PDA

View Full Version : P-47 named best fighter of WWII by Flight journal.



XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:19 AM
In a recent article in LFight journal this is the conclusion they came to:

Best fighters of WWII

7. P-38
6. 109
5. YAk 1-9 series
4. P-51
3. Spit
2. 190
1. P-47

What do you guys think?

p.s. this is for the ETO


Message Edited on 06/13/0311:23PM by Dylan_D

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:19 AM
In a recent article in LFight journal this is the conclusion they came to:

Best fighters of WWII

7. P-38
6. 109
5. YAk 1-9 series
4. P-51
3. Spit
2. 190
1. P-47

What do you guys think?

p.s. this is for the ETO


Message Edited on 06/13/0311:23PM by Dylan_D

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:20 AM
As far as I'm concerned... they're right

* DUCKS! *


<center>
http://users.urbi.com.br/leocosta/images/jbkfbsig00.jpg

-= A.K.A. ====> [b]Jambock__16 in HyperLobby =-
ICQ - UIN#13080406



Graphics and Design by: Resev
Personal Avatar by: Kyrodus (Jambock__56)
Senta á Pua!

1º GAvCaVi: http://www.gavca.com (1st Brazilian Virtual Fighter Sqdr "Senta Pºa!")</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:22 AM
The 190 better than the 109, really?
.....and where's the P-39!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">FB Rocks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:25 AM
Dylan_D wrote:
- In a recent article in LFight journal this is the
- conclusion they came to:
-
- Best fighters of WWII
-
- 7. P-38
- 6. 109
- 5. YAk 1-9 series
- 4. P-51
- 3. Spit
- 2. 190
- 1. P-47
-
- What do you guys think?


Their personal opinion that's all. Impossible to support with facts.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:28 AM
BpGemini wrote:
- The 190 better than the 109, really?
-


They obviously know what they're talking about. The Fw 190 WAS superior to the 109.

We few, we happy few, we band of Würgerwhiners...
http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:30 AM
Actually, the entire article was based upon facts and stats. They said the P-47 won because it flew twice the number of sorites over the next highest plane, had something like 60% of the allied air kills, and 75% of the allied ground kills (other aircraft). AND had the best loss/per sorite rate.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:32 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Their personal opinion that's all. Impossible to
- support with facts.

http://fishkatcher.mine.nu/images/mme%20fi-bluefish_jpg.jpg


<center>
http://users.urbi.com.br/leocosta/images/jbkfbsig00.jpg

-= A.K.A. ====> [b]Jambock__16 in HyperLobby =-
ICQ - UIN#13080406



Graphics and Design by: Resev
Personal Avatar by: Kyrodus (Jambock__56)
Senta á Pua!

1º GAvCaVi: http://www.gavca.com (1st Brazilian Virtual Fighter Sqdr "Senta Pºa!")</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:34 AM
LOL Nreo, it took me a while to get that

Message Edited on 06/13/0311:35PM by Dylan_D

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:35 AM
And we clearly see that the 190 owns the P51 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar... +1 for shooting him down on HL woohoo!

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:09 AM
Dylan_D wrote:Actually, the entire article was based upon facts and stats? Whose?

They said the P-47 won because it flew twice the number of sorites over the next highest plane, had something like 60% of the allied air kills, and 75% of the allied ground kills (other aircraft). AND had the best loss/per sorite rate. Never belive everything you read/told!

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlyMeanSig2.jpg?0.8357766843806891

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:18 AM
yeah, now im convinced... shoot planes on the ground and get credit in a magazine... war is easy...



hey, just kidding, nevermind /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:22 AM
Well, I read it fast and a couple of hours ago so, I doubt I said the right things. They took ALL things into account and the P-47 came out on top.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:26 AM
Eveyone know that the P-47 is the best airplane for vultching.

I wonder if those allied pilots got banned?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:36 AM
Lol. Personal openion's from PROFESSIONALS. I guess that does not count in your book since your such an aronotical expert.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Dylan_D wrote:
-- In a recent article in LFight journal this is the
-- conclusion they came to:
--
-- Best fighters of WWII
--
-- 7. P-38
-- 6. 109
-- 5. YAk 1-9 series
-- 4. P-51
-- 3. Spit
-- 2. 190
-- 1. P-47
--
-- What do you guys think?
-
-
- Their personal opinion that's all. Impossible to
- support with facts.
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:01 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Lol. Personal openion's from PROFESSIONALS. I
- guess that does not count in your book since your
- such an aronotical expert.
-
- Gib
-
-

What kind of professionals? Professional WWII combat aircraft judgers? Lol!



We few, we happy few, we band of Würgerwhiners...
http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:33 AM
The best fighter was the one that was the most efficcient at shooting other *flying* aircraft down. That´s what a fighter does. How it does it doesn´t matter. So, you shouldn´t count in any ground kills, kills during numerical superiority (because of unfair conditions and therefore misleading statistics). Then there is the question of high altitude and low alt. = two aircraft should be chosen. Then you have best intercetors and best excorts = two more "best" aircraft.
What I mean is that picking one "best overall" means NOTHING in this case. Was there something the P-47 was best at? The "proffesionals" forgot this simple piece of logic.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:33 AM
Professional themustangonlycomesfourthers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar... +1 for shooting him down on HL woohoo!

