Tuesday Favorites: Best WWII Fighters

[gatorev12]

Today's a special Double Tuesday Favorites, but came up this Sunday when watching Masters of the Air with my girlfriend and her family (the mom's boyfriend is retired Air Force) and he said that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war.

Much as I love the P51 (and to be clear, it's a top 5 all-time favorite for me), I had previously looked into it and have to concede that it was second to the winner: the Spitfire. The late-model Griffon-engined variants were faster and more maneuverable and, outside of range/altitude, had the Mustang beat in pretty much every department.

Don't want to take my word? Listen to the pilots (from all sides): the American aviators who flew both conceded the Spitfire was better, the Germans thought it was better (and generally avoided entanglements with the Spitfire when they could), and in head to head mock dogfights with Mustangs, the Spitfire came out on top every time. Israeli pilots after the war flew the Mustang, Spitfire, and (ironically) Focke Wulfs...they said all things being equal, they'd rather fly the Spitfire into battle.

Granted, the two planes were designed for very different purposes: the Spitfire as a pure interceptor and the Mustang as a long-range air superiority fighter.

 

[soflagator]

What is this madness?

 

[Zambo]

How in the fuchs does the Corsair not make the list? And you were a Marine?

Drop and give me 20.

 

[gatorev12]

How in the fuchs does the Corsair not make the list? And you were a Marine?

Drop and give me 20.

Sir, I have no explanation, sir. The list is edited.

Wilco.

 

[gatorev12]

What is this madness?

Would have done it on Sunday, but figured to wait for Tuesday.

There's several former aviators and aviation enthusiasts on here, so figured it'd be a spirited debate!

 

[Zambo]

The P51 and the Corsair were easily the two best prop-driven fighters ever built. Trying to pick between these two in an interesting exercise.

Here is a write up about a head to head evaluation conducted by the Navy in the 40s. Caveat that this was done with earlier models that didn't have all the bells and whistles of the final variants in service at the end of WWII.

Mustang vs. Corsair – Inside the U.S. Navy’s 1944 Match-Up Between the Two Fighters - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

“In late January and early February 1944, the U.S. Navy conducted a comparison of both airplanes at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland.” By Marc Liebman U.S. ARMY AIR Force pilots who flew the...

militaryhistorynow.com

 

[Nalt]

Not airplanes but...my favorite WWII fighters are these guys.

 

[Detroitgator]

The P51 and the Corsair were easily the two best prop-driven fighters ever built. Trying to pick between these two in an interesting exercise.

Here is a write up about a head to head evaluation conducted by the Navy in the 40s. Caveat that this was done with earlier models that didn't have all the bells and whistles of the final variants in service at the end of WWII.

Mustang vs. Corsair – Inside the U.S. Navy’s 1944 Match-Up Between the Two Fighters - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

“In late January and early February 1944, the U.S. Navy conducted a comparison of both airplanes at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland.” By Marc Liebman U.S. ARMY AIR Force pilots who flew the...

militaryhistorynow.com

I don't know about all that, but check out these bad boys! Can even get a pair of Pappy Boyington's!!!!
Badass Kicks

 

[Durty South Swamp]

My favorite fighter? The guy with the machine gun.

 

[gatorev12]

The P51 and the Corsair were easily the two best prop-driven fighters ever built. Trying to pick between these two in an interesting exercise.

I think the Brits have two strong contenders in the Spitfire and Sea Fury (designed during WWII and it was so good it replaced the Corsair in British and many Allied Navies after the war).

The Spitfire and Corsair never had any fly-offs that I could see--but even the Mustang pilots who'd flown both conceded they'd rather have the Spitfire in an engagement:

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

”The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy.
But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100...”

Opinion of the opposition?

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

 

[cover2]

I used to do quite a bit of reading on the fighters of WWII. Sounds like the ultimate vote would come down to the Spitfire and the Mustang. Interesting to me that the only German aircraft in the list was the FW 190. I know a lot of the German stats were piled up against bombers, scouts, inexperienced pilots, etc. and several of their “Aces” flew the Me 109. Of course, as the war drug on and the air pressure and presence of the Allies intensified, the Germans suffered from the attrition. I always thought that if the technology and production had been on a more equal trajectory, the Me 262 would have had a shot at being the best fighter. But thankfully, too little, too late. One of the neatest books I ever owned was one that had short bios of the Aces of WWII that included both the Allies and the Axis. Haven’t looked back over it in many years, but it was hard to not be impressed with Eric Hartmann’s totals just on the basis of sheer numbers. There was also a famed RAF pilot who lost both his legs, but became very proficient flying with his prostheses. The aerial part of the war was very fascinating to me throughout Jr High and High School.

