Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron James

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005



Nope. You can say what you want about pure performance numbers, but no other fighter (allied or axis) was as well optimized as an air superiority fighter as was the Mustang. In terms of the overall package between performance (speed and handling), firepower, range, durability, it was the optimized air superiority fighter. You would have to step up to jet fighters to find something better. This is what I have been told from pilots of that era. Take it for what you will.

That is because unlike almost any other allied fighter of the time, it was designed and built from the ground up with one mission in mind and that was total dominance of the skies. Not ground attack, or interception, but to knock planes out of the sky.

How can you say that, that it was designed and built from the ground up to be have total dominance, the american engine didnt work, the mustang wasnt anything untill they shoved a rolls royce engine under the hood. And it was designed at british request anyways for photo recon and ground support untill the above happened.

Ron's got this right. It was designed in about 3 months because North American didn't want to build P-40's for the British. They used the originals as photo reccon planes. We converted the ones we recieved into the A-36 Dive Bomber. Then folks had the happy notion of dropping a Packard Merlin into the air frame. And got one of the greatest all-around fighter A/C of the war..., and the premier escort fighter.

I think niceguy2005 is still on target when he states the 'design' was superior, and was designed to be an air superiority fighter from the start.
However, it is quite true that the original Allison powerplant did not give the airframe the performance it was capable of, and in fact was judged to be an inferior fighter type by the Army Air Corps and was indeed relegated to recon and attack squadrons...until the Packard-Merlin was mated to the airframe, and the rest is, well, history.

And in addition I would query its position as the best fighter in the sky.

Its range, which was only available with hefty drop tanks shouldnt increase its rating.

PS, Where was the Griffon Mustang in WW2??

ORIGINAL: JeffK

And in addition I would query its position as the best fighter in the sky.

Its range, which was only available with hefty drop tanks shouldnt increase its rating.

PS, Where was the Griffon Mustang in WW2??

I dont know if it was the best in the sky, but it shot down more enemy planes in the European theatre than any other, was the griffon engine only used in sea plane types like the Seafire or the Avro Shackleton etc.

hmm

Ive read some blurb claiming that the Hurricane had the most kills of any allied WW 2 aircraft.

(how would you check !)

ORIGINAL: Hipper

hmm

Ive read some blurb claiming that the Hurricane had the most kills of any allied WW 2 aircraft.

(how would you check !)

easy, just ask cid [;)]

I read somewhere that Me-109 had most kills in WW2. Gotta check.

I read somewhere that Me-109 had most kills in WW2. Gotta check.

You are correct. The Me-109 had more kills credited than any other aircraft, allied or axis.

Chez

Also the most produced aircraft right? Or was that the IL2?

You are correct. The Me-109 had more kills credited than any other aircraft, allied or axis.

Not that it is meaningful. The Germans, as a deliberate insult, refused to count kills of Soviet aircraft. We have no idea how many planes were shot down on the most important front, or by what type. It might still be the Me-109, but we don't know.

The number of kills is a function of lots of things - surprise more than quality of the aircraft. Surprise is a 90% determinant of success in air combat. MOST (as in more than half) kills involve a defender who did not know he was under attack. If you saw an enemy plane you did not want to fight first, odds are you could arrange NEVER to be seen at all - that is, 9 times in 10 you could escape undetected.

For comparison, the most sinkings of ships belong to the Val. Val was hardly the best performing attack aircraft, nor did it carry a deadly torpedo, or even a thousand pound class bomb. But it had the most opportunties to score and it did score. The same applies to fighters. An Me-109 is probably not as good as a FW-190 and certainly not as good as a Corsair - yet it may have achieved more kills.

The P-47 is my favorite all arounf fighter. And NOTHING built by any power could stand up to the 8x.50Cal the thing dished out.


That's the equivelant of an GMC M-16 "quad .50" half track...on each wing.

It is also the equivelant of FOUR Oscar Ic - the best armed variant with .50s in both wings - all on the same target at the same time - a very unlikely proposition. But in explosive punch that is just one 20mm plus one .303 combined. Any twin 20mm armed plane - including the Zero - outclasses this punch.

no one has come up with the most kills for a allied plane in the ETO yet , I still say it was the P-51 .

The same applies to fighters. An Me-109 is probably not as good as a FW-190 and certainly not as good as a Corsair - yet it may have achieved more kills.

Nobody said it was as good as the FW-190 or Corsair. You are correct that the aircraft with more opportunities will generally have a higher score. The Me-109 was produced in greater numbers and fought on every front in the Western theater. It also fought during the Spanish Civil war and was still active during the early Arab-Israeli wars. In fact it was used to escort B-17s to protect them against Spitfires then. Does that make it the best fighter? Hell no. But it certainly ranks right up there as one of the most successful.

Also note that I said kills credited. In other words, kills claimed by the pilots and "verified" by ground intel weenies. Doesn't necessarily mean it was a true accounting.

Chez

The Griffon was used in the Spitfire Mk XII, Mk XIV, PR Mk XIX, Mk 21, Seafire XV & Mk45, Firefly & Martin Baker MB5,

I think niceguy2005 is still on target when he states the 'design' was superior, and was designed to be an air superiority fighter from the start.

