Best fighter in WW2???

[mdiehl]

Given that a 1492 P-47C would be made of wood, armed with muskets and muzzle-loading cannon, and under full sail make about a dozen knots I'm not surprised that a Bf-109K would out-perform it!

[:D] Wing mounted matchlocks.

What mdiehl did say:
Allied high altitude stalwarts like the P-47 and P-51 were vastly superior to the ME-109 (you can pick any variant you want). The best of the German interceptors were all based on the FW-190 design

And I stand by it. The only person who seems to have taken that as a license for a straw man comparison between models whose deployment was separated by two years has been answered. The facts support the claim that the P-47 was a better high altitude fighter than the ME-109.

[Big B]

Given that a 1492 P-47C would be made of wood, armed with muskets and muzzle-loading cannon, and under full sail make about a dozen knots I'm not surprised that a Bf-109K would out-perform it!

[:D] Wing mounted matchlocks.

"Yes Baldrick - they're the latest thing in military art"

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And I stand by it. The only person who seems to have taken that as a license for a straw man comparison between models whose deployment was separated by two years has been answered. The facts support the claim that the P-47 was a better high altitude fighter than the ME-109.

Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes. But lets ignore that pesky litte fact for now shall we. You may continue to make ludicrous statements based on your gut feeling or whatever, carry on.

[Sardaukar]

Why...easy question..Brewster model 239 in Finnish service...[:D]

From Wiki:

The fighter was never referred to as the Buffalo in Finland; it was known simply as the Brewster, or sometimes by the nickname Taivaan helmi ("Sky Pearl") or Pohjoisten taivaiden helmi ("Pearl of the Northern Skies"). Other nicknames were Pylly-Valtteri ("Butt-Walter"), Amerikanrauta ("American hardware" or "American car") and Lentävä kaljapullo ("flying beer-bottle"). The 44 Brewsters used by the FAF received the serial numbers BW-351 to BW-394. It appears the workmanship of the Finnish airframes was also better than those produced later; this was a common phenomenon as the aircraft factories were manned by a less-skilled workforce after the start of World War II.

In the end, the Brewster gained a reputation as one of the most successful combat aircraft ever flown by the Finnish Air Force. In service during 1941-1945, the Brewsters were credited with 496 Soviet and German aircraft destroyed, against the loss of 19 Brewsters: a victory ratio of 26:1. However, the substantiation of this claim on German and Soviet records is so far incomplete, and all claims have not been managed to be connected on actual losses (as of 2007).

Quite good explanation why:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm

Q: Why did the Finns achieve so much with the Buffalo?

A: First off, the Finnish Brewsters weren't Brewster Buffaloes, or Brewster 339's, or F2A-2, which were very bad fighters. They were Model 239's much closer to the original USN F2A-1, which were reported to be delightful to fly. Finnish nickname "Taivaan Helmi" "Pearl of the Skies" reflects this. Also, Finnish Brewsters had reflector sights and reliable armament of three heavy machine guns and one rifle-caliber mg. (later on four heavy MG's) and seat armour.

The Finnish Air Force also used innovative modern air combat tactics, such as largely relying on finger four / Thach Weave / Schwarm, whatever you call it, against doctrinal Soviet tactics, such as using three plane flights and "Spanish circle" described later on. In 1941 many of the Finnish Buffalo pilots had had combat experience during the Winter War, and air combat tactics were modified and developed. Mock dogfights were made against captured russian planes. Training with Brewsters hadn't been so good as it might have been, since the severe shortage of aviation fuel in 1940-1941.

The quality of Soviet planes in 1941, when the best kill ratio 67.5 - 1) was achieved, was lower than Brewsters, most common types being used were SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153.

Finally, there was element of luck. The fighter squadron the Brewsters were in most of the war, 24, was commanded by an excellent commander, Major G. Magnusson, a great organizer and tactician who is considered to be "Grand Old Man" of the Finnish fighter aviation. By almost sheer luck, some of the finest pilots of the Finnish Air Force were in the Brewster Squadron when the war started, such as Hans Wind, Ilmari Juutilainen, Joppe Karhunen and Lauri Nissinen, each one of them later on gaining huge kill numbers also with Messerschmitt 109G-2's and G-6's.

The Brewsters probably could have made even more kills, but the Finnish fighter control system during the Brewster's golden age in 1941-42 was abysmal. For an example, sometimes the alert messages were only somekind like this: "Village of Inkeroinen is being bombed" and arrived as much as 15 minutes too late. But by the summer 1944 it was excellent. Criticism against Finnish ground control system and FAF brass in general has been extremely harsh by Joppe Karhunen, a Brewster ace and an aviation historian.

Everybody is always talking about plane vs. plane statistics. It's more about those who fly them, if plane is even same "generation" and comparable.

