Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Best fighter in WW2???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 9:11:20 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

If whole WWII is taken into account then, IMHO, there are only two (yes two!) clear winners:

Messerschmitt Me-109
Supermarine Spitfire

or (if you find the above biased although they are both winners ):

Supermarine Spitfire
Messerschmitt Me-109


Both of them were top of the line when WWII started and they were not obsolete when it ended (they were still very much "competitive")...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 121
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 9:14:01 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"a selectively chosen fact"

I've learned at the feet of the master is all I can say.

But, it's still a purely objective fact.  By the only purely objective yardstick, the B-239 is the "best" fighter AC of WW2.  If we only included air-air kills by equivalent AC being flown by equivalent pilots we'd argue about what?  "Hey! That one doesn't count, pilot X had the sun in his eyes!!!"  Or all armies would send out their champion, winner take all?  War ain't fair.     

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 122
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 9:50:25 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		F4U Corsair fanboy here - fast, rugged, well-armed, deadly dogfighter and fighter-bomber, outflies P-47 and P-51, kill ratio about 2200:189, and a beauty as well.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 123
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 9:54:56 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

By the only purely objective yardstick, the B-239 is the "best" fighter AC of WW2.


That claim is incorrect. Your yardstick requires you to account for the types of a.c. that your candidate had to fight against, and the quality of the opposition's pilots.

The ONLY purely objective yardsticks are dive, maximum airspeed, stall speed, turning radius roll rate acceleration and climb rate expressed as a multidimensional graph of all of these as they varied by airspeed, armament, and durability.

No one imagines that the Brewster was a good plane by any standards. Against Wright fliers, late 1930s Polikarpovs, and so forth, the Brewster 229 was exceptionally adequate for combating exceptionally antiquated old crates. Doubtless the 229 would also have fared well against flocks of geese, clouds of locusts, etc, but it was not a good product.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 124
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 9:56:13 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

F4U Corsair fanboy here - fast, rugged, well-armed, deadly dogfighter and fighter-bomber, outflies P-47 and P-51, kill ratio about 2200:189, and a beauty as well.


Hear hear!

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 125
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 10:19:04 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
And the final variant, the P-40N was a better peformer than the last production models of the ME-109.

Eh?

Under what criteria (other than Endurance) would you class a P40N a better performer than a 109K?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 126
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 10:23:02 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Oh you ignorant Englander - it was American design and product. Simple, eh?

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 127
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 10:25:32 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Also FWIW (not that this topic should be about Jets but I can't help it) I agree with Nik on the 262. I remember posting a while back on the GD about the strengths and weaknesses of 262's.

On it's own it wass no war winnder. It had technical/reliability problems. These coupled with the war conditions it fought in. I.E. massively outnumbered which meant it's weaknesses could nto be overcome (main 2 combat one's here are poor maneuverability after a combat pass and immense weakness on slowing down to land.)

I agree with Nik also in that even if enough of these puppies saw combat in 1943 it was too little too late.

IMO the chance where these boys could be successful would be IF there was a better pilot training system and there were adequate 190D's/Ta152H's.

Now of course that in it's own right opens other What If's in that IF enough of these guys were around (+more 190D/152's) then the Allies would have responded with X72, B29's 80's Meteor II (earlier) etc.

In short my take on the 262 is revolutionary idea for the time. Sheer speed (flown in experienced hands) would allow destruction of heavies (provided enough covering fighters could engage the escorts) but the inherent weaknesses of the aircraft rendered it mediocre for the time of war exacerbated by Allied numerical superiority.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 128
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 11:30:56 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Under what criteria (other than Endurance) would you class a P40N a better performer than a 109K?


In addition to endurance, I'd add durability and armament. All were key considerations in an operational environment as large as northwest Africa.

