative Stalinist thinking dominated, and the Soviet airmen found themselves ill equipped, inadequately trained for a modern aerial warfare, and tied down by obsolete methods and tactics. In addition, the technical modernization program for the Soviet air forces had merely begun.

The Luftwaffe held about a two-year technical advantage compared to the Soviet air forces. For these reasons, the Soviets suffered heavy losses in airmen. This led to radically reduced pilot training courses. Which in turn increased Soviet losses--and, of course, the success rate among the German fighter pilots. The entire situation enabled a core of German airmen to survive and amass a huge combat experience.

From late 1942, when the quality of the Soviet Air Force was slowly resurging, a core of immensely experienced German fighter pilots - with experience from 500 or even more combat sorties, all flown in the same aircraft type - had emerged on the Eastern Front. It is a fact that never have there been more war-experienced fighter pilots in action than the core of German aces that developed on the Eastern Front in 1941-1943. This conclusion is based not mainly on the number of aerial victories attained by the "top aces", but as a combination of several factors. The most important factor here is the amount of experience - both the experience attained by the "aces", but also the experience amassed by their wingmen. Many very skillful Luftwaffe fighter aces were killed in the West because the other pilots in their formation lacked the experience necessary to cover their formation leader. This problem was not at all as present in the East, where the core of experienced wingmen were far better than the average Jagdwaffe wingman in the West from late 1943 and onward.

Without doubt, fighter pilots in general developed and refined their combat skills the more experience they gained. For instance, 132-victory ace Alfred Grislawski states that when he flew over the Normandie in the Summer of 1944 - with an accumulated experience from almost 800 combat missions (most of which had been flown on Bf 109s) - he was much more skillful as a fighter pilot than when he "only" had flown 200 combat missions. "By that time [Summer of 1944] I could master any situation, and when I entered air combat I could tell in advance whom I was going to shoot down."

Of course war-weariness ultimately affected some veterans negatively, but far from everyone. Since fighter pilots in general developed and refined their combat skills the more experience they gained, it is plausible to assume that the fighter pilot veterans who accumulated experience from over 500 - in a few cases even over a thousand - combat sorties, developed levels of air combat skills that were unparallelled in any other air force. The majority of those served with the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front.

The situation was different on the "Western Front," where the modern equipped and trained RAF was an equal opponent already from the start of the war. The Luftwaffe's pilot losses against the Western Allies in 1941-1943 did not allow such a tremendously experienced core of fighter aces to develop as was the case in the East. But of course there were exceptions. During the month of September 1942, German fighter ace Hans-Joachim Marseille claimed 54 victories - including 17 in one day - in North Africa (most of them fighters); during the same month, the top scorer on the Eastern Front, German fighter ace Hermann Graf, claimed 62 Soviet aircraft shot down - 10 was his best result for a single day.

For several reasons, the German fighter pilots in general held a slight upper hand in air combat with the Western Allies air forces until 1943. This however changed with the appearance of large formations of US heavy bombers and long-range US escort fighters. From the Fall of 1943, the "hunters" of the German fighter force had turned into "hunted." While the German fighters had to be concentrated against US bombers, the escorting Thunderbolts, Mustangs, and Lightnings, operating in increasingly superior numbers, could bounce German fighters and shoot them down in scores. Added to this was the severe losses as a result of the heavy bombers' defensive fire. Increasing losses in the air battles over Germany resulted in reduced pilot training courses, which in turn further increased German fighter losses. This mainly affected the units with the highest losses - namely the fighter units in the "West".

Another important difference between the "West" and the Eastern Front was that until June 1944, the USAAF and RAF fighter pilots had no frontline on the ground to cover (this regarding Western Europe), and thus could concentrate on hunting German planes in the air. This advantage was never enjoyed by the Soviet fighter pilots.

It is interesting to study the fates of some German aces who "changed fronts." Here I only deal with fighter-to-fighter combat, where skill may count (any top ace could get killed in the massive fire from hundreds of heavy machine-guns from a US heavy bomber formation, regardless of immense flying skills).

"Jochen" Müncheberg, Galland's protegé in JG 26, arrived to JG 51 on the Eastern Front in August 1942. He was shot down twice in four weeks. Siegfried Schnell, who achieved 87 victories against the RAF and the USAAF, arrived to JG 54 on the Eastern Front in February 1944; two weeks later he was killed in combat with Soviet fighters. "Assi" Hahn was shot down by a Soviet La-5, and ended up in captivity three months after he arrived to the Eastern Front; he had previously scored 68 victories against the French Air Force and the RAF. Oberstleutnant Hannes Trautloft, "Assi" Hahn's Geschwaderkommodore on the Eastern Front, recorded this statement by "Assi" Hahn regarding the quality of the Soviet opposition three months after Hahn's arrival to the Eastern Front:

"Hahn told me that the air combats are not easier, but instead harder than what he previously had experienced. He, who is used to merciless air combats against a skillful enemy over the English Channel, told us that he had to mobilize all his skills to fight enemies who proved to be at least as killful as the Englishmen."

"Those 'Kanaljäger' arrived to us and thought that it was an easy game on the Russian Front. Well, they soon learned that this was not the case," said Artur Gärtner of JG 54.

Of course there also were experienced German fighter pilots from the East who got shot down and killed shortly after they had arrived in the West. But no one has denied that the air war in the West was dangerous; it is the air war on the Eastern Front that - probably incorrectly - has been described as "easy", from a German perspective. To some extent, the losses of experienced German fighter aces in the West in 1943 - 1945 also can be explained by the fact that they often did not have the same protection - i.e. quality of their wingmen - as in the East.

One famous Eastern Front expert who "changed fronts" is Günther Rall, who after 273 victories and over 700 combat missions (almost all on the Eastern Front) in the Spring of 1944 was shifted to JG 11 in the Home Defense. Indeed, Rall was shot down and wounded by Thunderbolts from U.S. 56 FG on May 12, 1944. But this was not until he had shot down two of the Thunderbolts himself - and in an air battle where 470 German fighters were pinned against fifteen hundred American planes, including 814 heavy bombers and 735 fighters. This was the ninth time Rall got shot down - eight of which had occurred on the Eastern Front. Asked about his opinion on the American and Soviet fighter pilots, Rall said: "The Americans weren't better than the Russians. The Russians were aggressive and tough opponents."

At the same time, it is interesting to study some of the German top aces that had been educated on the Eastern Front, and their accomplishments against US and British fighters:

Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert had carried out around 500 combat sorties and achieved 103 victories on the Eastern Front in 1941-1942 when he was shifted to Tunisia. Between January 1943 and early May 1943, he was credited with fifty victories against the USAAF and the RAF - quite comparable to the success rate achieved by other top aces on the Eastern Front at that time, and also comparable to the rate of successes that he had achieved against inferior equipped Soviets. Heinz Bär arrived from the Eastern Front to North Africa in October 1942 and shot down twenty RAF and USAAF fighters in two months - about the same rate of successes that he had scored previously on the Eastern Front. Theodor Weissenberger arrived to the "Normandie Front" in June 1944, after almost three years of service on the Eastern Front; he claimed twenty-five US and British fighters in only twenty-six combat sorties in June and July 1944 - his previous twenty-two victories had been achieved on twenty-five combat sorties on the Eastern Front. And we all know how Hartmann dealt with the US Mustangs...

