Tuesday Favorites: Best WWII Fighters

[gatorev12]

This is Reving.

Is it?

 

[AlexDaGator]

The Wikipedia entry says differently.
The 1400 mile figure is the nautical mile range with drop tanks, as I specified.

The 110 gallon drop tanks weren't created until the very late stages of the war and I don't believe were used in Europe (nor would there be much reason for it). That's the only reason the range was pushed over 2000 miles and it applied to the Pacific theater.

I think you're using nautical miles and miles interchangeably. They're different things.

I know the difference between a mile and a nautical mile and I know the range difference between Mustangs and Spitfires was huge. The reason I think you're confusing variants is you're cherry picking the best stats for each version rather than the stats for a single version. For example, a reconnaissance version without guns will have a longer range, higher speed, and higher ceiling than a fighter version.

This is inaccurate. The XIV Spitfire (and subsequent versions too) had a bubble canopy.

Some. Some of them did (very, very late in the war). Plenty of Spitfire XIVs had the older style canopies. Here's where you're cherry picking again. The Brits added extra fuel tanks in the fuselage of the XIV. The ones equipped with a bubble canopy didn't have the same extra room in the fuselage for those tanks so they carried less gas but you're trying to lay claim to both the extra range and the extra visibility. You can't have both.

Ideal for combat. Which all the combatants seemed to agree who the winner was and you're wanting to dismiss it entirely.

"All the combatants"? Nope. Not by a long shot. Most Germans will say the ME 262 and for an aerial dogfight in narrow conditions, they'd be right. I doubt any German who flew the TA 152 would tell you the Spit was better. Pretty sure any Spit pilot who had to dogfight an ME 262 would tell you the German jet was better. If you want to dismiss range and ease of construction and limit the discussion to a dogfight at altitude, then how can your answer be anything other than the 262?

Defining "best" as "war winner" is you "Reving."

Not at all. The best fighter is the one that wins the war for you. That's not moving goalposts. That's common fcuking sense.

The Germans flew against plenty of P-47s, come on now.

Not the N. We've established this. N's served in the Pacific. Moreover, we've established that their opinions which you rely on are limited to one single aspect of the overall worth of a fighter.

I have no idea why they didn't rate it higher (because it was a great platform), but they pretty clearly feared the Spit and the Mustang more.

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Most all dogfights took place at lower altitudes under 20k feet--even the ones that took place on bomber escort missions.

There is a huge difference between dogfighting at 5K-10K feet versus dogfighting at 15K-25K feet. A lot of those Spitfire XIVs were optimized for lower altitude dogfighting. This comes back to mixing up variants. Most combat on the Eastern Front was at considerably lower altitudes than on the Western Front. Likewise, Japanese fighters preferred lower altitudes. The Japanese didn't have many planes that could even climb to Superfortress altitudes.

Fighters merged all the time into combat engagements during WWII. Look up how many planes the Mustang, Spitfire, P-47, Lightning shot down. The number is in the thousands for every plane.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here, or why you're leaving out the Hellcat.

"Exceedingly narrow" my ass: combat engagements occurred all the time where things like firepower, horsepower, climb, acceleration, roll rate, etc. all mattered.

Your newly created criteria ARE exceedingly narrow. The BF-109 barely had time to dogfight over Britain. That matters to combat effectiveness. Modern military thinkers always talk about "force multipliers". If a Mustang has 4 times the range of a BF-109, that's a force multiplier. My one Mustang is worth two of your Messerschmitts (especially if I have a comfortable cockpit for my pilot). I can have more planes in the sky longer, I can send them where I need to send them. How do you not understand this?

You're the one doing this. Defining "best" as "easiest to produce" among other largely unrelated things. This isn't a conversation about logistics, it's measuring the planes itself.

You're Reving again. I didn't define best as easiest to produce. Those are your words, not mine. I said it was a factor. Which it is. Somebody else brought up tanks. Is the King Tiger the best? Of course not. Too complex, too expensive, too difficult to build, too big for narrow, small town roads, too heavy for small bridges, etc. By your Reving metric (which I'll paraphrase as which tank would you least like to face in a 1 v 1 duel on a vast open plain on reasonably firm ground with no infantry, air, or artillery support) it might be the best. But it's not the best in the real world, only in your narrow scenario.