 

[Detroitgator]

I used to do quite a bit of reading on the fighters of WWII. Sounds like the ultimate vote would come down to the Spitfire and the Mustang. Interesting to me that the only German aircraft in the list was the FW 190. I know a lot of the German stats were piled up against bombers, scouts, inexperienced pilots, etc. and several of their “Aces” flew the Me 109. Of course, as the war drug on and the air pressure and presence of the Allies intensified, the Germans suffered from the attrition. I always thought that if the technology and production had been on a more equal trajectory, the Me 262 would have had a shot at being the best fighter. But thankfully, too little, too late. One of the neatest books I ever owned was one that had short bios of the Aces of WWII that included both the Allies and the Axis. Haven’t looked back over it in many years, but it was hard to not be impressed with Eric Hartmann’s totals just on the basis of sheer numbers. There was also a famed RAF pilot who lost both his legs, but became very proficient flying with his prostheses. The aerial part of the war was very fascinating to me throughout Jr High and High School.

Douglas Bader is the cripple you're thinking of...

I'll type up my thoughts later, but in the meantime, here are prints signed by Hartman, Galland, Steinhoff, Krupinski, and others (and yes, I have prints of US and British pilots too!).

 

[Zambo]

I think the Brits have two strong contenders in the Spitfire and Sea Fury (designed during WWII and it was so good it replaced the Corsair in British and many Allied Navies after the war).

The Spitfire and Corsair never had any fly-offs that I could see--but even the Mustang pilots who'd flown both conceded they'd rather have the Spitfire in an engagement:

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

”The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy.
But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100...”

Opinion of the opposition?

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

The problem with this sort of conclusion is that anybody can build a stripped down, lightweight fighter that can turn and climb and accelerate faster than another service aircraft and claim that its 'better' because it can win a mock dogfight over the training base, but in war you have to actually build useful airplanes with pesky things such as fuel range and payload.

 

[gatorev12]

The problem with this sort of conclusion is that anybody can build a stripped down, lightweight fighter that can turn and climb and accelerate faster than another service aircraft and claim that its 'better' because it can win a mock dogfight over the training base, but in war you have to actually build useful airplanes with pesky things such as fuel range and payload.

I hear your point and it's a valid one--and something engineers struggle to deliver to this day. Even now, fighters struggle with range and payload over distance (time on station, etc.).

But the respective strengths and weaknesses of both planes were known to the users (and opponents) during & after the war itself and the consensus seemed to be the Spitfire (particularly the later versions) was the favorite.

 

[gatorev12]

Interesting to me that the only German aircraft in the list was the FW 190. I know a lot of the German stats were piled up against bombers, scouts, inexperienced pilots, etc. and several of their “Aces” flew the Me 109. Of course, as the war drug on and the air pressure and presence of the Allies intensified, the Germans suffered from the attrition. I always thought that if the technology and production had been on a more equal trajectory, the Me 262 would have had a shot at being the best fighter. But thankfully, too little, too late.

The FW 190 was considered then (and now) to have been the better fighter between that and the 109--which had a lot of the range problems the early-model Spitfires did too.

The Me 262 had a speed advantage...but its inefficient engines meant that its range was even worse than the other short-legged fighters mentioned and it wasn't the most maneuverable either.

 

[Detroitgator]

Short version...

I think it is really hard (almost ridiculous) to compare pilots to other pilots and planes to other planes in combat because other than for a few "sweet spots" in time, there were all kinds of mismatches.