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:49 AM
I'm inclined to agree with their assesment. When you look at how the planes were used and how they performed in those roles, you will probebly come to the same ranking they did. The P-47 isn't at the top of the list because it was agile or fast, it got there because it was good at what it did. In this case it was as an escort fighter and mud mover. If the USA had used it as a low altitude air superiority fighter then it would probebly be dead last(emphisis on dead/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ).

----------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

As we all know, the Soviet Union had too many fighter pilots during WW2. So Stalin's scientists came up with a brillient way to solve this problem. They would make some of their pilots fly British made Hurricanes. The Hurricane was an uber flying coffin. It was designed to maximize pilot kills by providing nothing but fabric and a few wooden spars around the cockpit. This setup prevented the pilot from escaping easily while at the same time not interfering with enemy bullets and shrapnel trying to pass through it. The rest of the Hurricanes structure was designed to ricochet bullets and shrapnel into the cockpit. And thanks to the cockpits superb design, all of them would pass through the cockpit and the pilot inside with little difficulty. Of course the Hurricane's designers didn't stop there. In order for the Hurricane to become a flying coffin, they had to make it easy to shoot. They did this by making the Hurricane the slowest monoplane fighter in use at the time and even gave it a very bulky shape so that it would be easy to spot and hit. The final feature of the Hurricane was its ability to bury or cremate itself. And because it was made of biodegradable materials, the Hurricane was environmentally friendly after it buried itself. Because of these brillient features, the Hurricane was a perfect flying coffin and helped the Soviets solve the pilot surplus they were suffering.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:19 AM
thing is u cant really use stats as a reliable source to how well the plane performed, if you have numerical advantage the stats wont reflect the plane, or in the case of the LW they are attacking bombers etc. IMO the 190 should be the top it served in almost any role u can think of it had long range was fast heavy armed and could carry big bombs and had excellent manoverablity and very easy to fly.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:22 AM
Hear,hear!

We few, we happy few, we band of Würgerwhiners...
http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:43 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- thing is u cant really use stats as a reliable
- source to how well the plane performed,

Really? The Luftwhiners do this all the time. So stats are only to be taken into account for German aircraft?



<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:47 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- thing is u cant really use stats as a reliable
- source to how well the plane performed, if you have
- numerical advantage the stats wont reflect the
- plane, or in the case of the LW they are attacking
- bombers etc. IMO the 190 should be the top it served
- in almost any role u can think of it had long range
- was fast heavy armed and could carry big bombs and
- had excellent manoverablity and very easy to fly.



That's quite a sentence, grammar queen.





---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:18 AM
I think the P-51 is much better than the P-47 in the fighter role, but the P-47 was better for attacking ground targets.



Message Edited on 06/14/0303:21AM by Ultimate_Stuka

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:33 AM
Well I am disgusted! My favorite a/c out of all of them is listed at #7. hummph. oh well, once I talk Gibbage into modeling it for me I will extract my vengence!

<marquee>Stukageschwader 77 : Soon coming to an
- airbase near you. </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:34 AM
I always knew the P-47 won the war.



Have a peach.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:16 AM
Wow, AMAZING to think the P47 came out #1 considering how much of a sh!tty a$$ed hairy-balled mange and flea infested ball-licker of a **** sniffing tang sucking @#$ing dog it is in FB, the supposed master of reality /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd say the P47 is more #2 <-get it? #2? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif in FB...


Thag you... Thag you very much. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





<p align="center"> Some nude fish:
http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/dr4HR.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:24 AM
-Dex, I wanna take this opurtunity to tell you I think your sig is awesome! Methinks you and I share the same kind of humor. Also, Is that song not perfect for background music?
"No navigator to find my way home" oh how true that is!!! lol

<marquee>Stukageschwader 77 : Soon coming to an
- airbase near you. </marquee>

ShadowHawk__
06-14-2003, 05:26 AM
Survivability must have really been taken into account. Considering the 47 and 190 were the top two, though I guess their armament amongst other things can be taken into account.

-Death From Above

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:28 AM
i dont know its kinda iffy. i seriously doubt the P-47 was best. i beleave the P-38 is best (it was the most successful) and the 109K was better than any 190 built. it cant be backed up with proof. besides what they say are better planes are older planes (planes that had more time to do the killing) as of performance there is no real way to tell. all depends on whos using the joystick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Death is only the beginning



Message Edited on 06/13/0310:31PM by RS_LT_Aligator

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:41 AM
Their assessment was based on what these various aricraft actually did, rather than on their performance. Keep that in mind. Was the P-51 better at escorting bombers and dogfighting? On paper it would appear so, but the P-47 still shot down more planes. That this magazine also factored in the various planes versatility as well is good IMO, attacking ground targets can be just as important if not more so than shooting down enemy fighters. The Jug allowed the Allies to take full advantage of the air superiority gained over Europe, as a Tactical figher-bomber it was superb(surpassed maybe only by the IL2). Its role in Italy and France in particular was a great example of this. The fact that it could also hold its own in the air against other fighters is quite amazing if you ask me.

However, I agree that they should have had several categories in addition to or replacing this list.

United States 8th Air Force Home Page - http://www.geocities.com/p39il2/

Semper Fi,

Dosiere

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:59 AM
Bah! The F6F flew in Europe and it's a darn sight better than most of those birds.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:49 AM
I've been saying the P 47 was the best for years! Here's why:

Speed,
Firepower,
Range,
Maneuverability,
Dependability,
Survivability,
Ease of use (pilot workload),
Ease/cost of production,
Ease/cost of maintenance/ upkeep,
Diversity of roles,

Sure lots of AC excel in one or two of these categories but the P47 was the total package!
Consider this: If you were a country in WWII and could only choose one prop plane for your air force. what better choice than the jug? I dare you to find a more flexible WWII prop plane w/ such all around excellent characteristics.