On pure performance, the Spitfire had the edge in most categories--which made a difference in combat and why all the combatants seemed to agree what the "best" was.

Pure performance? Edge in most categories? Compared to the ME 262? You're daft.

The Spitfire fought throughout the war in all theaters and racked up impressive kills.

So you want the credit for the Merlin-powered, razorback, short range, elliptical wing, browning 303 Spitfire victories, but you only want the performance metrics of the Griffon-powered Spitfire. Got it.

At least one author added up confirmed Spitfire kills from known Commonwealth aces and found it to be the plane with the highest number of kills in the war (slightly edging the Mustang, which has always been presumed to be first).

This is silly. The Spitfire fought from day one of the war to the last day of the war. Of course the Spitfire (and the BF-109) are going to have huge kill numbers.

We had tons of Hellcat victories in the Pacific (I believe more American Aces flew the Hellcat than any other plane). We had lots of Corsair victories, Lightning victories, Thunderbolt victories, and yes, Mustang victories. So what?

By 1944 and 1945, Spitfires were tasked with bomber escort (especially the Griffon-engined varients) and the number of Commonwealth aces from this period show it was just as valuable as the Mustangs and P-47s in clearing the skies of German fighters.

This is a glittering generality. It most certainly was NOT "just as valuable" because it could not do what the Mustang could do or what the Thunderbolts could do.

The Spitfire was the best interceptor of the war and the best dogfighter by some distance.

Nope. ME 262 notwithstanding, you haven't accounted for the late-war FW-190s or the TA-152 which were excellent interceptors and dogfighters.

It wasn't even close to the best long-ranged fighter, but later variants that had improved range were also utilized as bomber escorts (the principle strength of both the Mustang and Thunderbolt).

Nope. I never stated that the "principle strength" of either was simply range. They had other advantages I've repeated ad nauseum.

By your own definition (being the best across multiple scenarios), being #1 in two of the 3 categories would seem to be a decisive edge over the two you mentioned (and over any other offering).

Must be that new common core math at work. Stop it. You're limiting the categories to interceptor, dogfighter, and long range escort? This is Reving. Those aren't the only categories that matter, and there are subcategories within each.



Welp...

You made me have to go and find an article, didn't you?

Comparing Late-War Spitfire and Mustang Fighters

(take note, this article specifically compares the Griffon-powered Mk. XIV versus the D model Mustang)

Comparison​

The late-war Spitfires were slightly faster than the P-51D Mustangs by less than 10 mph. This was achieved by using engines that consumed fuel faster and thus gave the Spitfire a dramatically lower range than the Mustang.

The top Luftwaffe pilots who observed both planes passed their judgment as to which was a more difficult competitor. Fighter ace Heinz Bär, who flew over 1000 combat missions, was credited with 208 planes shot down (he claimed 228). This included16 planes shot down while flying in the ME 262 jet fighter. His 124 victories against the Western Allies were second only to Hans-Joachim Marseille's total of 158.

Bär favored the P-51D. He said that the P-51 "was perhaps the most difficult of all Allied aircraft to meet in combat. It was fast, maneuverable, hard to see, and difficult to identify because it resembled the Me 109."

Günther Rall earned credit for the destruction of 275 enemy aircraft in 621 combat missions. Since all but three of his victories were on the Eastern Front, you might think that Rall was not qualified to compare the Spitfire and the Mustang. However, he was transferred back from the Eastern Front to the Defense of the Reich force in March 1944. This was just when the P-51D began appearing over German skies. Rall also was the commander of the German Fighter Leader School for about four months, where he flew all of the Luftwaffe's captured Allied planes. The Luftwaffe’s Zirkus Rosarius was a special unit tasked with evaluating enemy aircraft. It would capture and rebuild them for testing. Rall claimed to have flown 300 hours in the Mustangs.