[mdiehl]

Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet

P-47N -- Max airspeed 467 mph at 32,500 feet.
P-47C -- Max airspeed 433 mph at 30,000 feet.

What part of these stats do you not comprehend? As high-altitude fighter go, the P-47, even the P-47C, could beat the stuffing out of ANY variant of the ME-109 at altitudes above about 28,000 feet.

See, for example: Aircraft of WW2, by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, Fishwyck, Australia, 1998.

This source notes that the high-altitude variants of the ME-109 (the H/K types) were abandoned in favor of the TA-152 for high altitude combat because of aerodynamic stress ("wing flutter problems") at high speed.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the ME-109 variants had an airspeed edge over P47s at low to middle altitudes, and pretty much everyone (except you) recognizes that at all altitudes the P-47s could roll faster, dive faster, acclerate faster in a dive, sustain more punishment, and inflict more damge, than any ME-109. At high altitudes, in any year that you care to pick the "top of the line" ME-109 was inferior in airspeed and maneuverability than its contemporary P-47 opponent.

[Sardaukar]

Basicly, FW-190A-series really sucked in high altitude. Thus the FW-190D-series and Ta-152...

So, in that context, Me-109-series was way superior to FW in high altitudes before FW-190D-series.

[Shark7]

Ya know, 60 years after the fact we can sit here and debate all day which fighter was the best of the war, and never reach a consensus. However, ask any pilot of the era what the best was, and he'd probably answer "the one that got me home safe."

I don't really think there is necesarily a 'best' fighter. I think they all had their strengths and weaknesses, and the real difference was the pilot at the controls.

[SLAAKMAN]

Gentlemen, Im here to inform you that you have it all wrong. Now you may assert that the best fighter in WWII is based upon various characteristics such as sustainability, altitude or armament. You may believe that speed and power determined the best fighter or even fuel economy. However concider this. The best fighter in WWII was none of those features. The best fighter would be the sexiest fighter that helped our grandfathers get laid. Otherwise we might not be here to enjoy their sacrifices. Therefore the best fighters in WWII follow in this order.
(I just had to bend the "no jets" rule and post these here because they are the most gorgeous works of art in the entire universe). BEHOLD; [:'(] [:D]

HO-229 Bat



HO-XVIII


ME163 KOMET

[DuckofTindalos]

[8|]

[SLAAKMAN]

[:o] er....sorry. couldnt resist. [X(]

[Speedysteve]

[8|]

[SLAAKMAN]

(Well at least you have to admit the photos are beautiful.) [:'(]

[AW1Steve]

[:D] Well, the ME-163 isn't technically a jet , it's  a rocket plane , so  I guess that one's ok...But the Horton planes are kinda way over the envelope , considering none of them ever flew.....[:D]

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet

P-47N -- Max airspeed 467 mph at 32,500 feet.
P-47C -- Max airspeed 433 mph at 30,000 feet.

What part of these stats do you not comprehend? As high-altitude fighter go, the P-47, even the P-47C, could beat the stuffing out of ANY variant of the ME-109 at altitudes above about 28,000 feet.

The part you made up I suppose. The max speed of the P-47C was ~395 mph at 30 000 feet. Apparently looking at the charts I posted was too complicated for you, so instead you resorted to making stuff up again? No wonder people dont like to debate you on this forum.

[Mike Scholl]

Before you fellows gat in too big a "namecalling" fight you should make sure you are talking about the same thing. The "official numbers" for the P-47C and D come in two flavors---one before and one after the retrofitting of the huge four-bladed "paddle wheel" propellor (which finally allowed the A/C to make full use of all that horsepower.)

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Before you fellows gat in too big a "namecalling" fight you should make sure you are talking about the same thing. The "official numbers" for the P-47C and D come in two flavors---one before and one after the retrofitting of the huge four-bladed "paddle wheel" propellor (which finally allowed the A/C to make full use of all that horsepower.)

The charts I posted are from the RAF trial of the P-47C with the four-bladed propeller. The next propeller upgrade would not take place until the P-47 D-22 who got the 13 feet Hamilton Standard paddle-blade propeller. If you have any information about C's being upgraded and retrofitted with that late-model propeller, I would be really interested to hear about it.

[AW1Steve]

[X(] Maybe we should get a little less personal. This isn't the Madcowsteak house. Debates are encouraged here. Discussion is expected. Name calling and foul comments do not belong here. Panzerjager , that sig line is definately over the top , even if you are quoting someone else. I personally would greatly appreciate it if you would change it to something less inflamatory and in better taste.   Let's cool things off guys. [:-]

[Rainer]

It is mdiehl who is constantly trying to throw off balance discussions with his false claims. That should not go unnoticed.

[AW1Steve]

[:)] It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language. [:D]

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language. [:D]

Exactly! That's why I'm staying out of this one. Besides, everyone already knows that the Zero was the greatest thing since sliced bread.