Tuesday Favorites: Best WWII Fighters

[B52G8rAC]

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.

Studied homerism. My country, may she always be right. But, my country, right or wrong. BTW this statement was made in regard to foreign policy.

 

[gatorev12]

Studied homerism. My country, may she always be right. But, my country, right or wrong. BTW this statement was made in regard to foreign policy.

I get it.
It's still straying from the topic itself.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

I get it.
It's still straying from the topic itself.

Just for sh!ts and giggles start a thread about which WWII tanks were the best....I love hearing about WWII tanks....

 

[Concrete Helmet]

BTW....where is the one member of this board that actually witnessed any WWII(or WWI for that matter) battles between these planes? Where are you at @gator1946 ?

 

[gatorev12]

Just for sh!ts and giggles start a thread about which WWII tanks were the best....I love hearing about WWII tanks....

Sure thing...next Tuesday.
I'm not an animal.

 

[AlexDaGator]

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.

The Mustang D (not the British style lightweight hot rod) had double the Spitfire Mk XIV range. Double.

The Mk XIV had an exceptional rate of climb, one of the best of any prop plane. It had an advantage over the Mustang here.

Top speed was about the same. Roll rate was about the same. Mustang may have had a small advantage in the dive. Spit could turn a little tighter.

Spit was armed with 2 20mm cannons and 4 .303 machine guns. Mustang had 6 50 cals. The Brit cannons were bigger but slower-firing than the machine guns and the American machine guns were bigger than the Brits. When comparing naval ships, nerds calculate the weight of a broadside. They do something similar here coming up with a certain weight per burst taking into account muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Ultimately, it’s not that big of a difference.

Also, the XIV wasn’t the most common Spit. I believe that would have been the IX. The D was the definitive version of the Mustang. That’s why I brought up the late-war lightweight Mustang and especially the TA 152 if you want to compare hot rods. The TA-152 was faster than the XIV and was designed for high-altitude combat.

That raises another issue. The Hawker Tempest was faster than the XIV at certain altitudes. The Spit didn’t get faster than the Tempest until you got to higher altitude. The great John Boyd who revolutionized the science of air combat established windows within their respective flight envelopes where one plane had the advantage over the other. There’s almost always windows of advantage for both planes. Early war Japanese fighters could easily out dogfight American planes. They could climb faster and turn tighter. So why were the Flying Tigers with their crappy P-40s so successful? Chennault taught them to fight their fight; make a pass and then use their superior diving ability to get out of trouble, build up speed and energy, and then come back for another pass. They racked up a phenomenal kill ratio. Is the P-40 “better” than the Oscar? Not in a turning dogfight, but if you fight the P-40’s fight, the Oscar will lose.

That’s why you can’t discount range, payload, ruggedness, firepower, and ease of manufacture and focus entirely on climb rate and turn radius.

In Korea, the MiG-15 had a higher ceiling, higher top speed, and really powerful armament, but the Sabre ended the war with something like a 6-1 kill ratio over the MiG. Sabre was a better plane. Among other advantages, it had a far better gunsight.

Anyway.

I invite you to compare a particular Spitfire mark (probably the XIV) against other late-war iterations such as the TA-152 or the P-47 N.


Alex.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Just for sh!ts and giggles start a thread about which WWII tanks were the best....I love hearing about WWII tanks....

It’d be a dull thread; it was the T-34 hands down.

 

[gatorev12]

The Mustang D (not the British style lightweight hot rod) had double the Spitfire Mk XIV range. Double.

The Mk XIV had an exceptional rate of climb, one of the best of any prop plane. It had an advantage over the Mustang here.

Top speed was about the same. Roll rate was about the same. Mustang may have had a small advantage in the dive. Spit could turn a little tighter.

Spit was armed with 2 20mm cannons and 4 .303 machine guns. Mustang had 6 50 cals. The Brit cannons were bigger but slower-firing than the machine guns and the American machine guns were bigger than the Brits. When comparing naval ships, nerds calculate the weight of a broadside. They do something similar here coming up with a certain weight per burst taking into account muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Ultimately, it’s not that big of a difference.

Also, the XIV wasn’t the most common Spit. I believe that would have been the IX. The D was the definitive version of the Mustang. That’s why I brought up the late-war lightweight Mustang and especially the TA 152 if you want to compare hot rods. The TA-152 was faster than the XIV and was designed for high-altitude combat.

A few things: the Spit XIV range with drop tanks was 950 nautical miles; the P-51D with drop tanks was 1434. The Mustang still wins comfortably, but it's not double & it's also why the later Spitfires were so prized towards the end of the war.

As for firepower: the 20mm cannons had far better hitting power than the 50cal--taking a burst from the 20mm would tear your wing off, whereas you'd need more 50cal hits to be fatal (fortunately, the Mustang carried plenty of ammo and this usually wasn't a problem).