Rall, who passed away on 4 October 2009, was interviewed by Colin Heaton about his World War II experiences (he also flew for the post-war German air force). The interview originally appeared in the September 1996 issue of World War II magazine. Comparing the many different World War II fighters of both sides that he flew during the war, Rall commented:

The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow. The P-51 (cockpit) was for me a great room, just fantastic. The P-38 with two engines was great, but I think the best airplane was the P-51. Certainly, the Spitfire was excellent, but it didn’t have the endurance of the P-51. I think this was the decisive factor. They flew for seven hours, and we flew for one hour and 20 minutes.

Rall further reiterated that the P-51D was the best of all the Allied fighters:

Now the big thing in the Home Defense as far as problems was the P-51. The P-51 was a damned good airplane and it had tremendous endurance, which for us was a new dimension. The P-47, which as you know shot me down, we knew right away. It had tremendous diving speed and could run up to 1,400 kilometers per hour, where the Bf-109 was limited to 1,000 kph. I learned this quickly when they chased me, and I could do nothing else. The structural layout design of the P-47 was much stronger, yet I consider the P-51 the best battle horse you had of all the fighter escorts.

Conclusion​

So, to summarize, the late-war Spitfires were slightly faster than the P-51D. This made them better for certain missions such as catching and destroying flying bombs. However, the P-51D had a vastly greater range without sacrificing much performance and this made it a more effective combatant. The more time you were able to spend in the air, the more value you had and the more missions you could perform.

One way to think about this is that being in the air longer enabled you to fly deeper missions into enemy territory and enabled pilots to stick with successful operations longer. More range opened up more tactical options and also made the P-51D strategically more useful by protecting bombers. These were options that neither the RAF (aside from the Mustangs it flew) nor the Luftwaffe had.

Thus, the P-51D earned the edge as the superior warplane among those who were in a good position to compare the two.

Personally, I don't give a fcuk what Rall and Bar thought but it seems to matter to you so there you go.


Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

I think I found the source material for your range claims.

The Brits called the P-51B the "Mustang III".

Originally, the Mustang had twin 92 gallon fuel tanks in the wing roots.

But...there was an empty space behind the pilot on those Mustangs. Later (during the B model run, but not in the initial versions), they stuffed an extra 85 gallon gas tank in the fuselage. Sucked for the plane. Fcuked up the center of gravity. Handled like a pig when that tank was full. But it was that tank that made the Mustang.

Everybody thinks Mustang pilots used up the fuel in the drop tanks first, then ditched them to be slick for combat. Not true. They drained that fuselage tank behind the pilot first so the plane would fly right (no biggie, since it would be mostly used up taking off and getting to altitude). Only after that was drained would they switch to the drop tanks.

Your range figures aren't for a D or even a C model Mustang, they're for an early B model without this modification (and you can tell Wikipedia I said that).

Trust me when I tell you the Mustang D's effective combat range was 1,650 miles and its maximum range was over 2,000 miles.

And the P-47 N's range was even longer.


Alex.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

I guess if it boils down to a one on one battle about which one is the best "fighter" I can see where Rev is coming from. Thread title clearly says " Best WWII Fighter"...so the very late Spitfire would likely come out on top.

Now lets talk about tanks, machine guns, and battleships...or I'll post the video of the Bismarck blasting the most feared battleship, "HMS Hood" into oblivion again and make Alex take a full page to explain why it was not the superior ship like I did a while back....

 

[stephenPE]

I know the difference between a mile and a nautical mile and I know the range difference between Mustangs and Spitfires was huge. The reason I think you're confusing variants is you're cherry picking the best stats for each version rather than the stats for a single version. For example, a reconnaissance version without guns will have a longer range, higher speed, and higher ceiling than a fighter version.


Some. Some of them did (very, very late in the war). Plenty of Spitfire XIVs had the older style canopies. Here's where you're cherry picking again. The Brits added extra fuel tanks in the fuselage of the XIV. The ones equipped with a bubble canopy didn't have the same extra room in the fuselage for those tanks so they carried less gas but you're trying to lay claim to both the extra range and the extra visibility. You can't have both.


"All the combatants"? Nope. Not by a long shot. Most Germans will say the ME 262 and for an aerial dogfight in narrow conditions, they'd be right. I doubt any German who flew the TA 152 would tell you the Spit was better. Pretty sure any Spit pilot who had to dogfight an ME 262 would tell you the German jet was better. If you want to dismiss range and ease of construction and limit the discussion to a dogfight at altitude, then how can your answer be anything other than the 262?