Yeah. The armament thing is debatable. Was I busting B-17s I'd want the ME-109s hub mounted cannon. For taking down enemy fighters, however, IMO a couple .50s are worth a lot more. The argument was only "settled" in favor of bigger bores in the 1950s when the fighters themselves (in the jet era) became so large that big explosive rounds were needed to bring them down.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 129
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/27/2007 11:52:04 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"No one"

Eh, that's pretty sweeping statement. I'm glad you speak for the world at large.

I think it was a pretty good AC, under the circumstances. The Finns obviously thought it was a pretty good AC also, and fought with it using correct tactics, within its limitations, and to great success. Once they cut the weight back to what it was designed to carry, took care of all the shoddy US workmanship, and repaired the sub-standard rebuilt airliner engines they got shafted with. They didn't have the luxury of whining (after getting their heinies kicked trying to dogfight with the Zero) about it being totally useless as a combat aircraft, and had to fly what they had. They must not have heard about this "multidimensional graph" mumbo jumbo. Does that mean they gotta give all those kills back?

I'd suspect the Russians thought so too...the ones flying the Lend Lease US fighters, Spitfires(?), Hurricanes, and ME-109s etc. shot down by it. Of course, some of the top Soviet aces flew P-39's by choice and begged us for more of them. Go figure. They probably hadn't heard about multidimensional graphs either.


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 130
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:32:30 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Under what criteria (other than Endurance) would you class a P40N a better performer than a 109K?


In addition to endurance, I'd add durability and armament. All were key considerations in an operational environment as large as northwest Africa.

Yeah. The armament thing is debatable. Was I busting B-17s I'd want the ME-109s hub mounted cannon. For taking down enemy fighters, however, IMO a couple .50s are worth a lot more. The argument was only "settled" in favor of bigger bores in the 1950s when the fighters themselves (in the jet era) became so large that big explosive rounds were needed to bring them down.


Durability I agree but since we're talking about the best fighter here i'd say the superior top speed, cruise speed, climb rate and manuevaribility of a 109K give it a substantial edge over a P40N. Agreed the P40N could probably take more damage but if it couldn't gain a tactical advantage over a 109K how could it hit it? The converse applies.....

Also 109K's in NW Africa? My timelines must be buggered or something?


< Message edited by Speedy -- 11/28/2007 12:33:15 AM >

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 131
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:39:38 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

OEh, that's pretty sweeping statement. I'm glad you speak for the world at large.


In this instance I'm confident that I'm doing a really good job representing the vast majority of the world. The claim that the 229 was a "great" or even "very good" airplane warrants filing with the claims of Bigfoot researchers, ET-alien-abductees, and flat earthers.

quote:

I think it was a pretty good AC, under the circumstances.


Exactly. Under the circumstances. You can't claim its battle performance is a good "objective" standard because the circumstances in which it operated were so considerably different from other early war a.c. like the ME-109, Spit, Hurricrate, F4F, 7c ad nauseam. The Soviet Air Force of 1939 was a joke, technologically speaking. The 229 looks "good" because agains outdated Polikarpovs and the like it was, by comparison, "good." But against real first class a.c. flown by adequately trained pilots, the 229/F2A was a solid hunk o junk.

quote:

The Finns obviously thought it was a pretty good AC also, and fought with it using correct tactics, within its limitations, and to great success.


Not exactly "objectively" the best if you have to qualify it so thoroughly.

quote:

took care of all the shoddy US workmanship


The workmanship was characteristic of Brewster Aircraft Company, not of the US. That is why Brewster's operations were, unique among American a.c. manufacturers, nationalized and then handed over (IIRC) to GM management.

quote:

They didn't have the luxury of whining (after getting their heinies kicked trying to dogfight with the Zero) about it being totally useless as a combat aircraft, and had to fly what they had.


Had VMF-223 at Midway been replaced by experienced Finnish volunteers, they too would have been wiped out to the last man during the battle of Midway.

quote:

They must not have heard about this "multidimensional graph" mumbo jumbo.