For instance:

• I would say that Joe Foss and Marion Carl might have been the two best US pilots of the war, in any theater (and there might be a couple of others like them that I'm not thinking of). They were flying F4F's against a then superior Zero against pilots with equal or greater skill. They both racked up crazy number in the 1942 into '43 time frame, then were pulled from "real" combat. Who knows how many more aerial victories they would have had had they been allowed to stay in squadrons in 1943-44 flying Corsairs... maybe they'd be dead, but during the time they flew, it was with an inferior plane vs an at least equal foe flying a better plane. Sure, Richard Bong had 40 total victories, but time had shifted/flip flopped to where he was flying a better aircraft vs inferior pilots.
• Erich Hartmann and Johannes Steinhoff would be the first to tell you that Hans-Joachim Marseille was the greatest German fighter pilot of the war (but not a great wingman, and did not survive the war). However, I'd say he "benefited" from flying against inferior planes (mainly P-40s/Hurricanes, then Spitfires at the end)
• The best pure fighter pilot (but HORRENDOUS wingman) of the RAF/RCAF (and probably Top 5-10 pilots anywhere in the war) was George Beurling. Probably the best deflection shooter in history, to the point where his gun cameras didn't even pick up what he was shooting at a lot of the time, and at first, people thought he was lying, but eyewitnesses eventually figured out what was happening and why it wasn't on film: CRAZY good deflection shooting. I don't think Beurling gave a single fuk about the count of aerial victories, he just wanted to kill, to the point where he went to fight for the Israelis in '48, but died in a plane crash in Italy (I think he's buried in Israel).

It's tough to compare.

As for the planes, I grew up a P-47D fan and the first model I ever built (affectionately called "the flying blob of Testors glue") was Gabreski's P-47D (been waiting to build it again now). Over the years though, I've come to just love the P-38 for no reason other than it's just a cool damn plane. In the Spitfire vs Mustang argument, I'm a P-51D guy... fuk the British and their pretty little plane with a combat radius of 50 fukking miles.

EDIT: Oh, and I've mentioned this before, but neither the P-51, P-47, nor P-38 were flown by the pilot with the highest number of aerial victories in an American airframe... the P-39 flown by a Russian was. My favorite pilot to read about as a kid was Hans Rudel... interesting useless factoid, we consulted with him in the development of the A-10.

Note to @Zambo : I was going to throw Malcolm Pickering on the list, but too many Marines as it is!

 

[gatorev12]

It's tough to compare.

Your point is certainly valid and there's no arguing that experience counts more than the raw airframe itself. "It's not the plane, it's the pilot" has been a rule in aerial warfare long before Top Gun Maverick (and was adopted from something the Red Baron said in WWI).

In the Spitfire vs Mustang argument, I'm a P-51D guy... fuk the British and their pretty little plane with a combat radius of 50 fukking miles.

That's just emotions and homerism talking.
The Luftwaffe pilots who had to fight against both generally avoided combat against Spitfires--they didn't do that against Mustangs because they felt their plane was roughly equal. That somewhat settles it from a combat perspective.

And again, the P-51D is one of my all-time favorites, so that takes a lot to admit. I was surprised when I'd read what the Germans said about both after the war.

Note to @Zambo : I was going to throw Malcolm Pickering on the list, but too many Marines as it is!

Face it: Marines just do war better "in the air on land and sea."

 

[Detroitgator]

Your point is certainly valid and there's no arguing that experience counts more than the raw airframe itself. "It's not the plane, it's the pilot" has been a rule in aerial warfare long before Top Gun Maverick (and was adopted from something the Red Baron said in WWI).



That's just emotions and homerism talking.
The Luftwaffe pilots who had to fight against both generally avoided combat against Spitfires--they didn't do that against Mustangs because they felt their plane was roughly equal. That somewhat settles it from a combat perspective.

And again, the P-51D is one of my all-time favorites, so that takes a lot to admit. I was surprised when I'd read what the Germans said about both after the war.



Face it: Marines just do war better "in the air on land and sea."

Or, they “chose” to fight P-51’s due to a lack of Spitfires over Berlin, Schweinfurt, and Vienna.

 

[gatorev12]

Or, they “chose” to fight P-51’s due to a lack of Spitfires over Berlin, Schweinfurt, and Vienna.

By the later stages of the war?
This "own" doesn't hold true.

The Griffon-engined Spitfires had the advantages over the (D) Mustangs and even the Luftwaffe knew it. Which is why they avoided Spitfires when they could.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

technology and production had been on a more equal trajectory, the Me 262 would have had a shot at being the best fighter. But thankfully, too little, too late.

This X1000....There was not anything close at the time and had this project been advanced a year or so sooner the war would likely have drug out many more years..