It is like talk of guns - opinions are so strong and partisan! While no doubt the P-51 was one of the outstanding piston engine fighters of all time, it is not really in the league of a Corsair. On top of which, it cannot operate from a carrier.

Nobody said it was as good as the FW-190 or Corsair. You are correct that the aircraft with more opportunities will generally have a higher score. The Me-109 was produced in greater numbers and fought on every front in the Western theater. It also fought during the Spanish Civil war and was still active during the early Arab-Israeli wars. In fact it was used to escort B-17s to protect them against Spitfires then. Does that make it the best fighter? Hell no. But it certainly ranks right up there as one of the most successful.

The Me-109 got into other fights too. I knew a Hungarian pilot (now deceased, who owned American Eagles in Seattle) who had flown Me-109s during WWII who was still flying during the Hungarian Revolution.
He and his wingman were jumped by two MiG-15s, and one of these overflew them, ending up filling his windscreen. He pulled the trigger and shot it down. Meanwhile the wingman came in, inflicting fatal damage on the aircraft, so he bailed out. Even so, it is a strange case of an Me-109 downing a jet fighter in real combat - more than a decade after WWII!

no one has come up with the most kills for a allied plane in the ETO yet , I still say it was the P-51 .

It might well be the B-17. If it was, fighter fans will cringe! But there were lots of planes shot down by bombers. They had gunner - aces.
My mother used to train bomber gunners and my father was one. We don't hear much about them - but in ETO they actually got to shoot at things!

ORIGINAL: el cid again

no one has come up with the most kills for a allied plane in the ETO yet , I still say it was the P-51 .

It might well be the B-17. If it was, fighter fans will cringe! But there were lots of planes shot down by bombers. They had gunner - aces.
My mother used to train bomber gunners and my father was one. We don't hear much about them - but in ETO they actually got to shoot at things!

Ofcourse all bomber gunner kills are horrribly inflated. All claims were counted as kills. IIRC it was quite usual for a heavy raid to claim 200 fighters shot down while actually only 20 were.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: el cid again

no one has come up with the most kills for a allied plane in the ETO yet , I still say it was the P-51 .

It might well be the B-17. If it was, fighter fans will cringe! But there were lots of planes shot down by bombers. They had gunner - aces.
My mother used to train bomber gunners and my father was one. We don't hear much about them - but in ETO they actually got to shoot at things!

Ofcourse all bomber gunner kills are horrribly inflated. All claims were counted as kills. IIRC it was quite usual for a heavy raid to claim 200 fighters shot down while actually only 20 were.

I have to go with El Cid here. I remeber hearing about this in the 1980s. Evidently what broke the back of the Luftwaffe was the 'Mighty Eighth's' bombers (B-17s) - it appears that they did destroy more fighters than even the escorts did...inflated claims and all.

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: el cid again



It might well be the B-17. If it was, fighter fans will cringe! But there were lots of planes shot down by bombers. They had gunner - aces.
My mother used to train bomber gunners and my father was one. We don't hear much about them - but in ETO they actually got to shoot at things!

Ofcourse all bomber gunner kills are horrribly inflated. All claims were counted as kills. IIRC it was quite usual for a heavy raid to claim 200 fighters shot down while actually only 20 were.

I have to go with El Cid here. I remeber hearing about this in the 1980s. Evidently what broke the back of the Luftwaffe was the 'Mighty Eighth's' bombers (B-17s) - it appears that they did destroy more fighters than even the escorts did...inflated claims and all.

Well this isn't really the subject of this thread, but the bomber gunner killcount subject has been beaten to death many a times in the various b-17 over or underpowered threads in this forum. And afaik most people agree that the bomber kill counts were HORRIBLY overrated.

What broke the back of the Luftwaffe were the overwhelming requierments of the eastern front.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: String


Ofcourse all bomber gunner kills are horrribly inflated. All claims were counted as kills. IIRC it was quite usual for a heavy raid to claim 200 fighters shot down while actually only 20 were.

I have to go with El Cid here. I remeber hearing about this in the 1980s. Evidently what broke the back of the Luftwaffe was the 'Mighty Eighth's' bombers (B-17s) - it appears that they did destroy more fighters than even the escorts did...inflated claims and all.

Well this isn't really the subject of this thread, but the bomber gunner killcount subject has been beaten to death many a times in the various b-17 over or underpowered threads in this forum. And afaik most people agree that the bomber kill counts were HORRIBLY overrated.

What broke the back of the Luftwaffe were the overwhelming requierments of the eastern front.

I wish I could site data - but I can't right now. But I know some years ago I read what El Cid was referring to.
I have read accounts from Luftwaffe pilots stating that attacking bomber boxes came to be regarded as a form of suicide, one pilto (who obviously survived to talk about it) mentioned how when closing in - he had to close his eyes as he fired and quickly Split-S'd away.

I don't know that bomber gunner claims were 'HORRIBLY' over inflated...that is - to degree muvh greater than everyone else's.

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).
Be that as it may, I believe the strategic air war over Europe, particularly over Germany, has always been regarded being decided by USAF and RAF, even though a large portion of the Luftwaffe was in the East along side the Whermacht.