That’s why you can’t discount range, payload, ruggedness, firepower, and ease of manufacture and focus entirely on climb rate and turn radius.

I don't. The Mustang had the advantage in range and payload. On ruggedness, I'd say they were about equal (neither were great at CAS--a well-placed shot to the underside of the Mustang was enough to bring it down, which is why they were pulled from the lines in Korea)--and your P-47 wins hands-down in that dept.

Ease of manufacture isn't exactly fair--the Mustang factories weren't near the front lines and we could build them round the clock. The Brits had to disperse Spitfire production to prevent German attacks (especially after the Germans attacked a Spitfire factory during the Blitz), so they were never able to find manufacturing efficiencies.

I invite you to compare a particular Spitfire mark (probably the XIV) against other late-war iterations such as the TA-152 or the P-47 N.

I could accept the P-47 as being a bit closer of a match than the Mustang by virtue of the ruggedness/survivability; but I do think the enemy's opinions matter and I think the record is pretty clear which ones the Germans feared the most.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Recheck your sources.

XIV’s range on internal stores was 460 miles, upped to 850 miles with the large single drop tank used by the Brits.

P-51 D had a max range over 1000 miles on internal fuel stores and over 2000 miles with the smaller (but dual) drop tanks used by the Americans. That’s what they call “ferry range”, not true effective combat range. Still, that would have been in excess of 1,600 miles though so yeah, double.

You’re failing to consider the purpose of the guns. The MiG-15 was designed to shoot down the giant, lumbering Superfortress hence it was equipped with a giant gun. The Sabre was designed to shoot down enemy fighters before they could get to the big bombers. 6 50 cals sprayed more lead and was suited for taking a quick, difficult shot at a small, nimble, jinking fighter. Spit isn’t better simply because it has 2 20mm cannons. It’s a different philosophy.

While neither the Spit nor the Mustang were designed for ground attack(and shared similar vulnerabilities), the Mustang was better because it could be equipped with a substantial load of bombs and rockets.

As for production, the Spit was harder to build, period. The Mustang would have been easier to build in England than the Spit, and the Spit would have been harder to build in the US than the Mustang.

As for the German opinion, they didn’t have to build them or fly them for 1,600 miles. They never shot up fuel depots or locomotives with them. Their opinion is limited to a short 1 v 1 dogfight scenario. Additionally, they never faced the lightweight Mustang or the P-47 N as those were sent to the Pacific.

If range and ease of manufacture and ground attack and that other stuff doesn’t matter, then compare your XIV to the TA 152.

Alex.

 

[gatorev12]

Recheck your sources.

I used Wikipedia for both and the nautical mile ferry range is accurate for both. You're free to check it yourself.

6 50 cals sprayed more lead and was suited for taking a quick, difficult shot at a small, nimble, jinking fighter. Spit isn’t better simply because it has 2 20mm cannons. It’s a different philosophy.

As originally designed, the Spitfires were designed to take down bombers (hence the need for bigger guns); but those 20mm cannons also proved to be deadly in air to air entanglements with opposing fighters. Again: that's not to say the Mustang was trash--it's one of the best fighters of the war (and one of my all-time favorites too). But there's a reason why pilots of all Air Forces that used it or flew against it concluded that the Spitfire was the ideal aircraft.

As for the German opinion, they didn’t have to build them or fly them for 1,600 miles. They never shot up fuel depots or locomotives with them. Their opinion is limited to a short 1 v 1 dogfight scenario.

Come on now, the enemy's opinion counts for a LOT more than you're making it out to be.

We can all accept that the Spitfire and Mustang aren't a truly equal comparison because they were fundamentally designed for different things; but in terms of who the enemy would rather fly against, that matter considerably more than the lip service you're doing here.

By the end of the war, the XIV variants were also doing bomber escort from bases in France and Holland--and the Germans avoided them whenever possible. And while neither the Spitfire or the Mustang were designed for ground attack, the 20mm cannons were pretty useful shooting up locomotives and/or fuel depots too.

I provided quotes from American pilots who flew both and preferred the Spitfire. I mean, think about that--most pilots LOVE their planes. I've had Hornet pilots swear they could beat an F-22 in dogfighting. And yet, Mustang aces who'd flown the Spitfire conceded it was the plane they'd rather take into battle.

 

[B52G8rAC]

I used Wikipedia for both and the nautical mile ferry range is accurate for both. You're free to check it yourself.



As originally designed, the Spitfires were designed to take down bombers (hence the need for bigger guns); but those 20mm cannons also proved to be deadly in air to air entanglements with opposing fighters. Again: that's not to say the Mustang was trash--it's one of the best fighters of the war (and one of my all-time favorites too). But there's a reason why pilots of all Air Forces that used it or flew against it concluded that the Spitfire was the ideal aircraft.