We have asked several Luftwaffe veterans of their impression of the qualities of their various opponents. Hugo Dahmer, who served on the Eastern Front only in 1941, has the impression that the Soviet airmen were inferior to those of the RAF. Alfred Grislawski, who served on the Eastern Front until 1943, and from then on in the Reichsverteidigung, holds that the Soviet airmen in 1943 were equal to those of the RAF. Grislawski explained that "the Russians had a different tactic; their main task often was to strafe our ground troops, and because of this we often managed to catch them in a position that was to their disadvantage."

One German fighter ace and Knight's Cross holder (he expressed the wish of remaining anonymous) expressed the impression that the Soviet airmen were better than the Americans (this was regarding the US airmen in North Africa in 1942). This is supported by Alfred Grislawski, who - speaking of the last Soviet pilots that he met (in the spring of 1943) compared to the American pilots that he met later in 1943 and in 1944 - said: "It is hard to compare because the Americans always came in large numbers against few of us. But when it comes to the individual pilot, I regard the Russians as better than the Americans. This is only natural, because the Americans had this tour system. How much did they fly - thirty or forty combat missions? - and then they were called back home again. They never accumulated that much experience."

"The advantage of the Americans was that they always appeared in large numbers," is a common statement from former Luftwaffe aces.

The Soviet fighter pilots mostly operated in relatively small formations. The normal German fighter tactic was a high-side gunnery run against lower flying enemy formations, whereafter they could use the superior climbing performance of the Bf 109 to withdraw. In this way, the German fighter pilots frequently were in a position where they could choose to engage the enemy only when the situation was to their advantage. Whereas the German fighter pilots operated in the loose two-plane Rotte-formation, and in the four-plane Schwarm-formation (two Rotten) - where the wingman's task was to cover the leader, who was supposed to shoot down the enemy-, the Soviets (in 1941 to mid-1942) mainly operated in three-plane V-formations, which reduced the flexibility of the fighters. One of the main advantages held by the Germans was that all of their aircraft were equipped with R/T transmitters and receivers, while most Soviet fighters only were equipped with receivers during the first years of the war. What also hampered the Soviet fighter pilots was the common tactic of deploying them to area protection, where it was prohibited to pursue the enemy outside of the assigned territory; the German fighter pilots were mainly dispatched on free hunting sorties with no other territorial boundaries than those set by the amount of fuel in the tanks of their aircraft.

In spite of these initial German advantages in air combat, the Soviet airmen performed very well. Without doubt, the Soviet fliers in general were the toughest and most determined opponents ever to be faced by German airmen. Any other air force probably would have disintegrated morally following the immense losses that were dealt the Soviets by the Luftwaffe on June 22, 1941 - at least this was what the Germans had anticipated would happen to the Soviet armed forces. In spite of this, Soviet bomber crews kept launching one mission after another against the advancing German ground troops during the first weeks of the war, and the Soviet fighter pilots never ceased challenging the Luftwaffe of air superiority.

Until Tomas Polak and Hans Dieter Seidl in the late 1990s came out with their books on the Soviet fighter aces in WW II ("Stalin's Falcons" and "Stalin's Eagles"), the achievements by the Soviet airmen in WW II were relatively unknown in the Western World.

It is a fact that the most experienced and most successful fighter aces on the Allied side in WW II were the Soviet top aces.* It is interesting to note that the P-39 Airacobra was rejected by both RAF and USAAF pilots. Soviet ace Aleksandr Pokryshkin nevertheless achieved the bulk of his 59 personal (plus several "shared") victories while piloting an Airacobra, which by all means was vastly inferior to the Bf 109 G and the Fw 190 A - and to the Spitfire IX, the Mustangs, and the Thunderbolts that the British and US fighter pilots manned.

In 1941, Soviet ace Boris Safonov achieved his first sixteen victories (plus six "shared" victories) while piloting an I-16 Ishak. Although the performance of the I-16 has been belittled in several Western accounts (comparing test flights made by a New Zealand test pilot in recent years indicated that the I-16 was slightly superior to the British Hurricane), it is clear that the I-16 was vastly inferior to the Bf 109s with which it was opposed. It is easy to imagine which successes Safonov would have been able to achieve, had he been equipped with a Spitfire, and had he operated within the frameworks of a radar-supported fighter control system like RAF Fighter Command in 1940.

Taking the fact that the cream of the German fighter aces were deployed to the Eastern Front, the performance of these Soviet aces are even more impressive. It should also be noted that whereas several German fighter pilots flew with the main intention of achieving high individual scores (they had been brought up to this), the Soviet airmen waged a war with the intention of striking against the enemy wherever he could be found - on the ground or in the air. The main accomplishment by the Soviet air forces in WW II was their contribution to the destruction of the German Army. The German fighter pilots developed such an attitude toward strafing or fighter-bombing missions, that when they first were instructed to undertake such missions, they regarded it as an unjust punishment - which also was what Göring, who had issued the order, intended.

As mentioned, the dominant assessment in the "Western World" of the air war on the Eastern Front during WW II in many ways still is rooted in myths, misconceptions and bias. Of course this is due to the Cold War, the dominance in the West of German accounts from this war theater, and the previous Soviet reluctance of offering any insight into their archives. But the Cold War is over. What remains now is a handful of surviving veterans with their invaluable memories, and the huge amounts of aviation unit documents in the Russian archives.

We, the authors of "Black Cross/Red Star", have made an effort to find the truth behind the myths, misconceptions, prejudices and bias - on both sides! - by digging into those sources. Put together with the accounts of Russian and German pilot veterans that we have met, and Soviet and German air force documents, we have arrived at a picture that in many ways is opposed to some versions previously presented by both "the West" and "the East".

The only aim of our forthcoming six-volume book "Black Cross/Red Star: Air War Over the Eastern Front" is to find the actual picture of this hitherto little-known air war, the largest in history. The aim of this article is to bring about a better understanding of the environment during which the air war was fought on the Eastern Front, during which the German and Soviet fighter pilots attained their - often in the West doubted or belittled - large victory numbers. If this article has contributed to dismantle the impression that the achievements of the Soviet fighter pilots were below those of the British and American fighter pilots - which the author believes is a serious misconception - one important goal is achieved. At the same time, it is of course not the author's intention to belittle the achievements or standards of British and American fighter pilots.

The different natures of the fighter combats in "the East" and in "the West" that are presented here, are described in detail in our book "Graf & Grislawski: A Pair of Aces". Hermann Graf and Alfred Grislawski were in action - either one of them, or both - in the West in 1939, in the East in 1941-1945, and in the West in 1943-1944. Thus, that book gives ample and clear evidence and examples of what is discussed in the article above.

From http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/text.html

Kraxis

11-25-2007, 21:02

I'd love to hear more about that if you have the time, or maybe a link?

Thanks

:bow:
Heh... Hard to do, it is generally the little comments, quotes etc. that indicates that the Mustang was fragile when attacked. But I fear you might have misread my comment as the Mustang being bad or something, which it definately wasn't.

It was a comparison, more or less, with the Thunderbolt in general combat with German aces. They were proficient in hitting on the first pass, meaning the target had to be able to sustain the damage, and that was the particular weakness of the Mustang. Sure the pilot was safe enough from burning fuel or being shot in the back, but his plane would not last. It would go down fast.

Compare this to the experience of Heinz Knoke who on a bomber interception mission got bounced by Thunderbolts, and while his plane was riddled with holes (and going down) he got a lucky chance to kill his attacker. He gave the enemy all he had and instead of breaking up or going down hard like a Mustang, it took the damage with grace and gave the pilot ample chance to right his plane and secure an escape. Obviously such happened to Mustangs too, but not with quite a few seconds of full fire from cannons and MGs.

