Best fighter in WW2???

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?

[8|]Unfortunately , that's what started the whole thing when I asked for just that. Some people feel that the phrase "monkey poo" is more offensive than vulgar language that would make a old time drill sergeant blush. [8|]

[DuckofTindalos]

No, the whole thing started when Hawker made this thread. Everyone except him knew that it would turn out like this.

[Hortlund]

So...about that best fighter.
 
I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.
 
First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?
 
The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.
 
The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.
 
The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.
 
The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.
 
 
So...I think we should use criteria d).

[AW1Steve]

Doggie , unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be most offended by my use of the phrase “flinging their poo”. Part of the problem is that I’m not going to use the sort of “color-full” language that Steakhouse posters tend to use. I think you will acknowledge that at the “Steakhouse” anything goes. I’m a little more restrained here , both by my own preferences and by custom and usage , here at the Matrix forums. Some of the folks at Steakhouse seem to delight in swearing at each other in the most color-full and entertaining ways. To me, it resembled the monkey cage at the zoo. If I offended you personally, I apologies.

I would not presume to tell you to “stay off our turf”. It is not “your Turf” or “my turf”. It belongs to Matrix. What I do ask is that you not “drag us over to your turf” , by bringing copies of this forum over there with out notifying other posters that you have done so , and therefore denying them the right to speak up for themselves. That’s not marking turf , that's kidnapping (Threadnapping?). If the Mad cow subscribers (of which I am not, as I’m sure you know) have a problem with something said here , then here it should be addressed here. In the reverse, we should not discuss a Mad cow post here , as the Mad cow subscribers (excepting people like yourself who subscribe to both) would have no way of knowing what was said about them behind their back. Surely common decency would demand that? Fair play is what I’m calling for . That’s what I call “the American Way”. In other words, if you have issue with something I said here , face me here , confront me here , and lets have it out here. Only a coward drags a copy of the post here then drags it back to where he and his friends can dismember it and salivate over a mis-statement here or a not necessarily precise figure there. I applaud you for doing it the right way and condemn those who don’t.

{Perhaps xxx and xxxxx should tell you what it's like to engage in homosexual orgies in a Swedish Army barracks?}

This post, which was added to a sig line, I find disgusting, impossible to defend and simply reprehensible. The fact that you permit this to be posted is why I do not subscribe to Mad cow. While you can justify it as “freedom of speech” , and you are correct , we also have “freedom from speech”, Which means I shouldn’t have to go scrolling through posts like that to see if someone has “lifted” my quotes or posts . Sorry, maybe I’m just too sensitive, but phrases like that make me want to take a shower and sanitize my keyboard.

That, in a nutshell, is my complaint. There is no need to “wave the bloody shirt “of who is a racists, who is and is not a “good American”, or who was here first, has this thought or that thought. Frankly I don’t care. But if you insult me PERSONALLY, or steal from me, then I invite you and anyone else who thinks this behavior is acceptable to “step out into the alley” with me and discuss this issue. It doesn’t belong here.






AW1Steve@yahoo.com

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).

Thank you for returning to the topic. And for all the reasons above, I still maintain that it's the Bf109. Not because it's the absolute "best" at this or that..., but because it was a quite formidible opponant for longer than any other contestent. From the Spanish Civil War to VE day, a well-piloted Bf-109 in a current varient was a challange for anything else in the sky..., with only the Spitfire as a close second.

My personal favorite is the P-47..., but if I had to fly the same plane from Madrid to the ruins of Berlin I'd be in quite a pickle during the early part of the War.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).

Thank you for returning to the topic. And for all the reasons above, I still maintain that it's the Bf109. Not because it's the absolute "best" at this or that..., but because it was a quite formidible opponant for longer than any other contestent. From the Spanish Civil War to VE day, a well-piloted Bf-109 in a current varient was a challange for anything else in the sky..., with only the Spitfire as a close second.

My personal favorite is the P-47..., but if I had to fly the same plane from Madrid to the ruins of Berlin I'd be in quite a pickle during the early part of the War.

[:)] Thank you both for returning to topic. Might I suggest that all of us remember that there is no "right answer". What is the best fighter in ww2 (in your opion and why might be a better way to fram the question--which I'm guessing was what was the intention of the questioner....How about it Hawker , was that what you meant? [:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

He's hiding somewhere well away from this monster he's created...

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He's hiding somewhere well away from this monster he's created...

[:)]Poor guy. Come on out Hawker! It's safe. We don't blame you (much). [:'(]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?

I think we were definitely off topic by the time we got to sliced bread...name calling was inevitable when certain folks show up to post. Was a fun thread for a while.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm surprised this lasted until pages 9-10 until it went off topic and into the realm of name-calling....

Can we keep the discussion from the General Forum about The Evil Japanese vs The Evil Americans in the General Forum? And maybe we could even keep this one civilisied? Or am I asking too much?

I think we were definitely off topic by the time we got to sliced bread...name calling was inevitable when certain folks show up to post. Was a fun thread for a while.

[:)] As one of the alledged name callers , I'd like to see it return to fun. I'm game if everyone else is ? All in favor? [:)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

So...about that best fighter.

I think most of us in here are comparing apples and oranges. Some are comparing kill/loss ratio, some are comparing general usefulness of the fighter, some are comparing impact on a theater of war, some are comparing relative numbers etc.

First we need to agree on the criteria for what constitutes the "best fighter". Is it
a) kill/loss-ratio?
b) hardware specs (here we also need to decide what is better, a BnZ-fighter or a TnB-fighter)?
c) impact on a period of time/theater of war?
d) the fighter you would chose to sit in if you had go to war, all other things being equal?
e) general industrial output of a nation combined with supply efficiency in that nation?