&lt;script>var tcavatar='http://www.geocities.com/drag_and_bag/LadyOfPain.txt'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=tcavatar</script>


<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:08 AM
georgeo76 wrote:
- Sure lots of AC excel in one or two of these
- categories but the P47 was the total package!
- Consider this: If you were a country in WWII and
- could only choose one prop plane for your air force.
- what better choice than the jug? I dare you to find
- a more flexible WWII prop plane w/ such all around
- excellent characteristics.


We did that a while ago. The F4U is superior in most respects performance wise.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:25 AM
georgeo76 wrote:
- I've been saying the P 47 was the best for years!
- Here's why:
-
- Speed,
- Firepower,
- Range,
- Maneuverability,
- Dependability,
- Survivability,
- Ease of use (pilot workload),
- Ease/cost of production,
- Ease/cost of maintenance/ upkeep,
- Diversity of roles,


Good one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
P-47 really excelled in these areas:

- Maneuverability,
- Ease of use (pilot workload),
- Ease/cost of production,
- Ease/cost of maintenance/ upkeep,


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:07 AM
That list says nothing. Does it take number of a/c produced in account? The IL2 should atleast be in there. Perhaps on no. 1. The 109 should be way higher, as a huge number were produced.

PS. Cowace, it's really childish to personally insult someone if you don't agree with him. Not everyone speaks fluid English.

<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
<center>
&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://dynamic5.gamespy.com/~ptv/forum/images/avatars/cb3aa7823dfbfdb6d1a30.gif'</script>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=56;o.width=74</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:31 AM
Ya. 109 had huge numbers produced, and huge numbers shot down. It was a 1 trick pony with limited range. Were the P-47 and FW-190 had many tricks up there slievs and could get its pilot home.

Gib

Red_Storm wrote:
- That list says nothing. Does it take number of a/c
- produced in account? The IL2 should atleast be in
- there. Perhaps on no. 1. The 109 should be way
- higher, as a huge number were produced.
-
- PS. Cowace, it's really childish to personally
- insult someone if you don't agree with him. Not
- everyone speaks fluid English.
-

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:52 AM
"The IL2 should atleast be in there. Perhaps on no. 1" dude you are on crack cocaine. the sturmovik would never be on the top ten fighter list of ww2 or top ten list period. the dc3 would be ahead of it. and no thats not a joke.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:20 AM
I take it by your comments you are not British. You obviously know little about the Hurricane. It was sturdy and a very steady gun platform. It is credited with more kills than the Spitfire and was good against bombers. It was crucial in the Battle of Britain. If we had lost that battle England would have been invaded, There would never have been a D-Day Landing and the result of the war would have been different. I would be writing this in German, probably !! Thank God for the Hurricane and Spitfire, they came good in our hour of need. I am a very proud Brit, we fight with what we've got.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:38 AM
Bulls-eye wrote:
- I take it by your comments you are not British. You
- obviously know little about the Hurricane. It was
- sturdy and a very steady gun platform. It is
- credited with more kills than the Spitfire and was
- good against bombers. It was crucial in the Battle
- of Britain. If we had lost that battle England would
- have been invaded, There would never have been a
- D-Day Landing and the result of the war would have
- been different. I would be writing this in German,
- probably !! Thank God for the Hurricane and
- Spitfire, they came good in our hour of need. I am a
- very proud Brit, we fight with what we've got.
-


Hear!Hear!



Also, was that an American mag saying the P-47 was the best? I`ve heard so many professionals of mags, on tv etc saying what`s the best of the best and it always seems to be something different. The Spitfire was the best plane, the P-47 blah! Blah! Even professionals have their bias.

Zayets
06-14-2003, 11:07 AM
Yes , I read the same , P-47 was the "best" fighter in the WW2. Too bad is not that good in FB.

&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#0000FF";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"</script>
http://www.emicad.nl/~justdoit/il2/logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:38 AM
Dylan_D wrote:
- Actually, the entire article was based upon facts
- and stats.

Ah - lies, damned lies, and statistics :-)

What comes out on top really depends on statistics.

If the criterion was firepwer, another plane would
come top. If it was speed at low level, another.

- They said the P-47 won because it flew
- twice the number of sorites over the next highest
- plane,

I find it hard to believe the P-47 flew more
sorties in just over 3 years than the 109 in six,
especially given that more 109s were produced. It may be possible, but I am sceptical.

- AND had the best loss/per sorite rate.

That's also a number subject to interpretation, as
offensive sweeps over target-poor areas (e.g. spring
1945) give you a lot of sorties, with few chances
of being shot down. (For example the Tempest V
also had an admirable loss per sortie ratio, partly
because by the time it was employed in large numbers,
the LW was on the decline). So loss:sortie rates
tell you about a combination of the mode of employment
and the qualities of the aircraft, but it is hard
to separate the two. What you need to say is
'if these sorties had been done by other plane X,
what would have been the loss rate, and how does it
compare to that observed'.

These things are a statisticians nightmare!

