Best fighter in WW2???

[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"

[juliet7bravo]

"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.     

[LargeSlowTarget]

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.

[mdiehl]

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.

[mdiehl]

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!

[Speedysteve]

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?

[pauk]

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

[Speedysteve]

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.

[mdiehl]

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.

[juliet7bravo]

"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.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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?[X(] My timelines must be buggered or something?[;)]

[mdiehl]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[mdiehl]

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.

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.

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.

[Mike Scholl]

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).

[Historiker]

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!

[Speedysteve]

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[8D]

[Historiker]

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

[Ian R]

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.

[Kadrin]

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.

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

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.

[Coach Z]

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 !!!!