Not at all. The best fighter is the one that wins the war for you. That's not moving goalposts. That's common fcuking sense.


Not the N. We've established this. N's served in the Pacific. Moreover, we've established that their opinions which you rely on are limited to one single aspect of the overall worth of a fighter.


I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.


There is a huge difference between dogfighting at 5K-10K feet versus dogfighting at 15K-25K feet. A lot of those Spitfire XIVs were optimized for lower altitude dogfighting. This comes back to mixing up variants. Most combat on the Eastern Front was at considerably lower altitudes than on the Western Front. Likewise, Japanese fighters preferred lower altitudes. The Japanese didn't have many planes that could even climb to Superfortress altitudes.


Not sure what point you're trying to make here, or why you're leaving out the Hellcat.


Your newly created criteria ARE exceedingly narrow. The BF-109 barely had time to dogfight over Britain. That matters to combat effectiveness. Modern military thinkers always talk about "force multipliers". If a Mustang has 4 times the range of a BF-109, that's a force multiplier. My one Mustang is worth two of your Messerschmitts (especially if I have a comfortable cockpit for my pilot). I can have more planes in the sky longer, I can send them where I need to send them. How do you not understand this?


You're Reving again. I didn't define best as easiest to produce. Those are your words, not mine. I said it was a factor. Which it is. Somebody else brought up tanks. Is the King Tiger the best? Of course not. Too complex, too expensive, too difficult to build, too big for narrow, small town roads, too heavy for small bridges, etc. By your Reving metric (which I'll paraphrase as which tank would you least like to face in a 1 v 1 duel on a vast open plain on reasonably firm ground with no infantry, air, or artillery support) it might be the best. But it's not the best in the real world, only in your narrow scenario.


Pure performance? Edge in most categories? Compared to the ME 262? You're daft.


So you want the credit for the Merlin-powered, razorback, short range, elliptical wing, browning 303 Spitfire victories, but you only want the performance metrics of the Griffon-powered Spitfire. Got it.


This is silly. The Spitfire fought from day one of the war to the last day of the war. Of course the Spitfire (and the BF-109) are going to have huge kill numbers.

We had tons of Hellcat victories in the Pacific (I believe more American Aces flew the Hellcat than any other plane). We had lots of Corsair victories, Lightning victories, Thunderbolt victories, and yes, Mustang victories. So what?


This is a glittering generality. It most certainly was NOT "just as valuable" because it could not do what the Mustang could do or what the Thunderbolts could do.


Nope. ME 262 notwithstanding, you haven't accounted for the late-war FW-190s or the TA-152 which were excellent interceptors and dogfighters.


Nope. I never stated that the "principle strength" of either was simply range. They had other advantages I've repeated ad nauseum.


Must be that new common core math at work. Stop it. You're limiting the categories to interceptor, dogfighter, and long range escort? This is Reving. Those aren't the only categories that matter, and there are subcategories within each.



Welp...

You made me have to go and find an article, didn't you?

Comparing Late-War Spitfire and Mustang Fighters

(take note, this article specifically compares the Griffon-powered Mk. XIV versus the D model Mustang)

Comparison​

Conclusion​

Personally, I don't give a fcuk what Rall and Bar thought but it seems to matter to you so there you go.


Alex.

Wow....I thought I was lectured. Im not worthy Im not worthy.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Wow....I thought I was lectured. Im not worthy Im not worthy.

You’re worthy, Coach.

Crazier than a sprayed roach, but worthy



Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

I guess if it boils down to a one on one battle about which one is the best "fighter" I can see where Rev is coming from. Thread title clearly says " Best WWII Fighter"...so the very late Spitfire would likely come out on top.

Now lets talk about tanks, machine guns, and battleships...or I'll post the video of the Bismarck blasting the most feared battleship, "HMS Hood" into oblivion again and make Alex take a full page to explain why it was not the superior ship like I did a while back....

Pffft. I’ll do it in two sentences:

1. Hood was a glorified battlecruiser; lacked the armor of a true battleship.

2. Bismarck had nuthin’ on the Iowas.


If you wanna talk tanks, I’ll tell you some stuff about Shermans you didn’t know.