Hartmanns preferred tactic of short controlled close up bursts would not have worked against Thunderbolts, while he certainly did knock down Mustangs with it. Meanwhile the Thunderbolts were perhaps not very good dogfighters, but as Hartmann put it "dogfighting is a waste of time", hence that would not really be a limitation. Especially not against the aces who generally preferred the zoom 'n boom methods, much like the Americans in the Pacific.

And these characteristics is why I rate the Do 335 so high, it fit the German style perfectly.
Btw, the Schwalbe didn't have weak or underpowered engines, nor were they unreliable per se. But Germany lacked strategic metals, so the jet engines were made from steel and nickel. Obviously that is a limiting factor on how much heat they could take, so high power at low speeds would lead to a burning engine in far too many cases. Thus landing and taking off would render it vulnerable.

Nice article OA. Very good read.

amritochates

11-25-2007, 21:15

Can not vote as Focke Wulf TA152 is absent.

Uesugi Kenshin

11-25-2007, 23:25

Hartmanns preferred tactic of short controlled close up bursts would not have worked against Thunderbolts, while he certainly did knock down Mustangs with it. Meanwhile the Thunderbolts were perhaps not very good dogfighters, but as Hartmann put it "dogfighting is a waste of time", hence that would not really be a limitation. Especially not against the aces who generally preferred the zoom 'n boom methods, much like the Americans in the Pacific.

And these characteristics is why I rate the Do 335 so high, it fit the German style perfectly.

Kraxis do you have any idea if dogfighting was used to great success anywhere except in the early days of flight (where boom and zoom tactics were probably next to impossible) and the early Japanese successes in WWII? It seems to me that dogfighting is far more dangerous because you are more likely to either lose control of your plane by pushing it to the edge of its capabilities, or being picked off by either a bogey sneaking up behind you while you focus on dogfighting or just plain old losing the dogfight and being shredded by your foe.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-25-2007, 23:31

it was easy on learning (not deadly like both the Spitfire and Bf 109).

I would disagree with the Me-109 being "deadly". The worst problem it had, in the mostly early models, was that it tended to list slightly on takeoff. Pilots of the Me-109 were taught how to deal with this. If you would care to elaborate?

PanzerJaeger

11-26-2007, 04:21

Heh... Hard to do, it is generally the little comments, quotes etc. that indicates that the Mustang was fragile when attacked. But I fear you might have misread my comment as the Mustang being bad or something, which it definately wasn't.

It was a comparison, more or less, with the Thunderbolt in general combat with German aces. They were proficient in hitting on the first pass, meaning the target had to be able to sustain the damage, and that was the particular weakness of the Mustang. Sure the pilot was safe enough from burning fuel or being shot in the back, but his plane would not last. It would go down fast.

Compare this to the experience of Heinz Knoke who on a bomber interception mission got bounced by Thunderbolts, and while his plane was riddled with holes (and going down) he got a lucky chance to kill his attacker. He gave the enemy all he had and instead of breaking up or going down hard like a Mustang, it took the damage with grace and gave the pilot ample chance to right his plane and secure an escape. Obviously such happened to Mustangs too, but not with quite a few seconds of full fire from cannons and MGs.

Hartmanns preferred tactic of short controlled close up bursts would not have worked against Thunderbolts, while he certainly did knock down Mustangs with it. Meanwhile the Thunderbolts were perhaps not very good dogfighters, but as Hartmann put it "dogfighting is a waste of time", hence that would not really be a limitation. Especially not against the aces who generally preferred the zoom 'n boom methods, much like the Americans in the Pacific.

And these characteristics is why I rate the Do 335 so high, it fit the German style perfectly.
Btw, the Schwalbe didn't have weak or underpowered engines, nor were they unreliable per se. But Germany lacked strategic metals, so the jet engines were made from steel and nickel. Obviously that is a limiting factor on how much heat they could take, so high power at low speeds would lead to a burning engine in far too many cases. Thus landing and taking off would render it vulnerable.

Nice article OA. Very good read.

Thanks :bow:

I was more looking for individual accounts of Germans versus Americans in the air, but I have found some. Fascinating stuff!

PanzerJaeger

11-26-2007, 04:24

Can not vote as Focke Wulf TA152 is absent.

My mistake... :oops:

An awesome plane, but only 70 were produced I believe...

amritochates

11-26-2007, 07:02

Point conceded: Perhaps then a new thread for aircraft that could have been the best if the Axis hadn't lost the war.

Under the present list , I would go for the Focke Wulf 190 then.
Although the Hispano Aviación HA-1112 Tripala(A post war Me-109 variant) built in spain using the Hispano-Suiza 12Z-17 engine is a personal favorite.

Kraxis

11-26-2007, 17:43

I would disagree with the Me-109 being "deadly". The worst problem it had, in the mostly early models, was that it tended to list slightly on takeoff. Pilots of the Me-109 were taught how to deal with this. If you would care to elaborate?
Of all the massproduced fighters the Me109 was the deadliest. While not particularly dangerous while flying (though it had a bad habit of breaking off wings), it had a serious flaw while landing. It's landinggear was far too narrow and weak, this lead to many deaths among trainees and inexperienced pilots. And it wasn't that uncommon for experienced pilot to flop the plane as well.

So if you got it in the air it was fine as long as you didn't push it too hard (if you knew it's limits however, it could outturn a Spitfire), but landing was tricky at best. I don't know the exact numbers, but I get a constant number popping up that it was almost 1:! in combat vs accidental deaths. If it was anythign like that it was a horrible plane... To land at least.

Kraxis do you have any idea if dogfighting was used to great success anywhere except in the early days of flight (where boom and zoom tactics were probably next to impossible) and the early Japanese successes in WWII? It seems to me that dogfighting is far more dangerous because you are more likely to either lose control of your plane by pushing it to the edge of its capabilities, or being picked off by either a bogey sneaking up behind you while you focus on dogfighting or just plain old losing the dogfight and being shredded by your foe.
Everybody dogfighted in the early war, the Americans were foced into special tactics due to having no chance at dogfighting. The Germans fairly quickly abandoned dogfighting as they saw that their Me110s had great success when they pulled off a zoom 'n boom, but suffered horribly in dogfights. And since they always tried for altitude over the enemy it was the logical approach for all fighters.
Don't know about the British, but their experiences in the Pacific and against the early Fw190s seems to indicate that they liked dogfighting.
The Russians definately loved dogfighting. Their planes were much like the Japanese, quite maneuverable, less punch (though not always) and not always very good at altitude. And that article by OA backs it up. So I would suppose that the Russian front is hwere you should look for late war dogfigthing success. But one must also remember that if you dogfight in a large mass of planes, chances are that one or more enemies will just dive on you while you are slow. You effectively bind yourself to a fairly limited position. The Western front with the big fleets would be a dangerous place to dogfight, for both participants.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2007, 02:43

Of all the massproduced fighters the Me109 was the deadliest. While not particularly dangerous while flying (though it had a bad habit of breaking off wings), it had a serious flaw while landing. It's landinggear was far too narrow and weak, this lead to many deaths among trainees and inexperienced pilots. And it wasn't that uncommon for experienced pilot to flop the plane as well.