I'd certainly say that the P-47 was one of the best
prop fighters of WW2, and those in the top ten are
all worthy contenders. The lack of the Tempest in that
list is troubling, though.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:53 AM
Well consider this about the 109. Lack of pilots and fuel kept in on the ground after 43, and also range reduced its useability unless something was happening around its own airfield. Coupled with its limited capability as a pure fighter and intercepter. Sure there were ground attack versions, but in that role it was limited too by a small bomb load. Now, in the heat of WWII, it was known for a P-47 pilot to do 3 sorties a day!!! Land, refuel and re-arm and take off. The 109 may have had more flights, but I guarantee you the P-47 logged a LOT more hours. Max flight time for a 109 I think is like 1:30 mins. Max for a P-47 was between 6 to 8 hours. Do the math. Like I said, the 109 was a 1 trick pony.

Gib

AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- I find it hard to believe the P-47 flew more
- sorties in just over 3 years than the 109 in six,
- especially given that more 109s were produced. It
- may be possible, but I am sceptical.
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:58 AM
georgeo76 wrote:
- I've been saying the P 47 was the best for years! - Here's why:
-
- Speed,

Slow at low level, good at high level. With the P47M
about the best of the prop planes at high level (the
Tempest II was just too late, and debates rage over
whether the Do335 matched it at altitude or not. The
Spitfire XIV and 21 were a notch behind it at altitude).

- Firepower,

It's firepower was not outstanding by late war.
(It is eclipsed by 4 20mm cannon aircraft,
such as the Tempest V, Fw190, etc). It's ability
to haul a large amount of additional ordnance
is very good, though, eclipsing the Tempest.
The Fw190 could haul an amazing amount for its
weight, but I suspect that in regular service
the P47 would be a better bet, as the versions
of the Fw190 carrying such external ordnance
had reduced armament. I am sure that a torpedo
could have been slung on a P47 if needed, and
some prototype 37mm cannon armed versions were
looked at which could have worked against
bombers.

- Range,

The USAAF planes were pretty much unbeatable for
range - the P38, P51, and of course the P47. No
contest here, really.

- Maneuverability,

Pretty undistinguished compared to other aircraft.
Of an order with the 190, Tempest, i.e. other
fairly heavy aircraft.

- Dependability,

Very good.

- Survivability,

Very good.

- Ease of use (pilot workload),

I have no clue.

- Ease/cost of production,

It wasn't cheap!

- Ease/cost of maintenance/ upkeep,

Good for the engine.

- Diversity of roles,

About the same as the Fw190. The Fw190 wasn't
suited to the long range escort role, so the
P47 beats it there, but the Fw190 operated as
a bomber interceptor and torpedo bomber, and
I don't think the P47 operated in either of
these roles.

- Sure lots of AC excel in one or two of these
- categories but the P47 was the total package!
- Consider this: If you were a country in WWII and
- could only choose one prop plane for your air force.
- what better choice than the jug?

Depends when in WW2, and what point I got to influence
decisions!

If it was late war, and I could have made the Tempest
II appear earlier, and I didn't need long range, I'd
go for that. Faster on the deck, almost as fast as
the P47M at 30,000 feet, can carry almost as much
in external stores, and has a better fixed armament.
Oh, and its British :-)

If long range escort WAS a requirement, then I'd
go for the P47, but just put 20mm cannon in it,
sacrificing some low level performance for the
range advantages.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:07 PM
You forgot yak 3, mc205v, g55, a7m, ki-84, la7.....what about those? flight test proved those aircrafts were equal or even better than p51 or p47.....but still, you forgot about them

Davide

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:26 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Well consider this about the 109. Lack of pilots
- and fuel kept in on the ground after 43,

The LW seemed alive and well in early 1944 at least!
I think you are placing the demise of the ability
to field 109s a bit early there!

- and also
- range reduced its useability unless something was
- happening around its own airfield.

Absolutely - the range of the 109 was truly terrible!

- Coupled with its
- limited capability as a pure fighter

It WAS a pure fighter. I am confused. Do you mean
it was limited IN its capability as a pure fighter,
or BY its capability? If the latter, I agree totally.

- Now, in the heat of WWII, it was
- known for a P-47 pilot to do 3 sorties a day!!!

Ditto Spitfire, 109, etc.

- Land, refuel and re-arm and take off. The 109 may
- have had more flights, but I guarantee you the P-47
- logged a LOT more hours.

Quite possibly true, although the stats were per
sortie, not hour flown.

- Like I said, the 109 was a 1 trick pony.

I agree.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:29 PM
yep, they were very good planes... but they weren't build in usa....


USwhiners won the war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:29 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- PS. Cowace, it's really childish to personally
- insult someone if you don't agree with him. Not
- everyone speaks fluid English.

Well, it's his native language after all. And where is the insult? Just teasing him a liitle bit.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:50 PM
Bulls-eye wrote:
- I take it by your comments you are not British. You
- obviously know little about the Hurricane. It was
- sturdy and a very steady gun platform. It is
- credited with more kills than the Spitfire and was
- good against bombers. It was crucial in the Battle
- of Britain. If we had lost that battle England would
- have been invaded, There would never have been a
- D-Day Landing and the result of the war would have
- been different. I would be writing this in German,
- probably !! Thank God for the Hurricane and
- Spitfire, they came good in our hour of need. I am a
- very proud Brit, we fight with what we've got.



this sentence that you´d write, talk, f*ck in german if not this or that is plain stupid. its like a running gag.
do you really think germany would have conquered the world/england forever?


if yes then wow!

---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:53 PM
aaronGt got it right!

---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:05 PM
They are damn rigth the jug was the BEST /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



'Bombing for Peace is like having Sex for virginity'( . )( . )

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:17 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Ya. 109 had huge numbers produced, and huge numbers
- shot down.

