|
crsutton -> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? (12/3/2007 11:47:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
It was indeed one of the best and one of my favorites. However, the short range and high pilot skill required to master the 109 made it obsolete in terms of a modern total war.
Best fighter means so many things and there are so many criteria quoted from the posters here. However, as I said before, any plane that did not have moderate to long range must be disqualifed. The 109 and many other fine planes listed here did not have the capability to project air power into enemy territory. You can't win a war without this ability. It is like having a football team that only plays defence. Sooner of later, you will get scored on and lose the game.
Another point that bears mentioning in this thread is that the human factor must be a consideration when picking the "best fighter". In a total war sitation such as WWII, equipment that favored the "average" user is always superior. The reason being that a long grinding war tends to produce much more average manpower talent than skilled. Death and attrition tends to use men up, leaving a greener pool of replacements. The 109 for all of it's excellence was regarded as a tough plane to master and a deadly tool in the hands of an expert pilot. However, the 190 was generally considered a much more suitable plane because it was easier to fly and thus more forgiving to the average pilot. And for every good pilot, there had to be at least ten times that number of average or below average pilots.
A "hot" plane is not necessarily the best plane. My two cents anyway.[;)]
With that line of reasoning, a Sherman would be a better tank than a Panther. I reject the line of reasoning that requires strategic, operational or other irrelevant considerations. The question was "best fighter", you are more in the "most useful fighter"-territory with your line of reasoning. And while that is all and well from an overall strategic point of view, the purpose of this thread is to determine which fighter is the best.
Nedless to say, that question must center on the ability of the plane, not the quality of the pilot, not the ability to produce it, not the amount of fuel it could be tanked with.
The analogy would be that we are comparing swords here, you are talking about how it is best not to be surrounded or outnumbered or starving while using that sword. An interesting discussion for sure, but irrelevant to the question.
Please explain to me how you got your "purpose of this thread" from the orginial post. Perhaps you got a secret email from the poster?
Well, we just have to disagree here. No definition of "best" was really given at the beginning of this thread. The definition you stated is yours alone. In my opinion "best" is defined as what serves the purpose of winning the conflict. In the end, all else does not matter.
And yes, the sherman tank was better than the panther. But then again, we are looking at it differently and I don't think we are going to find common ground here.
|
|
|
|
