Best fighter in WW2???

[Alfred]

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.
 
Alfred

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...What the hornisse needed was an effective guided a2a missile.

Haha! Exactly what I was thinking as I wrote the post above. What better interceptor than a missile. Fast, high rate of climb and lots of firepower. Range being the only problem.

Indeed. The 'glorified mortar tubes' that were used by German aircraft were generally highly innacurate. The big effect they did have was a pretty substantial disruption of hte bomber formations IF they landed close by. When that occured those disruopted/loose bombers would've been easier to take down.

Now of course I could mention the R4M but I think I remember mdiehl's opinion on the R4M from before[;)]

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.

Alfred

Yes, those planes of ours were really good ones! Probably not the Macchi 202, which lacked a bit too much of firepower, but the 05 serie was really a great one! Better than any 109 around (think the G-6/14 model was already out at that time)

[bobogoboom]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.

Alfred

Yes, those planes of ours were really good ones! Probably not the Macchi 202, which lacked a bit too much of firepower, but the 05 serie was really a great one! Better than any 109 around (think the G-6/14 model was already out at that time)

Yes but part of being a great figheter is that you have to be able to produce enough of them to make a difference. The itialians produced some great fighters but there were not enough of them to make an impact.

[Sonny II]

I haven't read the whole thread so this may already have been mentioned.

IMHO the best fighter of WW II was Joe Louis.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.

Alfred

Don't tell that to "Bubi" Hartmann..., virtually all his 352 victories were in a Bf-109 between 1943 and 1945.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.

Alfred

What are you talking about? The 109 K10 was one of the best high altitude interceptors of the war.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

I haven't read the whole thread so this may already have been mentioned.

IMHO the best fighter of WW II was Joe Louis.

Should have read the whole thread....[:-] I was guilty of the same thing..

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IMHO, you are all overlooking the reasonable observation of Big B, in his initial post of 24 November, of the Macchi and Fiat planes which were clearly superior to any Bf 109 models of 1943.  The Re 2005 also falls into this period.  From 1943 onwards, the Bf 109 is really living on past glory.

Alfred

What are you talking about? The 109 K10 was one of the best high altitude interceptors of the war.

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.[;)]

[Hortlund]

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.

[Dixie]

It's a 'horses for courses' arguement for which is the best fighter.  The two most obvious examples IMO are the Spitfire and P-38.

The Spitfire was a fantastic fighter in the Northern European theatre.  However, they failed to have the same impact on events in the Pacific when they entered service with the RAAF over Darwin.
The P-38 was the opposite.  A fantastic performance in the Pacific that was never really matched by their actions in Europe. 

Neither were bad aircraft, in fact far from it, but outside of their 'primary' environment they didn't have the same impact.

[Big B]

The P-40 WASN'T "The Best Fighter" of WWII, but it's certainly the most underrated fighter of WWII.

As has been pointed out, it suffered performance degradation above 18,000' to 22,000' depending on the model.

However, below it's best performance ceiling (i.e. before the engine poops out with altitude), it was able to successfully take on any of it's contemporaries - and with the exception of super-light fighters like Zero and Oscar, it could out-turn most anything. Roll rate at any speed was good, at high speed it was exceptional, dive speed was excellent, and though climb was mediocre generally - zoom climb was very good, and below 10,000' it was actually faster than most of it's higher-flying contemporaries. Add all that to it's ruggedness and firepower, and it was a formidable opponent when used properly.

Much has been made of Bf109's trashing P-40s over North Africa - but that was when the British Empire forces were using Tomahawk II's (P-40C's - the worst of the lot) AND using very poor tactics with them - the Lufbery Circle...allowing high perched 109's to continually dive on them and pick them off.
When the USAAF brought their merlin engined P-40F's to the Med, with different training and tactics, they enjoyed considerable success against Bf109's and Macchi's.

Furthermore, the P-40 airframe WAS continually developed - and performance continually improved also. The last model - the P-40Q of 1944, with a bubble canopy, clipped wings, and a high altitude two-speed supercharger had a top speed of over 420mph at altitude.

It's not that the P-40 couldn't be continually developed and improved like the Spit' and Bf109, it's just that the USA had so many other fighters with even higher potential - they didn't bother to invest in continually developing the P-40...because the USAF didn't have to.

So I give the P-40 the award for the most underrated fighter of WWII, considering it's numbers, it's valuable service, and it's place in WWII history.