Why would they? They're not the tomfools making the claim that "objectively speaking, the Brewster 229 was the best aircraft of the war!" I'm sure that if they could have made a choice, they'd have picked ME-109s, any of a number of later model Yaks, LaGGs, Republics, North Americans, Lockheeds, Vickers-Supermarines, Focke-Wulf's etc etc. Hell, even a decent mid-war Macci-Castori would probably get the nod over the 229.

quote:

Does that mean they gotta give all those kills back?


I dunno? Is killing a Polikarpov I-15/3 "in the air" more worthy of note than ground-strafing a railroad car? IMO, probably not.

quote:

I'd suspect the Russians thought so too...the ones flying the Lend Lease US fighters, Spitfires(?), Hurricanes, and ME-109s etc. shot down by it.


That'd be a real long list of, possibly, two or three Soviet pilots?

quote:

Of course, some of the top Soviet aces flew P-39's by choice and begged us for more of them. Go figure.


Yep. Given the choice between a Brewster 229 and a P-39Q, the P-39Q would be the clear favorite for any sane pilot.

quote:

They probably hadn't heard about multidimensional graphs either.


Probably not. All they'd need to do is spend a half hour in the cockpit of each and they'd know the P-39 (or almost anything else) was vastly superior to the Brewster 229. They'd have a mental template that would be a good substitute for such a graph. Of course, was one to claim to "objectively" evaluate the relative merits of the Brewster 229 and, well, pretty much anything else, one would have to look at such a graph, since most of us here couldn't get at a Brewster and all these other a.c. in order to fly them, even if all of us *could* fly and then cast ballots or something later on.

Fortunately, neither Russians nor anyone else (well, MOST anyone), is claiming that by any "objective" standard the Brewster 229 makes any reasonable list of "best" fighters of WW2. Most everyone with any knowledge of the subject can dismiss such absurd claims on receipt.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 132
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:47:32 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Durability I agree but since we're talking about the best fighter here i'd say the superior top speed, cruise speed, climb rate and manuevaribility of a 109K give it a substantial edge over a P40N.


I won't credit tyhe ME-109 with "superior maneuverability" over the P-40. I suspect that claim is based largely on the N.Africa campaign, in which many P-40s were shot down while performing ground support missions. I've heard that the P-40 could actually out-turn the ME-109 at most combat airspeeds, which tactic became the way that American and UK aviators dealt with ME-109s in meeting engagements.

quote:

Agreed the P40N could probably take more damage but if it couldn't gain a tactical advantage over a 109K how could it hit it? The converse applies.....


Being both faster and more maneuverable than the F4F under most battle circumstances did not confer any particular immunity on the A6M drivers, so I can't see why we should presume the ME-109 was exceptionally invulnerable.

quote:

Also 109K's in NW Africa? My timelines must be buggered or something?


They never fought head to head. The point is that most of the "ideas" about the relative merits of the ME-109 and the P-40 are framed around the data from North Africa.

On paper, an 109K was good for something like 180-190 MPH. On paper, a P-40N on a fighter superiority mission and load out was good for about 178 mph. At high speeds, both were comparable vis horizontal acceleration, and dive speed acceleration. That's not a big difference to hang a hat on.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 133
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:57:22 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Actually, factoring in length of service, the Bf-109 series was probably the best fighter of WW II. It went into front-line service in the Spanish Civil War and was still in front-line service in the Spring of 1945. Various "marks" and upgrades kept it a formidable opponant for it's enemies throughout the conflict. Lack of range was always it's weak point..., but the same was true of the Spitfire (it's almost continuous opponant during the war).

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 134
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 1:01:38 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

If whole WWII is taken into account then, IMHO, there are only two (yes two!) clear winners:

Messerschmitt Me-109
Supermarine Spitfire

or (if you find the above biased although they are both winners ):

Supermarine Spitfire
Messerschmitt Me-109


Both of them were top of the line when WWII started and they were not obsolete when it ended (they were still very much "competitive")...