Come on now, the enemy's opinion counts for a LOT more than you're making it out to be.

We can all accept that the Spitfire and Mustang aren't a truly equal comparison because they were fundamentally designed for different things; but in terms of who the enemy would rather fly against, that matter considerably more than the lip service you're doing here.

By the end of the war, the XIV variants were also doing bomber escort from bases in France and Holland--and the Germans avoided them whenever possible. And while neither the Spitfire or the Mustang were designed for ground attack, the 20mm cannons were pretty useful shooting up locomotives and/or fuel depots too.

I provided quotes from American pilots who flew both and preferred the Spitfire. I mean, think about that--most pilots LOVE their planes. I've had Hornet pilots swear they could beat an F-22 in dogfighting. And yet, Mustang aces who'd flown the Spitfire conceded it was the plane they'd rather take into battle.

When I was a part of the early F-22 development (very small role-I supervised the guy who was developing the operational test and evaluation plan), the engineers were constantly saying dogfighting (turning and burning shooting a gun) was not something the Raptor needed to worry about. Because no enemy fighter could ever engage it because they would never see until an AMRAAM hit them in the face. In simulations, there is much truth to that statement. One Raptor can take on 8 gen 4 fighters simultaneously and win a high percentage of the fights. There was always the question from aircrew about the chance encounter with an enemy that just happened, by pure luck, find itself on the six of a Raptor and just notice it visually. I still haven't heard a good answer for that scenario. Having said that, the 2D thrust vectoring nozzle and the advanced flight controls are not to be sneezed at in a turning fight.

 

[gatorev12]

When I was a part of the early F-22 development (very small role-I supervised the guy who was developing the operational test and evaluation plan), the engineers were constantly saying dogfighting (turning and burning shooting a gun) was not something the Raptor needed to worry about. Because no enemy fighter could ever engage it because they would never see until an AMRAAM hit them in the face. In simulations, there is much truth to that statement. One Raptor can take on 8 gen 4 fighters simultaneously and win a high percentage of the fights. There was always the question from aircrew about the chance encounter with an enemy that just happened, by pure luck, find itself on the six of a Raptor and just notice it visually. I still haven't heard a good answer for that scenario. Having said that, the 2D thrust vectoring nozzle and the advanced flight controls are not to be sneezed at in a turning fight.

I didn't say I believed them!

But to your point--the F-22 is pretty much unbeatable in beyond visual range air to air combat. Dogfighting is always down to the skill of the pilot and there's a few scenarios (much ballyhooed by everyone involved) where the Raptor has been defeated, but even that's rare.

I remember during the Obama years, several MSM outlets picked up that German Eurofighters beat the Raptor about 40% in dogfighting and used it as an excuse to rant about why we're spending so much money on such an expensive niche "that doesn't win all the time when F-16s are cheaper"...left unmentioned is that the Raptor was undefeated "before the merge" in ALL engagements; and the few occasions when it was defeated were almost always 2 or 3 on 1 and when it shot down 2 planes and lost to the 3rd. Furthermore, the Raptors were flying with fuel tanks and the Eurofighters were flying "clean" (no fuel tanks or missles).

But critical thinking (and basic math) aren't really strong suits for most journalists.

 

[Detroitgator]

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.

Except for the Spitfires that actually flew over Berlin... they had to be stripped of all armament to make their reconnaissance flights.

 

[cover2]

It’d be a dull thread; it was the T-34 hands down.

I’d take Michael Wittmann in a Model T with a slingshot in a head-to-head But yes, the T-34 was durable, maneuverable, well-armed, and ultimately produced in superior numbers.

 

[AlexDaGator]

I used Wikipedia for both and the nautical mile ferry range is accurate for both. You're free to check it yourself.

Ferry range for the Mustang is over 2,000 miles. Combat range for the Mustang is 1,650 miles with the original smaller drop tanks (and later in the war, they created 110 gallon drop tanks for use in the Pacific). Your 1,400 mile figure for the Mustang is either an error or maybe with a combat load including bombs and rockets.

I also think you're mixing up variants.

As originally designed, the Spitfires were designed to take down bombers (hence the need for bigger guns); but those 20mm cannons also proved to be deadly in air to air entanglements with opposing fighters.

They tried 20mm cannons in an earlier version of the Mustang. There is a reason why they went with 6 50 cals instead of the more powerful (but slower firing) 20mms. More faster-firing Brownings were more effective against enemy fighters which is what the Mustang did. Also in terms of dogfighting, the D and later Mustangs with their bubble canopies gave their pilots far better vision than the Spitfire pilots (who didn't get bubble canopies till after the war).