Yes, I do remember the landing gear issue, but wasn't that fixed in later versions?

spmetla

11-28-2007, 08:11

The BF109 hasn't gotten much love in this poll - probably because of Paps point - but maybe it should get some attention despite being outclassed later on.

wiki

I am a big fan of the Bf109 but I just can't vote it the best fighter. While it had an excellent rate of climb and dominated the early war the unforgiving nature of it would make me give it up. The narrow landing gear killed lots of german pilots not to mention the problems of the small cramped cockpit and the ability to only exit one side of the cockpit. The frame was too light to take serious engine upgrades or gun pods well without problems on the frame or jams on the wing guns. The good fighters were all good at additional roles which the bf109 was not at. The P51B was not the super plane we love but its ability to take the upgrades to the D variant made it the war winning escort fighter we love. Same thing with the Fw190, introduced in '41 it was a serious contender all the way to the war's end due to the ability to fill multiple roles. After the Franz variant it should have been replaced instead of going into the mediocre Gustav variant, would have been better to have all that production and those pilots go into Fw-190s and Me-262s.

In flight sims though I absolutely love the Bf109, the ability to outclimb trouble and have all my shots go where I want are great.

Hound of Ulster

11-30-2007, 05:29

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-01-2007, 02:45

The Germans had the advantage in terms of overall quality until the P-51D was introduced in late 1943. After that the Allies owned the skies.

This cannot be attributed to the fighter itself, however. By 1943 Germany had lost troops, tanks, and artillery by the hundreds or thousands, and resources were diverted to make up for this. The Allies could simply out-produce Germany all they wanted.

Uesugi Kenshin

12-01-2007, 04:55

One of the problems that the ME 109 had was it was very hard for beginners to fly, while the FW 190 was fairly forgiving. The U.S aircraft were generally designed to be faster and more heavily armed with longer ranges. The Nazis never liked strategic bombing, so thier fighters never had long range, which gave the Spitfire and Hurricane the advantage in the Battle of Britian and later. The Germans had the advantage in terms of overall quality until the P-51D was introduced in late 1943. After that the Allies owned the skies.

Well after the Battle of Britain and the Blitz the Germans had little use for long-range planes since they had entered a defensive posture and it was quite clear that their only hope was to pull off a brilliant one-off victory that would impress upon the allies that the war would last far longer and be far bloodier than they likes and then secure an armistice. Strategic bombing wasn't exactly going to help them much in that department.

Mount Suribachi

12-02-2007, 17:13

This cannot be attributed to the fighter itself, however. By 1943 Germany had lost troops, tanks, and artillery by the hundreds or thousands, and resources were diverted to make up for this. The Allies could simply out-produce Germany all they wanted.

It wasn't just production, it was also pilot skill/training. The qualitative advantage that Luftwaffe pilots enjoyed in the first 3 years of the war in training and tactics had gone by the mid-point of the war as their core of pre-war pilots was constantly eroded. This coupled with Allied and especially US pilot training which was churning out well trained pilots with hundreds of hours before they even reached a front line squadron (and much of this training was done under the tuition of veteran pilots who had been rotated out after 100 missions). By '44 the Germans were rushing barely trained pilots
to the front, mere lambs to the slaughter (the Russians could have told them what happens to pilots with only 12 hours flying time.....)

I think it was Gabby Gabreski who when asked what made a good fighter pilot said "training, training, training, training, good eyesight, and training".

Oleander Ardens

12-03-2007, 14:26

t wasn't just production, it was also pilot skill/training.

And it wasn't just production and skill/training but especially strategic resources and goals supported by the specific tactics. It was also a battle o few mostly untrained ones with severe resources shortages and a hard tactical goal against many well-trained with huge resources and an easy tactical goal. The German fighters wanted to down the bombers which were defended by far superior numbers of allied fighters which mostly also enjoyed an advantage in height and speed.

Given all the odds one has to concede that there was never a finer cream of the crop than the top German aces....

OA

Hound of Ulster

12-03-2007, 19:09

Uesugi Kenshin

12-03-2007, 20:09

If the Germans had invested in strategic bombing, they would have been able to attack the Russian industry that fled beyond the Urals. Remember, it was the ability of the Allied industry to produce weapons relatively un-hindered from air raids that gave the Allies thier war-winning equipment advantage. In short, the Nazis were very much belivers in what we call today 'shock and Awe', hence why they never built a 'grind-em-down' long-range bomber like the Avro Lancaster or B-17. This seeming 'non-need' for a long-range interceptor/escort dictated the design for all of the German fighters, hence why they had shorter ranges than the Allied fighters of the same period. This short range was a huge disadvantage that cost the Germans the air war.

Well the Germans did develop some very good strategic bombers, they just never had time to iron out their issues, started a bit late on them, and eventually the scarcity of high-grade fuel made it impossible for them to fly them. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the Germans strategic bomber...Maybe it was the He-177 "Greif" or something like that??

Kraxis

12-04-2007, 06:12

Well the Germans did develop some very good strategic bombers, they just never had time to iron out their issues, started a bit late on them, and eventually the scarcity of high-grade fuel made it impossible for them to fly them. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the Germans strategic bomber...Maybe it was the He-177 "Greif" or something like that??
Like most areas of warfare the Germans had plans and projects in a rather considerable amount when it came to strategic bombers.
The Greif was one, and it was as German as they got, overengineered to the point of almost useless (dual engines driving single propellers). Another was the impressive Ju 390 (a development of the 290), Germany's best bet for a really long range bomber. It made a flight in 1943 from Bordeaux to within 19km of New York and back. And there were an almost endless number of designs that nearly made it. It was the Maus all over again.

Germany's only real chance at a heavy bomber lay in the Fw 200, it was there early, it had the capacity and it had the range. It had flaws like most other planes, but overall it would have performed well enough. But Focke Wulf was not very well liked politically, unlike Heinkel for instance, so they got relegated to limited jobs. But the Fw 200 could have performed the job with little trouble but just didn't fit the bill at the given time.
It should be interesting to note that the Ju 290/390's fuselage is overwhelmingly similar to the Fw 200...

Given all the odds one has to concede that there was never a finer cream of the crop than the top German aces....
Given that they weren't rotated 'home' I can only agree, but mainly because they accumulated such vast amounts of experience that they almost became one with their planes. Just the top 10 German aces alone accumulated more combat missions that the entire Coalition during the First and Second Gulf Wars combined... That says something. So in the end only the best and luckiest minuscule percentage was left.
Had the western Allies had a similar system we would have seen a few pilots that could at least have been considered very successful in Germany. Even the Soviet Union with their less impressive tactics and style had far better scoring aces than the western Allies. That was because they too didn't rotate as much.

PanzerJaeger

12-04-2007, 08:02

It was the Maus all over again.

A big problem indeed.. :beam:

https://img378.imageshack.us/img378/4254/maus3vf.jpg

Spino

12-04-2007, 16:59

Like most areas of warfare the Germans had plans and projects in a rather considerable amount when it came to strategic bombers.
The Greif was one, and it was as German as they got, overengineered to the point of almost useless (dual engines driving single propellers). Another was the impressive Ju 390 (a development of the 290), Germany's best bet for a really long range bomber. It made a flight in 1943 from Bordeaux to within 19km of New York and back. And there were an almost endless number of designs that nearly made it. It was the Maus all over again.

Germany's only real chance at a heavy bomber lay in the Fw 200, it was there early, it had the capacity and it had the range. It had flaws like most other planes, but overall it would have performed well enough. But Focke Wulf was not very well liked politically, unlike Heinkel for instance, so they got relegated to limited jobs. But the Fw 200 could have performed the job with little trouble but just didn't fit the bill at the given time.
It should be interesting to note that the Ju 290/390's fuselage is overwhelmingly similar to the Fw 200...