The problem with a) is that it depends too much on the opposition. Here we might arrive at the somewhat odd conclusion that the best fighter of the war as the Finnish Buffalo, or the Japanese Ki-27...simply because they fought against crap.

The problem with b) is that we need to agree on what fighter type is better. Thats a mighty tall order. We will also have to decide which fighter is best on a year to year (or perhaps, generation to generation) basis.

The problem with c) is that it depends heavily on the opposition and a myriad of other factors.

The problem with e) is that we are not comparing fighters anymore.


So...I think we should use criteria d).

Well thought out post. I agree in general and that (d) is the criteria I stated earlier in the Thread I would use. However, I also think the role the fighter was used in needs to be taken into consideration. IMO the first role of a "true fighter plane" is air superiority. This primarily means killing other fighters and anything else that dares enter "your airspace". I think this should leave out planes used primarily as interceptors and planes used primarily as fighter bombers.

[rtrapasso]

If you are using criteria D - we also need to specify where you are going to be flying... is it over Europe? On a mission over the Pacific?

If the latter, i think i'd go for the P-38L - nothing like an extra engine to get you back if one fails for some reason.

[AW1Steve]

[:)] Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down? [:)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down? [:)]

With a great deal of care. I think you have to look at how the plane was actually used, not its intended design, but you also have to take into account what was going on in the war. Just because the late model P-47s spent increasing amounts of time in ground support missions doesn't mean they weren't effective in air superiority. Otherwise we'd have to look at late war German AC purely as interceptors.

The P-39 was probably a much better air superiority AC than it was interceptor. I have read accounts of bomber pilots from Rabaul and Lae laughing at the futility of the P-39s trying to scramble from PM to climb and intercept. I'm not sure that in those cases, the 39s ever made a successful intercept.

The P-38 was a great air superiority fighter for the Pacifc. Even after planes like the P-47 started coming online, which had better performance characteristics, a lot of Pacific army pilots didn't want to give up their 38s because with that much water around they liked the extra range and additional engine.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Not to add to the confusion , but p-47s , p-39's,and p-38's wer examples of planes used in rolls that they were not designed. P-38s were originally long ranged interceptors (as was the p-39). The p-47 was an air superiority fighter that bacame used as ground support when there wasn't much to shoot down. Any ideas on how to break this down? [:)]

With a great deal of care. I think you have to look at how the plane was actually used, not its intended design, but you also have to take into account what was going on in the war. Just because the late model P-47s spent increasing amounts of time in ground support missions doesn't mean they weren't effective in air superiority. Otherwise we'd have to look at late war German AC purely as interceptors.

The P-39 was probably a much better air superiority AC than it was interceptor. I have read accounts of bomber pilots from Rabaul and Lae laughing at the futility of the P-39s trying to scramble from PM to climb and intercept. I'm not sure that in those cases, the 39s ever made a successful intercept.

The P-38 was a great air superiority fighter for the Pacifc. Even after planes like the P-47 started coming online, which had better performance characteristics, a lot of Pacific army pilots didn't want to give up their 38s because with that much water around they liked the extra range and additional engine.

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

[SLAAKMAN]

Er....actually I must assume some of the responsibility for the feuding between MC and this thread. My sense of humor gets "misinterpreted" by too many and then all of a sudden a feud erupts. I only wanted everyone to enjoy the photos. My humble apologies to all. [:o]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Er....actually I must assume some of the responsibility for the feuding between MC and this thread. My sense of humor gets "misinterpreted" by too many and then all of a sudden a feud erupts. I only wanted everyone to enjoy the photos. My humble apologies to all. [:o]

[:D] I certainly did! You sir , are guilty of levity in the 1st degree! Please keep it up! [:D]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.

That was the engine problem/fuel problem i alluded to... lots written on this, but people mostly scratched their heads... this showed up in the planes in England, but the P-38s in the Aleutians did OK, so the "conclusion" was it was the fuel in England.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about the performance characteristics - if you believe half of what is written, the P-38 turning stats were as good as (if not better than) any other US fighter - but, the plane was more expensive to build which is why they used P-51s and P-47s. Until the latter models, P-38s also sufferered from compressability issues (others did as well, but it was much more prevalent in the '38s.)


EDIT - in the ETO, the P-38s also had a lot of engine problems, apparently due to fuel problems (it is thought).

Well, I could be remembering my readings incorrectly. I seem to recall reading that Kenney with the 5th Air Force was working hard to get the P-40s replaced (at least not have to rely on them for air superiority). He was trying to get more P-38s but couldn't as at the time a fair number were going to Europe. That's when he heard about the P-47 becoming available. He wasn't thrilled with the AC because the short range didn't seem adequate for the missions they were flying. However he took a squadron of P-47Cs (I think the were Cs, could have been Ds). The first mission was such a smashing success that Kenney pursued getting as many of the AC as he could. I seem to recall that the P-47s were so much faster and had such firepower that the engagement was more of a massacre than a "dogfight". I think the idea is that the speed and power of the Jug allowed the Allies to push even further the notion of don't get into turning fights with Japan, use speed, firepower and armor.

The next obstacle he faced was getting his pilots to switch. A lot of the pilots wanted to hang onto their P-40s until 38s were available.

I thought I had read that the P-38 had cold weather problems. Maybe icing up? Which certainly made it better suited to the South Pacific.

That was the engine problem/fuel problem i alluded to... lots written on this, but people mostly scratched their heads... this showed up in the planes in England, but the P-38s in the Aleutians did OK, so the "conclusion" was it was the fuel in England.

IIRC quite a few American engines had problems operating in the UK. I'm pretty sure this was down to the weather rather than the fuel. Most US aircraft were designed with the American climate rather than the cold, damp British weather [:D]