Leo "Apollo11"

You are absolutely right! The only two fighters that stayed in service throughout the war and always stayed competitive!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 135
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 1:29:17 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Don't forget the P40. It's right up there from late 41 right until the end if the Reich and Japan. Matching the best the 'other' side had. In fact thinking on it further I wonder why the Allies even bothered to develop and press into service the likes of the P38, P47, P51. Who needed it when we had the P40

I do like these kind of topics. Fun to say the least. Night all

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 136
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 1:57:28 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		No. The P-40 isn't in one league with the Spit and the Me!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 137
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 2:20:08 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		While pondering this thread somethiung struck me about the convergence of evolution.



Late mark Spitfires (particularly the Griffon engine bubble canopy ones), P47s, P51s, Tempests, Sea Furies, Fw 190s, and the Soviet and Japanese late war fighters all had a similar layout - except for the Spitfire/one mark of the Tempest/P51 they had a radial engine (which was what made the Ki-100 better than its predecessor -or in the Dora's case an inline engine in a radial engine style front end), a bubble canopy, low wing monoplane layout. Sure the wing shapes and detail of the structure differ, but the basic shape is the same. In the Spitfire and other types that started with an enclosed cockpit assumed that shape as they developed. The F8F Bearcat had this shape. They all started to look alike. Which if you think about it is probably unsurprising.



The F4U Corsair didn't have a complete bubble canopy (although it did have one promoting all round vision better than the enclosed cockpit F6F) and used the inverted gull wings.







< Message edited by Ian R -- 11/28/2007 2:23:27 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 138
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 3:09:55 AM   
Kadrin


Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Durability I agree but since we're talking about the best fighter here i'd say the superior top speed, cruise speed, climb rate and manuevaribility of a 109K give it a substantial edge over a P40N. Agreed the P40N could probably take more damage but if it couldn't gain a tactical advantage over a 109K how could it hit it? The converse applies.....



Actually, under 20,000 feet a P40N would be at a distinct advantage over the 109K. The 109K was optimized for high altitude combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Don't forget the P40. It's right up there from late 41 right until the end if the Reich and Japan. Matching the best the 'other' side had. In fact thinking on it further I wonder why the Allies even bothered to develop and press into service the likes of the P38, P47, P51. Who needed it when we had the P40

I do like these kind of topics. Fun to say the least. Night all


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

No. The P-40 isn't in one league with the Spit and the Me!



Actually, the P40 was on par with every contemporary Spitfire and 109 model, and its logical to assume that if the P40 had been continually upgraded like the Spitfires and 109's through 43 and into 44 and 45, that it would have stayed on par.

Even in 44 and 45, the P40N-1 was still a decent competition with Spitfires, 109's, P51's and the like at low altitude, and in some cases was even better.

_____________________________



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 139
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 3:46:57 AM   
Coach Z

 

Posts: 576
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: New York
Status: offline 		IF YOU WERE A PILOT AND HAD TO FLY IN COMBAT VERSUS ANOTHER FIGHTER WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

FOR ME EVEN THOUGH I FEEL THE P-51 MUSTANG WAS THE BEST FIGHTER IN WWII, PUT ME IN A P-47 THUNDERBOLT !!
ALL THAT EXTRA ARMOR (or armour for you English chaps) WILL COMPENSATE ALOT FOR A LITTLE PILOT ERROR !!!!

_____________________________

ZUCK

(in reply to Kadrin)
Post #: 140
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 3:52:03 AM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		well glad I didn't put my bi-focal specs on for that last post

_____________________________


(in reply to Coach Z)
Post #: 141
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 4:26:49 AM   
bobogoboom


Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

OEh, that's pretty sweeping statement. I'm glad you speak for the world at large.


In this instance I'm confident that I'm doing a really good job representing the vast majority of the world. The claim that the 229 was a "great" or even "very good" airplane warrants filing with the claims of Bigfoot researchers, ET-alien-abductees, and flat earthers.