Took the words right out of my mouth. :thumbsup: The Fw-200 was a perfect candidate for an early war German strategic bomber; it had excellent range, could carry an impressive bomb load and possessed an impressive defensive armament. However the Condor had a glaring weakness in that it was not the sturdiest of aircraft; its fuselage (or was it the wings?) had a disturbing penchance for cracking during rough landings, a problem which would have no doubt been amplified had it been employed as a proper heavy bomber. This weakness persisted in later marks despite modifications designed to address the problem.

Actually the Ju-290/390 was based on the Ju-89/90 not the Fw-200, both of which were developed at roughly the same time. Speaking of which Ju-89/90 was the only other heavy bomber that might have been available to the Luftwaffe in the early war period had Goering not foolishly killed the program. The Ju-89/90 apparently possessed impressive performance and it was the Ju-290 that eventually took over maritime duties from the Fw-200.

Uesugi Kenshin

12-04-2007, 22:42

King Kurt

12-06-2007, 12:32

There has been some good debate on this thread so I thought I might add my six penny worth. To me the greatest fighter aircraft in WW2 would have to be the one which lasted the longest and showed itself adaptable throughout the war. So this rules out a lot of the favourites - Fw 190, Mustang etc - as they came in later. The points about the situation they fought is well made as well - for example the mustang fighting from a position of numerical advantage and tactical freedom. So after these points are considered you probably end up with a list of 3 - Spitfire, Me 109 and Zero - I can't think of a Soviet plane that was there in 1939 and lasted until 1945.
So, of those 3, which would you rather be in? - for me it would have to be a Spitfire (I am English after all!!) The Spit could take on the other 2 and always have a good shot at coming out on top. It fought at a tactical disadvantage on many occasions and proved itself in defensive and offensive roles. There were times when it was out performed - for example when the FW 190 appeared - but it always seemed able to be improved to get itself back in the game. Finally, of all the 3, it is by far and away the best looking plane with its throughbreed looks and lines - no ugly radial engines or box like fuselages there.
I shall now retire to my hardened hangar and await the fall out.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-06-2007, 15:23

Kurt:

Based on your criteria -- one airframe (with modifications and improvements) throughout the majority of the war:

You'll need to add the Yak, the P-39, and the P-40 to your list. The Yak was in use from mid-1940 through the close of the war, running through 11 variants. The P-39 and P-40 were in use from 1939 onwards each with multiple variants.

Of these 6 [A6M*, Bf-109*, P-39*, P-40*, Spitfire*, Yakalov*], I'd pick the P-40 without any qualms. It was a good airframe that adapted well over time and to various roles and was renowned for good flight characteristics -- what the practitioners of the era called fly/fight. You didn't have to watch it every second to prevent losing control and could focus on your opponent -- but it was still responsive and very effective if used with the correct tactics against a given opponent. Plus it had better legs than the Euros and a lot better survivability than the nimble Mitsus.

rotorgun

12-06-2007, 21:08

While it was a very difficult choice to make, what with all of the outstanding aircraft represented here, I chose the F6F Hellcat. From most of the interviews I've read or heard about with veterans that flew it, they always praise it highly for it's performance. They also always say that it was a very easy aircraft for a new pilot to learn to fly and that it had the highest kill ratio of the war-something like 10 to 1. With this aircraft. The relatively inexerienced American Pilot's that flew it shot down over 5600 Japanese aircraft-many of them the vaunted Zero.

King Kurt

12-07-2007, 11:53

Uesugi Kenshin

12-07-2007, 23:28

Seamus

3 good choices - I had ruled out the Yak on the basis of it not really being about until late 1940. As for the P39 - a bit of an oddity - hardly used on the western front, very popular on the eastern front and a good level of service in the Pacific - I suppose I would rule it out as not being so flexable as the other 5 - the heart of the plane was the big 37mm cannon which was why the Russians liked it as it enhanced the ground attack value - similar in the Pacific too.
As for the P 40, I would have to agree that it was a good plane and was certainly around in 1939. However I am not sure how widely it was in service at the end of the war it certainly was not in use in Europe. However it did do sterling service in the Med , China and the Pacific. As in all these comparisons you have to look at the tactical situation and the opposition - it was such a different story in the various theatres couple with when in the war you are talking about. I still say the Spit was best overall in that it performed well in most theatres throughout the war - but hey, that's what this debate is all about.:2thumbsup:

Also I've heard a lot of tales about the P-39 having a problem where it would relatively easily go into a horrible unrecoverable spin and crash. Plus the door was a bit of an oddity, which since it was designed like a car door would have been hard to escape from if one needed to bail out.

I think you can pretty easily say the Bf-109 aged well compared to pretty much all planes, especially the Zero which though upgraded and updated by the Japanese never could really compete with American planes after the F6F and F4U started to arrive in the Pacific in numbers.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-08-2007, 06:06

P-39s were prone to flat spins if the ammo load was malfed up. If the bird went into a spin and the front bins were empty, it had a tendency to lift its nose into a flat spin because of the engine being abaft the pilot. Once discovered, they ballasted it whenever the front bin was empty.

P-40s flew and/or fought with 28 different countries during the war -- virtually every allied combatant fielded them at one point in time or another. USAAF groups were using them in the Med and in China until the last day of the war. RAAF pilots were using them in Borneo through the end as well. The last few versions even had the new engine and supercharger that let them fight well above 16k. It never won a lot of the kudos the other kites did and the USAAF sorta trash-talked it after the war, but it was a good bird. Aside from the first few months of the Japanese blitz in the Pacific, it fought well in all theaters and in multiple roles. P-40s and Kittyhawks posted a very good kill:loss ratio throughout their combat service.

ICantSpellDawg

12-09-2007, 05:10

Ki-44. Canon.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-10-2007, 02:36

Ki-44. Canon.

Meh. The sparse firing pattern would've done it little good in fighter-on-fighter as suggested in the OP. Strictly a bomber hunter with the canon versions.

Hound of Ulster

12-10-2007, 03:59

The P-40 may not have been very sexy like the p-51D, but it got the job done.

Tristuskhan

12-11-2007, 23:03

I'm definitely not pro-british at all, but I feel a bit surprised no one voted for the Hawker Tempest yet. The bird was not sexy, but it was likely the best: speed, range and firepower, it was the spearhead of allied tactical air force during the last months of this long war. Losses were high among the Tempest units, but considering the crucial rule those units had, every other airplane would have done worse.
PS: I voted for the Ki-84 ("forget it, it's a Frank!"), but it was more an esthetic choice, and the fact that it saved more than one japanese newbee at a time US air superiority was at its max...

Uesugi Kenshin

12-11-2007, 23:38

King Kurt

12-13-2007, 11:57

Well the Tempest wasn't really much of a fighter was it? My impression always was that it was essentially designed as a ground-pounder, but could handle enemy planes far better than say a Stuka.
A little unfair there Uesugi - the Tempest was arguebly the best British fighter over the last 12 months of the war. It was a major part of the defence against the V1s, shooting down about 800. It also performed well against the german airforce - what was left that is!! But don't take my word for it - here is what a Me 262 pilot said

"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)

Like all Allied aircraft it did a large share of ground attack, but that was in reflection of the lack of air opposition from mid 1944. For example the main Tempest wing in Europe destroyed more trains than planes!!