Very doubtful statement about the "huge numbers" shot down.. by the 109s, yes. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But frankly, the number lost to enemy action was fairly limited.


-
- It was a 1 trick pony with limited
- range. Were the P-47 and FW-190 had many tricks up
- there slievs and could get its pilot home.
-

The 109 was an interceptor/air superiority fighter from the beginning till the end. In that it excelled. The range and endurance was sufficient for that role, or to get the air superiority over the front and assembly areas, or to escort bombers to these areas. This was perfectly enough for the needs of the Eastern front, where most of the fighting was done.

And one shouldn`t forget that after the arrival of the Fw 190, there was no need for another jack of all trades fighter plane.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:27 PM
I haven't read the article.

Ummm, has anyone checked the claim that the P-47 shot down more E/A than any allied fighter? Not so, from my data. The P-51 shot down almost 5000 E/A in the ETO, for the USA. An unknown (by me) number of E/A were shot down by the Brits in Mustangs as well. This is more than the P-47 shot down, according to every total I've ever read.

Throw in the fact that the P-51 didn't start combat ops for the USA until Dec 1943, in very limited numbers, and one quickly comes to the conclusion that the P-51 downed more planes in a much shorter time frame, in smaller numbers.

The Mustang recorded 11 kills per 100 sorties, the P-47 2 per 100, the P-38 3 per 100.

P-51's flying the same missions, in the same airspace, against the same enemy, at the same time (Jan-May 1944), recorded roughly twice the number of kills as P-47 groups, and 4 times the kills of P-38 groups.

The overall kill ratio of the entire P-51 force in the ETO is over 10:1. For the elite 56th FG, flying P-47 the entire war, it was 7:1.

P-51's recorded more air to ground kills than any other type, including the P-47. P-51 losses were much higher on these missions, 3 per 100 sorties compared to 1 per 100 sorties for the P-47.

If, as a previous poster stated, the goal of a fighter is to shoot down the other plane, there is no doubt which USA type was most effective at this in the ETO.

Some folks will take exception to the kill ratios and kills per sortie, citing the fact that most P-38 and P-47 groups were eventually relegated to the tatical role. This is true. However, after the debut of the P-51 in combat, and the outstanding results obtained (twice the kills of P-47 groups, 4 times that of the P-38 groups), the decision of which planes to keep as air superiority, which as tac air, was very easily made. It was no accident, the Jugs and Lightnings weren't cheated. Each plane WAS put into its proper role, based on combat results, not whims or performance on paper.

Some folks like to micro examine fighter performance. Well, I do too. But, the fact remains, that the combination of attributes the Mustang brought to the table, range, speed, dive, zoom, high speed maneuverability, proved to be better at destroying E/A than the P-47 or P-38 attributes in early 1944 Europe.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:57 PM
I think so they are all right too.

Father's era always misunderstood grandpa's as I would most likely to misunderstand my father's.

S! to all grandpas

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:15 PM
Gyrovaguer wrote:
- I think so they are all right too.


Not according to combat results. You did not take issue with numbers, just gave an opinion.

If you are saying paper numbers decide a fighter's effectiveness, you are wrong. The proof is in the pudding.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:36 PM
The P-47 first saw combat in April of 1943, so it was not that much earlier than the P-51.

I think people are missing that a fighter aircraft is a machine for war, and as such, little nicities such as honour, and fair play don't matter, and are actually quite dangerous to attempt to uphold.

The primary purpose of a fighter is to destroy as effeciently and effectively as it can. It does not matter whether it is downing them in honourable combat in the air, or bombing them into rubble pilotless on the ground. They are still dead, either way.

In that reguard, the P-47 was the best single engines warplane of the USAAF, as it was a wide ranging aircraft capable of effeciently destroying both aircraft in the air, and tagets on the ground, with a very high survivability rate.

It could get there, and it could kill. That is what matters in a war.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:01 PM
Sorry, not buying it.

My Humble Opinion:

Sure, the P-47 was a great combat plane and certainly one of the best fighters of WW2.

When you pose the question "What were the best fighters of WW2?" It is generally not too difficult to narrow it down to a relative handful on each side.

But to then pick just ONE, from these worthy finalists, is bound to be asking for trouble.

It depends entirely on your criteria. Statistics can also be used - and abused.

Most of us have our particular favourites. Some of us allow this to colour our thinking process.

Even with the best intentions, the results will depend upon the approach. You could do it six different ways and get six different answers.

I'm not saying the Jug COULDN'T be 'found to be the best' - it could, and it is one of my favourites. But so could a number of others, just as fairly, just as objectively and just as rationally.

Again, as I said before, just my opinion.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:06 PM
Captain Brown, a ww2 test pilot with the RN, test flew many axis and allied aircraft. In his book "Duels in the Sky" he lists his opinion of the greatest world war 2 fighters:

1. Supermarine spitfire and FW 190 (tie)
3. Grumman Hellcat
4. NA Mustang
5. Mitsubishi Zero
6. Hawker Tempest V
7. Kawanishi George 12


It's a great read but he may be a little biased towards the Brits.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:25 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The P-47 first saw combat in April of 1943, so it
- was not that much earlier than the P-51.

Sorry to disagree, but it was quite a bit earlier. 8 months is a long time in a war. That's 8 months of fighter operations, including many months of very large scale operations featuring the Jug.

It had established itself, was available in numbers, and equipped a dozen or so Groups by the time Merlin Mustangs appeared.