I have to agree with mdiehl here the brewsters were outclassed at the outbreak of the war by all the modern aircaft designs. If they were any good the us wouldn't have dropped them like a rock in favor of the wildcat(which definatly wasn't a world beater it's self). they just went up against ancient russian equipement when the war started out.

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 142
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 4:30:07 AM   
bobogoboom


Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
quote:

took care of all the shoddy US workmanship


The workmanship was characteristic of Brewster Aircraft Company, not of the US. That is why Brewster's operations were, unique among American a.c. manufacturers, nationalized and then handed over (IIRC) to GM management.

Um technically didn't they go bankrupts and the us then nationalized them. They were the only aircraft manufacturer in the us to go out of business during world ware 2

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 143
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 4:40:32 AM   
MineSweeper


Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline 		What was the best fighter in World War II ?....there is no easy answer. It really depended on the mission at hand.

Long Range Escort - P-51
Ground Attack - P-47
Bomber Interceptor - ME-262
Carrier Fighter - F4U
High Altitude Interceptor - FW-190D

I would nominate the P-38L (if I had to choose just one)....it was a fantastic multi-tasker.



< Message edited by MineSweeper -- 11/28/2007 4:43:10 AM >

_____________________________





(in reply to keeferon01)
Post #: 144
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 5:33:15 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline 		http://www.jibjab.com/view/214450


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 145
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:10:13 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline 		1939 - Bf 109D
1940 - Spitfire I
1941 - A6M2 Zero
1942 - Fw 190A5
1943 - P-38F
1944 - Fw 190D9
1945 - ?

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 146
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 12:33:04 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
the P40 was a nice plane with a superb roll rate and high speed for early war planes at medium altitude plus good initial dive acceleration, I've always thought it would have made an excellent carrier plane.

However when compared to the 109 its rate of climb and performance at altitude sucked, which is why in north africa they were used in low level ground attack mission, while hurricanes were used as top cover both were outclassed vs the bf109 F trop but the hurricane less so at altitude.

later on after torch the USAAF used spitfires & P40's in combination.

as far as best aeroplane goes I' think that spits & 109's were dominant / competitive during the war which no other planes can match

otherwise we can start splitting the war up into periods & theaters

However efficient GCI radar and crushing numerical superiority were two of the biggest contributers to victory in the air

Cheers






_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 147
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 2:14:21 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper


the P40 was a nice plane with a superb roll rate and high speed for early war planes at medium altitude plus good initial dive acceleration, I've always thought it would have made an excellent carrier plane.

However when compared to the 109 its rate of climb and performance at altitude sucked, which is why in north africa they were used in low level ground attack mission, while hurricanes were used as top cover both were outclassed vs the bf109 F trop but the hurricane less so at altitude.




Interesting - the according to the Bloody Shambles series, the Hurris were pretty useless at high altitude, and consistently failed to intercept anything flying high, while the P-40s were moderately successful at it... but this was a bit later in the war (1943) so that the P-40 models might have been/were probably different than the ones in North Africa.

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 148
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 3:35:14 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

... If whole WWII is taken into account then, IMHO, there are only two (yes two!) clear winners:

Messerschmitt Me-109
Supermarine Spitfire

... Both of them were top of the line when WWII started and they were not obsolete when it ended (they were still very much "competitive")...
Leo "Apollo11"


Interesting choice; these two planes together probably have the most Mks and variants of any other two WW II planes combined, even if they were "top of the line" when they first entered service.



_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 149
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/28/2007 6:58:42 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

Actually, the P40 was on par with every contemporary Spitfire and 109 model, and its logical to assume that if the P40 had been continually upgraded like the Spitfires and 109's through 43 and into 44 and 45, that it would have stayed on par.


Actually the P40 while a solid AC suffered from an inferior (compared to mid and late war planes) airframe design. The aerodynamics of the frame hampered the performance. You could keep upgrading the engine but it brought seriously diminishing returns. To a lesser extent the 109 had the same problems. Aerodynamics was not a well understood science until after the war started. Many of the best aerodynamsists of the time were German.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Kadrin)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078