The Tempest was a powerful, fast, steady gun platform. It had a reputation for being a little difficult to fly, but pilots loved the power and speed.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-13-2007, 15:27

Tempest was one of the late war brutes and deadly at low level against anything. It just wasn't worth a lot at altitude -- but that wasn't uncommon with a relatively new airframe/engine combination. Unlike the P-40, there never was a later development to take care of that problem, which there would have been -- if the war had not ended and virtually all of the R&D had not turned to jets. Tempermental, but a good kite.

Uesugi Kenshin

12-13-2007, 21:08

A little unfair there Uesugi - the Tempest was arguebly the best British fighter over the last 12 months of the war. It was a major part of the defence against the V1s, shooting down about 800. It also performed well against the german airforce - what was left that is!! But don't take my word for it - here is what a Me 262 pilot said

"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)

Like all Allied aircraft it did a large share of ground attack, but that was in reflection of the lack of air opposition from mid 1944. For example the main Tempest wing in Europe destroyed more trains than planes!!

The Tempest was a powerful, fast, steady gun platform. It had a reputation for being a little difficult to fly, but pilots loved the power and speed.

Interesting, thanks for mentioning that. I wouldn't have thought it was that effective at low-altitude, though I have to say the cannon must have been handy compared to the regular 6-8 .50 cal. machine guns.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-14-2007, 04:12

Interesting, thanks for mentioning that. I wouldn't have thought it was that effective at low-altitude, though I have to say the cannon must have been handy compared to the regular 6-8 .50 cal. machine guns.

Most 20mm had a significantly lower rate of fire than the Ma Deuce, and while the bullets had double or more the mass of a 12.7, they weren't so much harder hitting as to invalidate it as a weapon. As caliber increased, ROF generally went down and while fewer hits would yield more damage, obtaining those hits was tougher with a sparse cone of fire (though this would have been of less concern for tank/train-busting). It's been argued that the Ma Deuce was the best combo of hitting power and ROF produced during the era. Since the sucker is still in use -- albeit not on a/c -- and its users still swear by it.

On the other hand, .30/7.6 or 7.9 were demonstably lacking in hitting power when compared to the other weapons available. Many nations fielded fighters using .30 cal at the outset -- but darn few by the end.

Side note: Original Typhoons -- which the Tempest replaced mounted 12 .303 MGs!

Tribesman

12-14-2007, 09:47

Unlike the P-40, there never was a later development to take care of that problem, which there would have been
Surely since the Tempest was a Typhoon 2, the Fury was a Tempest 2 or Typhoon 3 , the Fury dealt with the performance at altitude issue didn't it

Mount Suribachi

12-14-2007, 12:33

Tribesman makes a fair point (never said that before!) the Tempest was an evolution of the Typhoon, which was itself a failed fighter, hence the ground attack role.

And the Sea Fury is one of the sexiest planes ever...... *swoon*

Vladimir

12-14-2007, 14:02

The outdated P-40 lived on borrowed time and only advanced tactics and a good commander in China kept them in the air.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-14-2007, 17:31

Surely since the Tempest was a Typhoon 2, the Fury was a Tempest 2 or Typhoon 3 , the Fury dealt with the performance at altitude issue didn't it

Somewhat, though climb and performance at altitude never quite reached those of the comparable era/role f8f. Below 8000m the Sea Fury held its own with anybody -- and even scored one of the first Mig-15 kills.

Still, by the point the Sea Fury reached service (late 1945), it was becoming increasingly obvious that the future would be jet-propelled, so efforts to enhance lower-level air support function without trying to compete with jets at altitude was probably the wiser course.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-14-2007, 17:43

The outdated P-40 lived on borrowed time and only advanced tactics and a good commander in China kept them in the air.

No aspersions on Chenault (he was good), but you're under-rating the P-40 pal. You make it sound as though it was no better than the p-35 or p-36.

This airframe fought throughout the war in the Pacific and Med (Plus Russia) and gave a good account of itself throughout. Early versions with the mixed armament and weaker engines didn't hold up and were replaced, but the P-40 was updated repeatedly and stayed a major player in all theatres aside from the 8th AF area of ops.

Mount Suribachi

12-15-2007, 17:12

Sure it was better than the P-36, but it wasn't on a par with the Spitfire, 109 etc. It soldiered on out of necessity, not because it was a fighter of choice. Hence why the RAF in N Africa were constantly demanding more Spits. It was due to fine leadership and tactics from the likes of Mary Coningham that the RAF was able to win Air Superiority over the Luftwaffe in the desert, not any inherent quality in the P-40, for it was inferior in nearly every aspect to its main adversary (the 109)

Uesugi Kenshin

12-15-2007, 19:12

Most 20mm had a significantly lower rate of fire than the Ma Deuce, and while the bullets had double or more the mass of a 12.7, they weren't so much harder hitting as to invalidate it as a weapon. As caliber increased, ROF generally went down and while fewer hits would yield more damage, obtaining those hits was tougher with a sparse cone of fire (though this would have been of less concern for tank/train-busting). It's been argued that the Ma Deuce was the best combo of hitting power and ROF produced during the era. Since the sucker is still in use -- albeit not on a/c -- and its users still swear by it.

On the other hand, .30/7.6 or 7.9 were demonstably lacking in hitting power when compared to the other weapons available. Many nations fielded fighters using .30 cal at the outset -- but darn few by the end.

Side note: Original Typhoons -- which the Tempest replaced mounted 12 .303 MGs!

Then again pretty much all modern jets with mounted guns carry a 20-30mm cannon....

I think the main problem with the .50 cal is that it didn't have an explosive shell which seriously hindered its performance, and I'd take a plane mounting two Mg 151/20's or two Hispano 20mm's any day over a plane mounting 6-8 Browning .50 calibers. Machine guns just didn't have the punch to take fighter down unless you got solid engine hits or were lucky, and machine guns were horribly underpowered against bombers. If you take the slightly different trajectory of cannon into account and wait until you get a good shot there is no reason to take machine guns into battle rather than cannon. Cannon are simply more effective, unless you're desperate to go with a low-weight solution, like on the P-51 due to range considerations. Then taking machine guns may be better, but I bet two 20mm cannon are lighter than 6 .50 calibers.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-15-2007, 23:38

Some nice numbers and comparisons in this. Unsurprisingly, the MK-108 comes out the winner.

Cannons are the clear choice over MG (sorry, Ma Duce :shame: ), though the Ma Duce had the range on everybody -- to the extent that mattered.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Fisherking

12-16-2007, 11:23

30mm were not that common in the US inventory and they were definitely bound by inertia in so many ways. They went with what worked and the .50 cal was better than the .30 cal. The mind set of these guys is numbers over quality and they just didn’t look any further.

The final version of the P-51 did mount 4x20mm just as the F4U did. I can not think of a fighter that mounted multiple 30mms other than as an add on for tank busting.

While 20mm or 30mm have an excellent punch don’t forget that they had API for those 50s and 8 of them is a lot of fire power. I would hazard to say that 8 cal .50s is more than equal to 4 20mms. 450 rounds per min. times 8 is one heck of a lot of burning steel coming your way if you are on the other end. Tables don’t always show the full story.

If I were flying one I would be thinking more of survivability though…that would mean a P-47
If you want fire power then it is a bird that didn’t get in quick enough…the F7F Tigercat with 4x20s and 4x50s and two engines.