- In that reguard, the P-47 was the best single
- engines warplane of the USAAF, as it was a wide
- ranging aircraft capable of effeciently destroying
- both aircraft in the air, and tagets on the ground,
- with a very high survivability rate.

But, as I posted, the P-51 destroyed more E/A in the air AND on the ground, in 8 months less time. It's kill ratio in air to air combat was better, worse in the air to ground role.

You seem to agree the role of the fighter A/C is to destroy the enemy. Why are you picking the less effective one?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:39 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- Sorry, not buying it.
-
- My Humble Opinion:
-
- Sure, the P-47 was a great combat plane and
- certainly one of the best fighters of WW2.
-
- When you pose the question "What were the best
- fighters of WW2?" It is generally not too difficult
- to narrow it down to a relative handful on each
- side.
-
- But to then pick just ONE, from these worthy
- finalists, is bound to be asking for trouble.
-
- It depends entirely on your criteria. Statistics
- can also be used - and abused.

What more statistics do you want?
Mustang destroyed more planes in the air.
Mustang destroyed more planes on the ground.
Mustang had better air to air kill ratio.
Mustang had more kills per sortie.
Mustang was available for 8 months less time.
Fewer Mustangs available for almost the entire war.
Mustang cost less.
Mustang used less fuel.
Not only did it destroy more in bulk, but more per sortie.

Can you find anything I've twisted, or left out, or used and abused? There are the numbers, available to anyone who cares to look at them, in black and white.

Can't compare? Sorry, but the three main US types, the Mustang, Thunderbolt, and Lightning flew the same missions, at the same time, over the same skies against the same opponents, in the critical battle of Jan-May 1944. As even a way to actually compare fighter types as one will find. The P-51 did better. Enoug better to relegate the other types to the tac-air role.

The P-47 was an effective air to air fighter. It was a great air to ground type. The P-51 was a great air to air fighter, and an effective air to ground type.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:14 PM
While we may not all agree with the authors findings, he is/was a highly experienced test pilot who flew most of the planes in the article. He also knew several German and British aces and engineers who shared their knowledge and experience with him such as the fact that nearly 1/3 of the 109's were lost to landing and takeoff accidents due to the poor design of the landing gear. He readily admitted to a lack of knowledge and reliable facts to properly evaluate the Yaks. Using the authors criterion(including all-a-round capabilities and relative ease for a 200 hour wartime trained pilot to fly the plane) he picked what probably should have been called "The Best All-a-round WWII Fighter". By the way the 190 was a very close second.

America is not just a country, it's an idea.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:44 PM
P47 best? Anywho, typical american attitude.

My list would be:
1. 190
2. Zero
3. Spitfire
4. Yak 1--9
5. P51
6.>>>> P47 <<<<
7. La7/9

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:35 PM
TAW_Jenikov wrote:

- 2. Zero



Why? Its negatives FAR outweigh its positives. Even in the first years of war, when Japanese pilots were as highly trained if not more so than their American counterparts, the Zero faired badly when matched against even the humble Wildcat, not to mention the Hellcat. Just curious.


United States 8th Air Force Home Page - http://www.geocities.com/p39il2/

Semper Fi,

Dosiere

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:41 PM
TAW_Jenikov wrote:

"P47 best? Anywho, typical american attitude."


Fw190 best? Anywho, typical German attitude.



Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

The_Blue_Devil
06-14-2003, 09:16 PM
Weon_pesao wrote:
- The best fighter was the one that was the most
- efficcient at shooting other *flying* aircraft down.
- That´s what a fighter does. How it does it doesn´t
- matter. So, you shouldn´t count in any ground kills,
- kills during numerical superiority (because of
- unfair conditions and therefore misleading
- statistics). Then there is the question of high
- altitude and low alt. = two aircraft should be
- chosen. Then you have best intercetors and best
- excorts = two more "best" aircraft.
- What I mean is that picking one "best overall" means
- NOTHING in this case. Was there something the P-47
- was best at? The "proffesionals" forgot this simple
- piece of logic.

The Jug had one of the highest ..If not the Highest kill ratio in the ETO M8. Most of the US pilots that became Aces got there in a Jug and for that matter the Jug only switched to JABO when the Mustang took over Escort. For the earlier part of the war it flew Escort mainly.



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/MercyMustangIVsmall.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:53 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
--
- The Jug had one of the highest ..If not the Highest
- kill ratio in the ETO M8. Most of the US pilots
- that became Aces got there in a Jug and for that
- matter the Jug only switched to JABO when the
- Mustang took over Escort. For the earlier part of
- the war it flew Escort mainly.

The P-51's kill ratio was higher. You are right, ONE of the highest. The P-51's WAS HIGHER.
The P-51 destroyed more planes per sortie, 11 per 100 P-51, 2 per 100 P-47.
The P-51 destroyed more planes on the ground.
The P-51 did this in fewer numbers, and in about 8 months less flying time.
The Jug was relegated to tac air (JABO) because, while flying the same missions over the same ground against the same opponents at the same time the P-51 did better. It didn't take a genius to decide which type did air to air, and which type air to ground.


Did you read any of my previous posts? I think this is the third time I've posted this. Jug backers are conveniently ignoring actual combat results, and throwing opinions at us.

Anybody wanting to name the most versatile planes of the war cannot overlook the Hellcat and Corsair. They did everything the FW, P-47, P-51 did, and did it off of a carrier. No contest. You MUST name a carrier type as "most versatile" or "best all around".