Alex.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

If you wanna talk tanks, I’ll tell you some stuff about Shermans you didn’t know.

Ok why were they called " Tommy Cookers"?

 

[AlexDaGator]

Ok why were they called " Tommy Cookers"?

I said I’d tell you things you didn’t know.


Alex.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

I said I’d tell you things you didn’t know.


Alex.

What was the kill ratio of a Tiger vs a Sherman? I've heard in some cases it was like 8 to1...

 

[AlexDaGator]

What was the kill ratio of a Tiger vs a Sherman? I've heard in some cases it was like 8 to1...

Hard to narrow kill ratios down to specific tank models versus specific tank models.


Alex.

 

[gatorev12]

I think I found the source material for your range claims.

I told you where the source was.

Amusingly, you're sticking to the fact that the Mustang (D) was 1650 miles (which it was) and contesting the notion that that's somehow different from the nautical miles range of 1443. Google "miles to nautical miles" and get back to me. The computation is identical.

I can tell you facts, it's up to you to understand the difference.

The ferry range of 2000 miles **only** applies to P-51D variants that were fitted with the 110 gallon drop tanks, which were a late-war addition to Pacific Mustangs.

Seems you're the one cherry-picking statistics.
I've been extremely clear where I'm getting my stuff from and, yes, it independently checks out besides Wikipedia too.

Your range figures aren't for a D or even a C model Mustang, they're for an early B model without this modification (and you can tell Wikipedia I said that).

False.
The specifications for a P-51 **D** are listed on Wikipedia.

It lists the ferry range for the standard 90 lb drop tanks as 1650 miles. 1433 nautical miles.

The conversation isn't up for debate, it's mathematical fact, no matter how much you try and dazzle with bullchit.

Trust me when I tell you the Mustang D's effective combat range was 1,650 miles and its maximum range was over 2,000 miles.

No, I don't trust you.
The sources say otherwise.

The only variants that had a maximum range of over 2000 miles (again: NOT the same thing as nautical miles) were ones that had the larger drop tanks, which were a 1945 addition to Pacific-theater Mustangs.

And the P-47 N's range was even longer.

Kudos.

 

[gatorev12]

I guess if it boils down to a one on one battle about which one is the best "fighter" I can see where Rev is coming from. Thread title clearly says " Best WWII Fighter"...so the very late Spitfire would likely come out on top.

In 1v1 battle, the Spitfire would come out on top 99x out of 100 (per **American** pilots). Plus, most German pilots too.

The specifications back that up: the early-model Spits were among the best fighters in the early stages of the war; and the late-model Spitfires were also among the best fighters towards the end of the war. They kept their role as a top interceptor, top dogfighter, **and** added bomber escort to their duties as bases moved closer and range improved.

Not that we really need to go beyond that, but one author looked up official stats behind the true "top killer" of WWII and came away thinking the Spitfire deserves top crown when the totals of known aces were complied.

For all those crowing about "clearing the skies of Axis aircraft"...it would seem the top allied aircraft to do that factors into the equation.

Which Allied Fighter scored the most victories in World War Two? I believe I know the answer

One of these fighter aircraft scored more air-to-air victories than any other Allied aircraft. Photo: Ronnie MacDonald/wiki There is a popular idea that the P-51 or Hellcat scored the most victorie…

hushkit.net

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Pffft. I’ll do it in two sentences:

1. Hood was a glorified battlecruiser; lacked the armor of a true battleship.

2. Bismarck had nuthin’ on the Iowas.


If you wanna talk tanks, I’ll tell you some stuff about Shermans you didn’t know.


Alex.

She wasn’t a “glorified battle cruiser;”. she was a battle cruiser. That meant thinner armor and less armament. Crete also ignores, or simply doesn’t know, that the Hood was launched during the First World War. By the start of WWII, she was obsolete and scheduled for some major upgrades.

 

[Zambo]

Go say that, out loud, in front of a mirror.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

She wasn’t a “glorified battle cruiser;”. she was a battle cruiser. That meant thinner armor and less armament. Crete also ignores, or simply doesn’t know, that the Hood was launched during the First World War. By the start of WWII, she was obsolete and scheduled for some major upgrades.