Mount Suribachi

12-16-2007, 13:34

Uesugi Kenshin

12-16-2007, 17:27

The Americans found in Korea that the raft of 50cals fitted to their F-86s often lacked the punch to bring down Mig-15s, who would often be pumped full of lead and keep on flying. Whereas a couple of hits from a Migs canons would be fatal to the Sabre.

Yeah...Having a super-high fire-rate isn't particularly good for air to air combat because you often don't have enough time with your crosshairs on the target that you'll hit with a bajillion .50 cal rounds and shred the enemy, so being able to strike the bogey with a 20mm shell or two and put him down is much more advantageous than you might think. Plus once you actually start hitting an enemy plane they tend to start maneuvering out of your line of fire thus nullifying your high fire-rate advantage.

Tribesman

12-17-2007, 01:35

The final version of the P-51 did mount 4x20mm just as the F4U did.
The second version of the P-51 (RAF mustang 1A)was cannon armed

Fisherking

12-17-2007, 13:04

The second version of the P-51 (RAF mustang 1A)was cannon armed

True enough but because of poor performance at altitude and low speed it was classed as a ground attack machine.

The USAAF called this model the A-36 and I think it had the same engine as a P-40

DukeofSerbia

12-18-2007, 17:56

Why multiply voting is not allowed? :no: Picture is not black-white and vast generalization won't show/solve anything. Why multiply voting? Those fighters should be divided into several groups:
- air superiority fighters – Ftr
- interceptor fighters – Int F
- escort fighters – Esc F
- carrier air group – CAG
- fighter-bombers

P.S.
Btw, I voted for Mustang.

Kraxis

12-22-2007, 04:29

For some reason you guys didn't even consider the P-38 for the long service/efficiency title.

That plane is my my mind one of the most interesting and good looking planes. Not beautiful, that goes to the Spit I would say, but good looking. A warplane must look evil, it must look rugged, it must look deadly, and yet it also has to look sleek (sorry F-14, that last part just doesn't help you ~;p ). The P-38 served the entire war, though not as a prime fighter early as it was still very new, but it held the best kill/loss ratio in the Pacific. Yup, it and no other. I think it was around 20:1. Downright crazy numbers. The Marianas Turkeyshoot would have been a bad day at the office for it (10:1 ratio there)

It had it all, speed, range, survivability, punch, superior engineering (fuselage hard to hit, tricycle landing gear, awesome turbocharger though later in the war). Sure it lacked agility... Those two heavy engines made the rolls sluggish, if not directly slow, and thus made it harder to pursue a foe in a dogfight. But as we have already covered, dogfighting was never the forte of the good aces. Even the top Japanese aces didn't dogfight in their nimble planes. And 4x12.7mm and 1x20mm placed next to each other hit like 6x20mm since all bullets and shells hit the same spot on the enemy. No need to differentiate the spread. Just line them up for a straight shoot.
And it had a superb view for the pilot. Even better than both the Spitfire and the Mustand which are among the most celebrated fighters for their view.

Incidentally that was what the Germans found out about their Me110. It was just awesome coming in from above and zooming away again. The poor enemies never had a chance, even the Spitfire took nasty losses when it happened. Sadly (for the pilots) the Germans didn't allow for that at the time. They forced the Zerstörers to stay close to the bombers, and their tactics nearly demanded dogfighting, since that was in fact what they had been taught. The best pilots flew Me110 early in the war... But they were used to nimble planes, that was where they were good. So naturally it suffered heavy losses when confronted by Hurricanes and Spitfires. Thus the Germans gave up on it, foolishly. For later they found that it was just excellent for nightfighting, using adapted zoom 'n boom tactics. Plain silly... But obviously it was outdated by the time it was common to not dogfight, so it could never make a return, besides it's reputation was tarnished.

About the weapons... I agree on the linked lists. The MK-108 was a killer... However what the link doesn't show is that it had a horrible ballistic characteristic. The shells danced around, were relatively slow and they dropped down like rocks in water. Not bad at all against big bombers, miss one and hit another below, and the spread had a massive shotgun effect on the enemy plane. In effect the MK-108 didn't have to hit the engines or the pilot or some such... It could just rip the plane apart with a nice burst.
But in dogfights these characteristics were not favourable. The cannon had to be lead more, fired in longer bursts and from closer range. I wouldn't want that when I only have a very limited amount of ammo (what was it, 120 rounds per cannon?).

No for dogfights I think the Germans found the best weapon (going from one German weapon to another heh). The 15mm MG, the MG 151. About twice the power of the M2, in a bigger package, granted, but the weapons were still relatively small. The big advantage it had over the comparably sized 20mm cannons was it's rate of fire, similar to the M2. Besides it's rounds hit as hard as 20mm shells due to the higher speed. And it had HE rounds for pure ownage as gamers would say. The fighter vs fighter weapon in WWII I would say.
The real, and tough, balance between MGs and cannons. The M2 was up there, but in time it lost out to 20mm cannons, the MG 151 did not, in fact it got used more and more.

Fisherking

12-22-2007, 14:10

Well said and a good aircraft...but...

I view polls like this as not much more than a beauty contest. Everyone likes something slightly different mostly for esthetic reasons.

The pilots also had their opinions but much depended on what they flew. Statistics also can show us something but as has been said before there are lies, damn lies, & statistics.

I can’t say that the plane I clam as the winner is my esthetic favorite but the men who flew it as well as Spitfires and Mustangs thought it was the best of the lot. That would be the P-47 Thunderbolt (popularly know to its pilots as the flying Jug).

It may not have been the most beautiful girl on the block but it had some attributes that made it a winner. And of the planes listed it is surely one of the most versatile.

It didn’t have the range, speed, or looks of some of the others but it had firepower and survivability. In most instances it was also forgiving, though it could be put into an unrecoverable dive.

As for .50 cals not being so effective, I remember seeing gun camera footage from a P-47 where it engaged an FW190 from slightly above and behind. It disintegrated the 190 and flew through the debris patch…and kept on going…that alone would have brought down the victor in most any other aircraft.

Vladimir

12-27-2007, 15:01

For some reason you guys didn't even consider the P-38 for the long service/efficiency title....

Thank you. But WTF was that about the F-14? Six chances to kill you at >100 miles. How is that not cool?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-29-2007, 04:54

Thank you. But WTF was that about the F-14? Six chances to kill you at >100 miles. How is that not cool?

He didn't say it wasn't a good kite and the weaps system was bloody marvelous.

He said it was aesthetically ugly. It was. Not ugly like the Aardvark or DO-335, but it was a brute and it looked the part.

Joe Louis wasn't pretty like Ali, but he still pounded his opponents out.

Kraxis

01-03-2008, 06:46

He didn't say it wasn't a good kite and the weaps system was bloody marvelous.

He said it was aesthetically ugly. It was. Not ugly like the Aardvark or DO-335, but it was a brute and it looked the part.

Joe Louis wasn't pretty like Ali, but he still pounded his opponents out.
Exactly... the P-38 looks downright bad, it has a look of "don't give me that tone little boy". But at the same time it also looks efficient, and sleek like a Mako shark. The F-14, however brutal it looks and however efficent it really is, looks like a bunch of spare plates of aluminium cobbled together on top of two big engines.
Even the Do-335 looks sleek on top of it's ugly evilness (I sort of look at it as the evil cousin of the P-38)...