The_Blue_Devil
06-14-2003, 10:11 PM
Slickun wrote:
-
- The_Blue_Devil wrote:
--
---
-- The Jug had one of the highest ..If not the Highest
-- kill ratio in the ETO M8. Most of the US pilots
-- that became Aces got there in a Jug and for that
-- matter the Jug only switched to JABO when the
-- Mustang took over Escort. For the earlier part of
-- the war it flew Escort mainly.
-
- The P-51's kill ratio was higher. You are right,
- ONE of the highest. The P-51's WAS HIGHER.
- The P-51 destroyed more planes per sortie, 11 per
- 100 P-51, 2 per 100 P-47.
- The P-51 destroyed more planes on the ground.
- The P-51 did this in fewer numbers, and in about 8
- months less flying time.
- The Jug was relegated to tac air (JABO) because,
- while flying the same missions over the same ground
- against the same opponents at the same time the P-51
- did better. It didn't take a genius to decide which
- type did air to air, and which type air to ground.

Actually you are wrong here. The Jug and Mustang were switched because the 47 had a lower fuel capacity with relation to escort, and could take more damage which occured while on ground burn missions due to the radial engine. The Mustang was doing air to ground but suffered greatly due to the liquid cooled engine design, which was vulnerable to ground fire. The Mustang was also switched over to the role of Escort due to it's status as the longest ranging plane in the US arsenal, being able to escort the bombers there and back where the Thunderbolt had to turn back just shy of Germany. The LW circled the Bombers waiting for the Thunderbolts to have to turn back so they could engage the Bombers un-touched.

- Did you read any of my previous posts? I think this
- is the third time I've posted this. Jug backers are
- conveniently ignoring actual combat results, and
- throwing opinions at us.

This is your third time being wrong then. The reason why the Mustang had more kills in escort is frankly because they saw more fighters doing the Job.. The Mustang actually Went to Germany, the Thunderbolt turned back before it actually seeing Swarms of German fighters but not being able to engage them. The Mustang Flew into the Swarms and Decimated them, a job the Jug did if and when it actually encountered heavy enemy numbers. The Jug has a kill to death ratio based upon action it saw air to air as does the Mustang.

- Anybody wanting to name the most versatile planes of
- the war cannot overlook the Hellcat and Corsair.
- They did everything the FW, P-47, P-51 did, and did
- it off of a carrier. No contest. You MUST name a
- carrier type as "most versatile" or "best all
- around".

At least this is true =0)
If you are going to Post/Flame at least use facts and not blind stats.


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/MercyMustangIVsmall.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:14 PM
How can ANYONE state that P47 was a great fighter, it can be murdered 1-1 by any other one, even zero, if it gets upclose.

Fw190 was prehaps the most significant plane of the war, because it bore the load of the allied invasion from late 1942 onwards. 109 was there to, so Its kinda split there.

P47 was a too big and too bulky to be fighter, I wouldnt mind calling it an interceptor, or a strike aicraft, but not a fighter.

Corsair was never mentioned by any of you, i believe, what about THAT plane, it was also heavy and big, yet it was better than P47, wasnt it?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:28 PM
lol

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:49 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- Actually you are wrong here. The Jug and Mustang
- were switched because the 47 had a lower fuel
- capacity with relation to escort, and could take
- more damage which occured while on ground burn
- missions due to the radial engine. The Mustang was
- doing air to ground but suffered greatly due to the
- liquid cooled engine design, which was vulnerable to
- ground fire.

One of the curious things is that post war, the
P47 was retired from service, and the P51
(aka F51) was used in the ground attack role.

- This is your third time being wrong then. The
- reason why the Mustang had more kills in escort is
- frankly because they saw more fighters doing the
- Job.. The Mustang actually Went to Germany, the
- Thunderbolt turned back before it actually seeing
- Swarms of German fighters but not being able to
- engage them. The Mustang Flew into the Swarms and
- Decimated them, a job the Jug did if and when it
- actually encountered heavy enemy numbers. The Jug
- has a kill to death ratio based upon action it saw
- air to air as does the Mustang.

Ah... I nominate the Tempest V, then. If it
could have seen that number of fighters it could
have done really well. It didn't, but it seems
now that the ability to down them, had it seen
then is the criterion, rather than the previous
one of how many were actually downed!

Personally I'd agree with you in that the
kill ratios are not a good thing to base
it on. If so then the B239 becomes the best
fighter in WW2. Too many other factors, such
as opportunities for targets, forms of
engagement, numerical superiority (or
otherwise), crew training, morale, etc., come
into play.

It's funny, but the best way of testing
this would be to have a super-accurate
flight sim, and test the performance of
the types in a large variety of situations,
with each type having the ability to compete
in the same set of these situations, and
a large number of pilots to take training
out of the equation

Sort of begin to sound like a combat flight
sim, with online pilots :-)

Anyway - I'd suggest that there were a
number of contenders for the top slot, and
picking between them would be hard. I'd put
in the P51, P47, and P80 from the USA,
Spitfire XIV and Tempest V from the UK,
Bf109K, Fw190, Me262, Ta152, He162, and Do335
(the last three didn't see much action so who
knows...), and the Yaks and La7 from the USSR,
The Mc205, and, er the Japanese planes.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:13 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
----
-The Mustang was also switched over to
- the role of Escort due to it's status as the longest
- ranging plane in the US arsenal, being able to
- escort the bombers there and back where the
- Thunderbolt had to turn back just shy of Germany.
- The LW circled the Bombers waiting for the
- Thunderbolts to have to turn back so they could
- engage the Bombers un-touched.

