- Jun 12, 2014
- 8,990
- 32,510
Founding Member
A big thanks is due, I believe, to Goering and Der Fuherer
Tuesday Favorites: Best WWII Fighters
- Thread starter gatorev12
- Start date
- Jun 19, 2014
- 12,789
- 31,974
Founding Member
My favorites are the Corsair and the Mustang.
I've said before though, the real question isn't Mustang v Spitfire or Corsair v Zero, the real question is Rolls Royce Merlin v Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp (meaning Spitfire, Mustang, Mosquito, Lancaster, etc. v Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt, Invader, Marauder, Black Widow, etc.).
Anyway...
If you're going into the very late-war variants (like the griffon-powered Spitfire), then things get a little complicated.
P-51 H Looks a little weird, doesn't it?
American designers wondered why Mustangs weighed more than Spitfires so they looked into it and determined that the Brits had lower design standards and loads. They lightened the Mustang to mimic what the Brits were doing and came up with the "lightweight" Mustangs of which the H went into production and was delivered in numbers to the Pacific theater (although they did not see action). This hot-rod Mustang was faster than your mom on prom night.
More Info: P-51 Mustang Variants - P-51H - MustangsMustangs.com
Spitfire with square wings and a bubble canopy??? Looks a little weird, doesn't it?
To me, a Spitfire has beautiful, large, elliptical wings and is powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin. The XIV and XII were powered by the griffon and had different wings. Different animal. Great dogfighter, piss poor range.
Looks a little weird for a Butcher Bird, right? Focke Wulf yes, but not a 190. TA 152.
Germans designed this fella for high altitude (specifically to take down Superfortresses). Not many made it into combat and the sources are biased, but lots of folks claim this is the baddest bird the Germans ever developed.
Alex.
I've said before though, the real question isn't Mustang v Spitfire or Corsair v Zero, the real question is Rolls Royce Merlin v Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp (meaning Spitfire, Mustang, Mosquito, Lancaster, etc. v Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt, Invader, Marauder, Black Widow, etc.).
Anyway...
If you're going into the very late-war variants (like the griffon-powered Spitfire), then things get a little complicated.
P-51 H Looks a little weird, doesn't it?
American designers wondered why Mustangs weighed more than Spitfires so they looked into it and determined that the Brits had lower design standards and loads. They lightened the Mustang to mimic what the Brits were doing and came up with the "lightweight" Mustangs of which the H went into production and was delivered in numbers to the Pacific theater (although they did not see action). This hot-rod Mustang was faster than your mom on prom night.
More Info: P-51 Mustang Variants - P-51H - MustangsMustangs.com
Spitfire with square wings and a bubble canopy??? Looks a little weird, doesn't it?
To me, a Spitfire has beautiful, large, elliptical wings and is powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin. The XIV and XII were powered by the griffon and had different wings. Different animal. Great dogfighter, piss poor range.
Looks a little weird for a Butcher Bird, right? Focke Wulf yes, but not a 190. TA 152.
Germans designed this fella for high altitude (specifically to take down Superfortresses). Not many made it into combat and the sources are biased, but lots of folks claim this is the baddest bird the Germans ever developed.
Alex.
- Jun 19, 2014
- 12,789
- 31,974
Founding Member
@Zambo got it right. The "best" is about being a war-winner. It ain't about the prettiest or even the best dogfighter. Things like range, payload, survivability, and ease of production matter.
Battle of Britain ME-109s barely had enough range for a quick dogfight over Britain before they had to leave or go for a swim in the Channel.
Spits were similarly short-legged. Furthermore, their in-line engines were vulnerable (not very good in the ground-attack role) and they were a b!tch to produce.
The ME 262 was an absolute gamechanger but hampered by range issues.
The Corsair was a badass. Fast and rugged. I love her looks. However, visibility down that looooong nose was terrible. We deemed them unsuitable for carrier work. It was the Brits who figured out a way to land them on carriers (they'd come in on a wide circling approach so the pilot could see the carrier instead of landing blind). The Hellcat had the same engine and better visibility, overall similar performance. I still like the Corsair though.
The Mustang was a war-winner. It was easy to produce. It had immense range. It could do almost everything the other planes could do but had the legs its rivals lacked. It is said that the day Goering looked up into the sky over Berlin and saw Mustangs, he knew the war was over. It did have the weakness of all in-line water-cooled engines...they were vulnerable. If you are talking big picture, it's Mustang.
But...if you want to get into these late variants, I have another name for you.
The Republic P-47 N Thunderbolt.
This fella was produced in numbers and did see action in the Pacific. It was meant to escort the Superfortresses so it was all about range and high altitude performance, but it was still a Jug.
Look at the size of that thing! TWSS
Like the later versions of the Spitfire, they changed the wings (older Jugs had elliptical wings). They jammed fuel everywhere they possibly could (including inside those new wings). The cockpit was considered luxurious. Climate control, roomy enough to stretch out, pressurized, even had an auto-pilot. That stuff matters when you're flying hour after hour after hour over a vast empty ocean. Heavily armed with 8 50 cals in the wings and the ability to carry bombs and rockets. The Jug excelled in the ground-attack role. It was turbosupercharged for high altitude performance, very fast, very high ceiling. Even had a radar in the back to alert the pilot if a bandit got on his tail.