Again: that's not to say the Mustang was trash--it's one of the best fighters of the war (and one of my all-time favorites too). But there's a reason why pilots of all Air Forces that used it or flew against it concluded that the Spitfire was the ideal aircraft.

Ideal for what? A 1 v 1 short dogfight at high altitude where endurance doesn't matter? Or ideal for winning a war? Your poll question was "best". The "best" is the war winner. And again, none of those German pilots flew in or against a P-47 N with longer range than the Mustang, greater firepower, higher speed, higher ceiling, faster dive, heavier payload, far greater survivability, far greater pilot comfort, and easier to produce.

Come on now, the enemy's opinion counts for a LOT more than you're making it out to be.

No, you're putting waaay too much on their opinions because they are only talking about a single, exceedingly narrow scenario. If this fight is taking place at low altitude, you wouldn't want to tangle with a Typhoon (or even some of the Russian fighters). If it's taking place over Tokyo, everybody would be swimming except for the Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots. If it's ground attack, you would want to be in a Corsair or Thunderbolt (or Typhoon, despite its water-cooled engine).

We can all accept that the Spitfire and Mustang aren't a truly equal comparison because they were fundamentally designed for different things; but in terms of who the enemy would rather fly against, that matter considerably more than the lip service you're doing here.

This is "Reving". You're moving the goalposts. The question was the "best". You're changing the question to "who the enemy would rather fly against". Those are fundamentally different questions. Stop trying to win arguments by changing the parameters to suit yourself. Besides, I'm sure the Japanese over Tokyo would much rather fly against a Spitfire ditched in the Pacific after running out of fuel than fly against a Mustang or Thunderbolt that was actually in the air over Tokyo.

By the end of the war, the XIV variants were also doing bomber escort from bases in France and Holland--and the Germans avoided them whenever possible. And while neither the Spitfire or the Mustang were designed for ground attack, the 20mm cannons were pretty useful shooting up locomotives and/or fuel depots too.

But not nearly as good as...the Thunderbolt.

I provided quotes from American pilots who flew both and preferred the Spitfire. I mean, think about that--most pilots LOVE their planes. I've had Hornet pilots swear they could beat an F-22 in dogfighting. And yet, Mustang aces who'd flown the Spitfire conceded it was the plane they'd rather take into battle.

Again...exceedingly narrow scope. You keep harping on this and you're trying to change the whole question to cater to this. Just stop. The question is "best" WWII fighter. The best is the one I can make the most of and be most effective in the various and multiple scenarios where a fighter plane is needed. The correct answer is Mustang for big picture or if you want to get into late-war iterations the correct answer is the N version of the Thunderbolt.



Alex.

 

[gatorev12]

Ferry range for the Mustang is over 2,000 miles. Combat range for the Mustang is 1,650 miles with the original smaller drop tanks (and later in the war, they created 110 gallon drop tanks for use in the Pacific). Your 1,400 mile figure for the Mustang is either an error or maybe with a combat load including bombs and rockets.

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 also think you're mixing up variants.

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

Also in terms of dogfighting, the D and later Mustangs with their bubble canopies gave their pilots far better vision than the Spitfire pilots (who didn't get bubble canopies till after the war).

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

Ideal for what? A 1 v 1 short dogfight at high altitude where endurance doesn't matter? Or ideal for winning a war? Your poll question was "best". The "best" is the war winner. And again, none of those German pilots flew in or against a P-47 N with longer range than the Mustang, greater firepower, higher speed, higher ceiling, faster dive, heavier payload, far greater survivability, far greater pilot comfort, and easier to produce.

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

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

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

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.

No, you're putting waaay too much on their opinions because they are only talking about a single, exceedingly narrow scenario.

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

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.

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

This is "Reving". You're moving the goalposts. The question was the "best". You're changing the question to "who the enemy would rather fly against". Those are fundamentally different questions. Stop trying to win arguments by changing the parameters to suit yourself.

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.

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.

Again...exceedingly narrow scope. You keep harping on this and you're trying to change the whole question to cater to this. Just stop. The question is "best" WWII fighter. The best is the one I can make the most of and be most effective in the various and multiple scenarios where a fighter plane is needed. The correct answer is Mustang for big picture or if you want to get into late-war iterations the correct answer is the N version of the Thunderbolt.

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

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).

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.

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

 

[Detroitgator]

The Wikipedia entry says differently.

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

 

[gatorev12]

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

So it's your contention that everything in there is wholly inaccurate?

 

[Concrete Helmet]

It’d be a dull thread; it was the T-34 hands down.

Michael Wittman would likely disagree....

 

[AlexDaGator]

So it's your contention that everything in there is wholly inaccurate?

This is Reving.


Alex.