Yeah Crete knows all that sh!t...still this is one of the most awesome clips of naval warfare ever....20 seconds that monstrous projectile was airborne before KABOOM!!! You can see the "funnel" from the hit that sent Hood to the bottom at around the 2.00 mark....man the guys on the Hood must have been sh!tting themselves hearing those massive guns from the Bismarck....Good thing Germany didn't have a few more like that big girl...

 

[Gatordiddy]

After four pages of this I’ve come to the conclusion that…

P-51 = Mike Tyson
Spitfire = Michael Jackson

 

[AlexDaGator]

I told you where the source was.

Amusingly, you're sticking to the fact that the Mustang (D) was 1650 miles (which it was) and contesting the notion that that's somehow different from the nautical miles range of 1443. Google "miles to nautical miles" and get back to me. The computation is identical.

If that's the case, then you're cherry-picking. The Griffon-powered Spits were less fuel-efficient than the Merlin-powered Spits. Like I said, they found room to put more fuel in the fuselage but the amount depends on they canopy type. Also, the Spit with the large fuselage tank is going to be heavier and its performance will suffer compared to other Spits. Likewise, the Spits ability to carry a drop tank also depends, in this case on wing type. Because of the way the landing gear worked on a Spit (it was the opposite of a Mustang), the wings couldn't be loaded the same way as a Mustang's. That's why the most common British drop tank was a single 90 gallon tank carried on the centerline. Not only were the Mustangs more fuel efficient, they carried more gas in their drop tanks. They carried 65 gallon, 75 gallon (which were very common), 108 and 110 gallon tanks which WERE used in the ETO, as well as 150 gallon tanks (which I think were only used in Pacific). That's the volume of EACH of the pair of drop tanks the Mustang carried. So if you want to attribute longer range to the Spit, then subtract visibility and performance. If you want the extra performance, then subtract range. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I can tell you facts, it's up to you to understand the difference.

You're not though. You're using "facts" that apply to different models and presenting them as if they apply to a single type of plane.

The ferry range of 2000 miles **only** applies to P-51D variants that were fitted with the 110 gallon drop tanks, which were a late-war addition to Pacific Mustangs.

This is not accurate. 108 and 110 gallon drop tanks were used in Europe.

Please note, Summer of '44. You know, right around D-Day (although this one isn't wearing invasion stripes so I'm guessing April or May of '44).

I believe (though I'm not certain) these are 108 gallon papier mache tanks. Kindly note the victory flags are swastikas, not rising suns.

Seems you're the one cherry-picking statistics.
I've been extremely clear where I'm getting my stuff from and, yes, it independently checks out besides Wikipedia too.

Who am I gonna believe? Wikipedia or my own lying eyes?

False.
The specifications for a P-51 **D** are listed on Wikipedia.

It lists the ferry range for the standard 90 lb drop tanks as 1650 miles. 1433 nautical miles.

I'm not familiar with a standard 90 pound drop tank (and if you meant 90 gallon, I'm not familiar with that either). Are you mixing up your units of measure?

The conversation isn't up for debate, it's mathematical fact, no matter how much you try and dazzle with bullchit.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

No, I don't trust you.
The sources say otherwise.

Wikipedia. Got it.

The only variants that had a maximum range of over 2000 miles (again: NOT the same thing as nautical miles) were ones that had the larger drop tanks, which were a 1945 addition to Pacific-theater Mustangs.

Again, you have to be specific. Ferry range is a different animal than combat range.

Kudos.

Thank you.

And another thing...

You argue that the Spit shot down more German planes than the Mustang. Well...the Spit was in service in larger numbers for a longer time. There were more Spits built than Mustangs and I'm pretty sure Mustangs didn't get any kills in 1938, 1939, 1940, or 1941. That said, the Airacobra was in service via lend-lease to the Russkies before the Mustang arrived in numbers. I don't trust Soviet numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if the Airacobra was the top scoring American fighter of WWII. I'm not making that claim, I'm merely saying I wouldn't be surprised. The Mustang did most of its work in the ETO from '43 to '45. It's a small window.



Alex.