King Kurt

01-03-2008, 12:40

Seamus Fermanagh

01-03-2008, 19:34

The other claim to fame for the P38 is arguebly the most significant single plane kill of the war. It was P38s that were used to shot down the plane of Admiral Yamamoto in an ambush planned by cracking the Naval codes. This single act removed the Japanese's best military leader. You could have a good debate on if this was a good thing or bad - would he have been a force for moderation in the final years of the war leading to peace without the atomic bomb? or would he have provided a more robust defence draging out the war even longer? Although things were swinging the US's way - it was spring 1943 - there was still a long way to go. The records show that this assasination was ordered from the very top so it is an interesting incident all round. For the purposes of this debate - i.e. best fighter - the P38 was the only fighter capable of the mission at that time.

For more on this action see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Isoroku_Yamamoto

At the time, it seemed the thing to do.

In retrospect, he would have been of somewhat more value as a relatively moderate part of the ruling cadre, though he was already somewhat marginalized in this regard by the time of his death.

He would have better defended with what he had, but by the Spring of 1943 the verdict was being made ready. USA quality was as good or better, category by category across all elements, and logistics wins.

Fisherking

01-04-2008, 11:32

King Kurt

01-04-2008, 16:15

Uh?! You know that the P-38s were not the only planes sent on that mission don’t you?

Pappy Boynton with a flight of F-4Us was also sent out. The P-38s of the USAAF were the ones that found and got him though.

I didn't know that - I thought that the P38 was the only plane with the range to do the mission. Mind you the F-4U could carry a couple of big drop tanks. A quick check on Wiki - not the best source I know but close enough - gives the P38 a range of 1,300 miles and the F4-U one of 1,100 miles so not a great difference. Both planes were great workhorses and have not had such much attention as the more glamorious types so it is good they are getting a little bit of belated attention.

Spartan198

01-29-2008, 02:31

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-29-2008, 05:02

The later Mustangs were the kings of the sky. They even shot the Germans' 262s out from beneath their pilots' seats. The Mustang was the only piston engine fighter to ever down a jet aircraft in a dogfight. That's a known fact.
The 262, to the best of my knowledge, was NOT necessarily a fighter, but a bomber interceptor. It actually makes perfect sense - the turning on the 262 was abysmal compared to other examples of the period.

Peasant Phill

01-29-2008, 09:28

Besides weren't most Schwalbes downed while landing? Any fighter can down a landing plane but it's to the mustangs credit that it could fly so far to reach those landingspots.

King Kurt

01-29-2008, 10:55

The later Mustangs were the kings of the sky. They even shot the Germans' 262s out from beneath their pilots' seats. The Mustang was the only piston engine fighter to ever down a jet aircraft in a dogfight. That's a known fact.

A quick bit of surfing tells me that jets have been shot down by La 7s, Sea Furys, Tempests even A1 Skyraiders - those are known facts!!:laugh4:

Spartan198

01-30-2008, 01:08

Really? Well,WWII aircraft aren't exactly my area of expertise.

Uesugi Kenshin

01-30-2008, 03:10

Me-262's were also plagued with engine problems, and were unable to change the amount of thrust very quickly. Throttling up too quickly could lead to engines cutting or flaming out from what I remember....So really they aren't a great example of the paragon of fighter aircraft.

spmetla

01-30-2008, 18:57

Besides weren't most Schwalbes downed while landing? Any fighter can down a landing plane but it's to the mustangs credit that it could fly so far to reach those landingspots.

Correct, the sensitivity of the engine and the weight of the plain meant that during take off and landing the 262 was flying low and slow and could do little to avoid the enemy without burning the engines out.

El Diablo

01-30-2008, 21:00

As Caravel said the Mosquito was not an out out fighter but is sure was the best looking plane back then.

It got my vote simply for the multi uses that it had.

An Aero-swiss-army-knife...

wumpus

02-01-2008, 08:45

The P-51 got much attention because: (1) it was newer (at '44-45, during its peak) and thus would be a better plane than the older ones; (2) it has a longer range, just right fir the Americans to reach Tokyo and back from Saipan or Germany from England; (3) it was fast (but not the fastest); (4) good enough maneuverability, firepower, handling, etc.
Somebody mentioned above ME-262, which I consider my best WW2 fighter (of both the "Schwalbe" version and the "Sturmvogel" version), but Jagdpanzer said at the start "I don't include jets." Anyway, only with ME 262 had there been a super-elite squadron of fighters headed by a general no less [Adolf (Dolfo) Galland as squadron commander] and a bunch of field-grade officers as the other pilots.
Sieg Heil!

wumpus

02-01-2008, 09:00

Uh?! You know that the P-38s were not the only planes sent on that mission don’t you?

"Pappy" Boyington with a flight of F-4Us was also sent out. The P-38s of the USAAF were the ones that found and got him though.
In war, luck plays a very large role. In this case, (1) the Americans (and their allies) were lucky to have intercepted the message that Yamamoto was to pass that way; (2) they were lucky to have been able to have the facilities to decode the message; (3) the P-38s were lucky to have been the ones to find Yamamoto's plane, and the F4Us of the Black Sheep Squadron were unlucky not to have found it. Both planes were unelegant in looks, but both were great fighters. In addition: the F4U was unlucky to have been rated "not carrier-worthy" at the start of its career, the reason why (a) most first-line carriers had F6Fs as their fighters and (b) the F4Us were merely "thrown" to the Marines. But, finally, the F4U was lucky to be the warhorses of the two squadrons I like best in the Pacific: the Black Sheep Squadron of the Marines and Blackburn's Irregulars (VF-11, the "Jolly Rogers Squadron") of the Navy--both squadrons being made up of rebels and misfits, but great killers.
Hawooh.

Vladimir

02-07-2008, 15:03

Wow. You really need to read up on Purple and Magic.

MilesGregarius

02-16-2008, 11:29

Of course within two years of the end of the war virtually every single one of them had been retired, and the jet age had well and truly begun.

On the Allied side the the Spitfire, Tempest, P-51, Corsair, and Yak-9 all saw into the 1950's with their original air forces, with the P-51, Corsair, and Yak-9 seeing frontline service in Korea. Admittedly, the Mustangs and Corsairs were used primarily in a ground-attack role, but one Corsair did shoot down a MiG-15. The Bf-109 soldiered on for years with various air forces, and had the Axis powers won, no doubt the Fw-190, Frank, and George would have probably seen service lives into the mid-1950s.

On a side note, both El Salvador and Honduras used P-51s and Corsairs against each other during the Football War of 1969, both claiming victories and denying losses. Would be interesting to see who came out on top.

As for the poll itself, I have to go with the P-51 as the best of the best. Not discounting the strengths of the Fw-190, the Spitfire and the Tempest, the P-47, the F6F, or the Corsair, all of which I see as being roughly equal, nor the longevity of the Bf-109, the P-51's excellent combat performance combined with its range make it the premier piston-driven fighter of all time. The ability to go toe-to-toe with any other fighter in the sky AND fly to Berlin or Tokyo I think is the decisive factor.

On this point, I'll leave the last word to that old morphine junkie, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring: "The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up."

Fisherking

02-17-2008, 10:33

The later Mustangs were the kings of the sky. They even shot the Germans' 262s out from beneath their pilots' seats. The Mustang was the only piston engine fighter to ever down a jet aircraft in a dogfight. That's a known fact.

(FYI) The F4Us also brought down a couple of Migs
I think F7Fs also did the same. The tempests brought down quite a few ME-262s but if memory serves all the ME-262s were brought down while landing and not in a dog fight situation. The Migs were...