The Jug was legendary for its durability. It's air-cooled radial engine was far more durable than any in-line engine. The plumbing for the turbosupercharger ran under the belly of the plane providing lots of protection for the pilot.
Like most American planes, it was designed for ease of mass production. We cranked out more Jugs than any other American fighter in WWII.
But its ugly.
But can it dogfight.
Blah blah blah.
The BEST is the war winner. This bad boy is just that, a war winner. You can argue that the Tempest was a better ground attack plane and the Typhoon was a better fighter but I'd rather have 2 squadrons of Jugs that can do both jobs well than a squadron of Sturmoviks and a squadron of FW 190s that can only do one job well (and my Jugs can do it all day long while your specialized planes have to land and refuel).
The N model had more range and more firepower and more munitions capacity and a higher ceiling than the P-51. And it was more comfortable to fly and far more survivable.
The N was blazing fast and could always dive itself out of trouble.
So why is the venerable Jug the winner here? It does it all. I can build more of them faster and cheaper than you can build Spits or FWs. When your Spits have to turn around and go home because they're already out of fuel, I have a squadron of Jugs loitering over their base waiting to jump them (or, while your Spits are trying to dogfight, I've got a squadron turning your base into a muddy hole). On the way back, my Jugs will destroy any target of opportunity that presents itself, locomotive, bridge, armored column, fuel depot, whatever, and my Jugs will survive the ground fire and bring my pilots back home alive. My Jugs can perform at low, medium, and high altitude. They can escort Superfortresses. They are excellent at ground attack. They can dogfight. They can go a long, long way.
Wanna know why I don't care what Galland or the Israelis thought? Galland, flying an ME 262, was shot down by a Jug. As for the Israelis, they fought a very specific type of air battle in tiny space. They didn't have to build the planes and they didn't have to fly far or long.
More Information: Republic P-47N Thunderbolt - War Wings Daily
Alex.
Battle of Britain ME-109s barely had enough range for a quick dogfight over Britain before they had to leave or go for a swim in the Channel.
Spits were similarly short-legged. Furthermore, their in-line engines were vulnerable (not very good in the ground-attack role) and they were a b!tch to produce.
The ME 262 was an absolute gamechanger but hampered by range issues.
The Corsair was a badass. Fast and rugged. I love her looks. However, visibility down that looooong nose was terrible. We deemed them unsuitable for carrier work. It was the Brits who figured out a way to land them on carriers (they'd come in on a wide circling approach so the pilot could see the carrier instead of landing blind). The Hellcat had the same engine and better visibility, overall similar performance. I still like the Corsair though.
The Mustang was a war-winner. It was easy to produce. It had immense range. It could do almost everything the other planes could do but had the legs its rivals lacked. It is said that the day Goering looked up into the sky over Berlin and saw Mustangs, he knew the war was over. It did have the weakness of all in-line water-cooled engines...they were vulnerable. If you are talking big picture, it's Mustang.
But...if you want to get into these late variants, I have another name for you.
The Republic P-47 N Thunderbolt.
This fella was produced in numbers and did see action in the Pacific. It was meant to escort the Superfortresses so it was all about range and high altitude performance, but it was still a Jug.
Look at the size of that thing! TWSS
Like the later versions of the Spitfire, they changed the wings (older Jugs had elliptical wings). They jammed fuel everywhere they possibly could (including inside those new wings). The cockpit was considered luxurious. Climate control, roomy enough to stretch out, pressurized, even had an auto-pilot. That stuff matters when you're flying hour after hour after hour over a vast empty ocean. Heavily armed with 8 50 cals in the wings and the ability to carry bombs and rockets. The Jug excelled in the ground-attack role. It was turbosupercharged for high altitude performance, very fast, very high ceiling. Even had a radar in the back to alert the pilot if a bandit got on his tail.
The Jug was legendary for its durability. It's air-cooled radial engine was far more durable than any in-line engine. The plumbing for the turbosupercharger ran under the belly of the plane providing lots of protection for the pilot.
Like most American planes, it was designed for ease of mass production. We cranked out more Jugs than any other American fighter in WWII.
But its ugly.
But can it dogfight.
Blah blah blah.
The BEST is the war winner. This bad boy is just that, a war winner. You can argue that the Tempest was a better ground attack plane and the Typhoon was a better fighter but I'd rather have 2 squadrons of Jugs that can do both jobs well than a squadron of Sturmoviks and a squadron of FW 190s that can only do one job well (and my Jugs can do it all day long while your specialized planes have to land and refuel).
The N model had more range and more firepower and more munitions capacity and a higher ceiling than the P-51. And it was more comfortable to fly and far more survivable.
The N was blazing fast and could always dive itself out of trouble.