B

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

The P-40 WASN'T "The Best Fighter" of WWII, but it's certainly the most underrated fighter of WWII.

I wouldn't argue that. As I said, a solid AC. It performed adequately in probably more theaters of operation and was employed to do more jobs than any other fighter of the time. To me the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" fits the P-40 admirably.

Furthermore, the P-40 airframe WAS continually developed - and performance continually improved also. The last model - the P-40Q of 1944, with a bubble canopy, clipped wings, and a high altitude two-speed supercharger had a top speed of over 420mph at altitude.

It's not that the P-40 couldn't be continually developed and improved like the Spit' and Bf109, it's just that the USA had so many other fighters with even higher potential - they didn't bother to invest in continually developing the P-40...because the USAF didn't have to.

This could be true. I have never paid much attention to the later variants, because as you say they US just had other fighters by that time. I do recall reading, possibly in an issue of aviation history, that the P-40 airframe was inferior to many German planes and the Spit. I believe they were talking about overall drag, but I'm not sure. It could well be that they were talking about early models of the P-40 though.

So I give the P-40 the award for the most underrated fighter of WWII, considering it's numbers, it's valuable service, and it's place in WWII history.

I'd buy that.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

It's a 'horses for courses' arguement for which is the best fighter. The two most obvious examples IMO are the Spitfire and P-38.

The Spitfire was a fantastic fighter in the Northern European theatre. However, they failed to have the same impact on events in the Pacific when they entered service with the RAAF over Darwin.
The P-38 was the opposite. A fantastic performance in the Pacific that was never really matched by their actions in Europe.

Neither were bad aircraft, in fact far from it, but outside of their 'primary' environment they didn't have the same impact.

It seems to me that range was a key problem for the Spit in the Pacific. Athough, I seem to recall reading that range aside the RAAF still struggled at Darwin vs the Zero. I do recall an article saying that the Spit was suffering from "frailty" issues. They had problems with battle damage and keeping enough flying. That could be a mechanical or logistics problem though.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

It seems to me that range was a key problem for the Spit in the Pacific. Athough, I seem to recall reading that range aside the RAAF still struggled at Darwin vs the Zero. I do recall an article saying that the Spit was suffering from "frailty" issues. They had problems with battle damage and keeping enough flying. That could be a mechanical or logistics problem though.

They weren't designed to operate in the climate they did at Darwin. Hot, dry and dusty on the ground and then sub zero temperatures a few minutes later as they scrambled up to 30,000'.
There were also the tactical issues which had an impact, as well as pilot problems, mechanical issues (especially the prop CSU) and logistic support. The rapid scramble and climb to 30,000' or more to get above the zeroes meant massive fuel consumption and wear on the engines. The RAAF lost almost as many Spits to accidents and component failure as battle damage [8|]

[mdiehl]

IMO the ME-109K wasn't the best interceptor, fighter, or anything else. It was, like all the other single engined interceptors of the war, adequate for intercepting strategic bombers. 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.

I wouldn't argue that. As I said, a solid AC. It performed adequately in probably more theaters of operation and was employed to do more jobs than any other fighter of the time. To me the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" fits the P-40 admirably.

I'd agree with that completely. I was also such a highly standardized design that massively producing it for lend lease, and for confronting the second tier axis air forces of Japan and Italy made sense right through the end of the war.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It was also such a highly standardized design that massively producing it for lend lease, and for confronting the second tier axis air forces of Japan and Italy made sense right through the end of the war.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Big B

However, below it's best performance ceiling (i.e. before the engine poops out with altitude), it was able to successfully take on any of it's contemporaries - and with the exception of super-light fighters like Zero and Oscar, it could out-turn most anything. Roll rate at any speed was good, at high speed it was exceptional, dive speed was excellent, and though climb was mediocre generally - zoom climb was very good, and below 10,000' it was actually faster than most of it's higher-flying contemporaries. Add all that to it's ruggedness and firepower, and it was a formidable opponent when used properly.

Which is why some 14th AF pilots actually wanted to hang on to their P-40's when offered the P-51.

[niceguy2005]

[AW1Steve]

[:(] Is there no one to defend the Lysander or the whirrawind? Or the the P-400? Or the Buffalo? Or even the Boomerang?   Or on the other side of the world , the Defiant?  Sad, so sad. [:(]