So why is the venerable Jug the winner here? It does it all. I can build more of them faster and cheaper than you can build Spits or FWs. When your Spits have to turn around and go home because they're already out of fuel, I have a squadron of Jugs loitering over their base waiting to jump them (or, while your Spits are trying to dogfight, I've got a squadron turning your base into a muddy hole). On the way back, my Jugs will destroy any target of opportunity that presents itself, locomotive, bridge, armored column, fuel depot, whatever, and my Jugs will survive the ground fire and bring my pilots back home alive. My Jugs can perform at low, medium, and high altitude. They can escort Superfortresses. They are excellent at ground attack. They can dogfight. They can go a long, long way.
Wanna know why I don't care what Galland or the Israelis thought? Galland, flying an ME 262, was shot down by a Jug. As for the Israelis, they fought a very specific type of air battle in tiny space. They didn't have to build the planes and they didn't have to fly far or long.
More Information: Republic P-47N Thunderbolt - War Wings Daily
Alex.
Last edited:
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
In summary the range of the Mustang as an escort increased the effectiveness of our bombers which in turned saved a lot of lives by pulverizing Germany's manufacturing capability into splinters...it was the turning point and made the Mustang the "war winner" that we know it as.
- Dec 31, 2018
- 14,974
- 28,358
The Spitfire was a pretty plane - and had a cool name - but like you, I have always loved the P-51D. I don't know crap about flying and even less about aerial combat, but as a WW2 buff, I've just always loved that plane. Guess I have to agree with Jim (Christian Bale's debut I believe) in Empire of the Sun: "CADILLAC OF THE SKY!"
Feel free to skip the last minute or so of mushy silly stuff.
- Jul 15, 2014
- 28,632
- 47,616
I don't want to argue with anyone (can't be bothered), but all of that is kind of a myth, and the study on the results of the strategic bombing campaign were never released (probably a reason for that). While there is no question that it greatly hindered German production and no question that it rearranged the prioritization of resources (in an already over elaborate, f'd up system), German production of almost everything was near its peak at the END of the war.
- Feb 15, 2016
- 6,072
- 11,307
Hate to agree with a grunt, but Deet is close to being correct. THE strategic bombing survey does not support the idea that the campaign reduced production or civilian morale. It does indicate the bombing caused Axis leaders to prioritize air defense of the Vaterland for the output of that production. Which reduced petrol and ammunition supplied to the Wehrmach. Which helped the Army. Strategic bombardment was very effective in Japan, particularly when the proper weapon was employed.
- Jun 19, 2014
- 12,789
- 31,974
Founding Member
The strategic bombing campaign forced the Luftwaffe fighters into the air to defend. This allowed the Mustangs and Thunderbolts to attrit the Luftwaffe to a shadow of its former self.
This may not have been the original intent of strategic bombing, but the result was allied control of the skies over Europe (not a bad consolation prize).
As the number of German fighters decreased, our fighters were freed up to take out targets of opportunity on the ground—something they did exceedingly well.
Alex.
This may not have been the original intent of strategic bombing, but the result was allied control of the skies over Europe (not a bad consolation prize).
As the number of German fighters decreased, our fighters were freed up to take out targets of opportunity on the ground—something they did exceedingly well.
Alex.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
Exactly...
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
So basically what you're saying is a direct effect of what I said earlier...
- Jul 15, 2014
- 28,632
- 47,616
No, the result was an unintended consequence.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
But it was ALL an effect of the air protection provided by the increased range of the Mustang. Not only that those Mustangs did MASSIVE damage to troops, planes and tanks on the ground once they broke off from the Bombers.....which in turn put more strain of Germany's resources and Manufacuring capabilities...
- Jul 15, 2014
- 28,632
- 47,616
- Aug 17, 2018
- 10,406
- 9,841
It's funny you should mention that because all I've seen from you and others is "shifting."
The later-model, Griffon-engined Spitfires had double the range of the earlier models. Still less than the Mustangs, but enough to get over Germany by 1944 and 1945.
In terms of armament and hitting power, it had more firepower than the Mustang; it was faster and more maneuverable; and was a better dogfighter. It could "outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmanuever its opponent" (direct quote from an American ace who evaluated the two).
As a long-range escort fighter? Yea, the Mustang wins, hands-down.
As an interceptor and a dogfighter? The Spitfire wins, no contest. Later versions of the Spitfire ended up serving as bomber escorts too--and did it well enough that German pilots avoided combat with them.
So for the poll itself, it's pretty clear what the winner should be--but "shifting" and all that.
- Aug 17, 2018
- 10,406
- 9,841
If you notice carefully, the thread wasn't titled "best American fighter of WWII" for a reason.
- Aug 17, 2018
- 10,406
- 9,841
Blind homerism aside, we don't always make the best equipment.
No one would say the Sherman tank was the "best" in WWII--we just made it in greater numbers than anything else.
And when evaluating fighters, things like speed, range, firepower, maneuverability, etc. all matter. On most all of those things, the later versions of the Spitfire came out on top.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
In that respect it would be hard to argue your point about which plane was superior....however it would be impossible to argue the effects of the Mustang being greater in the overall outcome of the war. Their return missions annihilated German supply lines, equipment, troops and grounded planes at hidden airstrips as well as providing protection for the Bombers. And they were more than capable against the best fighters that Germany had at that point especially once their more experienced pilots were weeded out.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 22,227
- 23,507