You have just described one reason the P-51 was better at killing LW planes. Does not range count? Does not that attribute figure into the mix? Of course long range added to the Mustang's ability to get to the enemy and kill him. But, how can you pretend this has no bearing on the decision? It was everything at the time. It is a HUGE advantage. You can't brush it aside. You get to ignore the range differential, pretend it doesn't count? Fine. I get to discount the toughness of the P-47. Fair, right? Wrong. Range counts too, just like top speed, dive or roll rate. The Pony proved itself, in concurrent roles, as being the better air to air fighter.

It is that simple. There was no fine tuning of roles. The Mustang met the expectations of the brass, in being able to handle the air to air job. The 14 P-47 Groups or so became available for the tac air role, and once they were stationed on the continent they proved their worth at this.
-
- This is your third time being wrong then. The
- reason why the Mustang had more kills in escort is
- frankly because they saw more fighters doing the
- Job.. The Mustang actually Went to Germany, the
- Thunderbolt turned back before it actually seeing
- Swarms of German fighters but not being able to
- engage them. The Mustang Flew into the Swarms and
- Decimated them, a job the Jug did if and when it
- actually encountered heavy enemy numbers. The Jug
- has a kill to death ratio based upon action it saw
- air to air as does the Mustang.

If and when. Exactly. Despite being a front line fighter for 8 fewer months, and being fielded in fewer numbers, it shot down more enemy fighters in the air and destroyed more on the ground. The Jug's air to air kill ratio is NOT as good as the Mustang's. -

- If you are going to Post/Flame at least use facts
- and not blind stats.

Flame? HArdly. I was strident, because I don't think you red my previous posts.

BTW, I used FACTS. Numbers are FACTS. I am also familiar with the reasoning for the P-47 and P-51 ending roles. It was based on results in combat, nothing more.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:52 AM
what are the criteria for "best", is it performance, records, time served, numbers built................ could be anything.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:56 AM
P47 get murdered? only in fb bub. in real life that jug was a tough nut to crack and a zero would be totally useless against a jug....my god...i think hes lost his mind!

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:17 AM
TAW_Jenikov wrote:
- P47 best? Anywho, typical american attitude.
-
- My list would be:
- 1. 190
- 2. Zero
- 3. Spitfire
- 4. Yak 1--9
- 5. P51
- 6.>>>> P47 <<<<
- 7. La7/9


Uhhhhh there you go with that typical American crap...there ARE no typical Americans...keep that in mind. What is it with some people??

and this gem.....

How can ANYONE state that P47 was a great fighter, it can be murdered 1-1 by any other one, even zero, if it gets upclose.

Fw190 was prehaps the most significant plane of the war, because it bore the load of the allied invasion from late 1942 onwards. 109 was there to, so Its kinda split there.

P47 was a too big and too bulky to be fighter, I wouldnt mind calling it an interceptor, or a strike aicraft, but not a fighter.

Corsair was never mentioned by any of you, i believe, what about THAT plane, it was also heavy and big, yet it was better than P47, wasnt it?



I am sure that one of the criteria was the ability to bring the pilot home..at which the Jug was very good. Dont go by the Jug in FB...do some reearch yourself and you will see the Jug WAS indeed a great fighter. If not their would have been a lot more dead Jug jocks than there were. Unlike you and most of the Luft flyers..I can recognize the outstanding qualities of say...the FW-190 with no sweat off my brow...it was a good plane but the best? I dont think so. The loosing side doesnt get to have the best......IMO...no offense intended. In a war situation loosing the war says a lot.....it was good but apparently not good enough.. I would actually base my opinion of the best fighter of the war on the opinions of the men who flew them and the men who flew against them. Anything else is just numbers on paper.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:28 AM
What were the numbers for the P-51's kills?

Interestingly enough, the P-51 first saw service with the USAAF as a divebomber. It failed, but it was very fast n the deck, and was used quite heavily as a reconnaissance aircraft.

Basically, from the perspective of the USAAF, the P-47 and P-51 switched roles, one going from a pure airsuperiorety fighter to tactical bomber, and the other going from a tactical bomber, to a pure air superiorety fighter.

As for the P-47 being retired from service after WWII, the USAAF never liked the Thunderbolt. It was big, it was ugly, and it was powered by one of those dreadful 'Navy' engines (never underestimate the level of intraservie rivalries). the P-51 was sleak, fast, and used an inline, and it was considerably cheaper to operate per plane, which was far more importaint in post war budget cuts. And, the P-47 still did see service after the war with the National Guard.

What always gets me is how people seem to assume that since the P-47 spent most of the end of the war doing ground attack, it must have been a poor fighter. The P-40 was a poor fighter too, and cost only about a third of what a P-47 did. The main reason the P-47 was used as an attack aircraft, was because it was exceptionally good at it. We needed sturmoviks, as we needed bread and water, just as the Russians did. The difference, is we did not have sturmoviks.

We did not have a signifigant single engined bomber line going into WWII, except in the Navy (those dreadful Navy divebombers, that the USAAF with its nice long runways capable of supporting twin engined bombers don't need to worry about).

We needed a lighter bomber than our twins, so we had to tap our fighter lines. The P-40 couldn't do it; it's bomb load was light, and its engine was vulnerable. The P-38 couldn't; it was to big, to expensive, and enemy fighters in Europe ate it for lunch (this is pre-powered ailerons). The P-51 couldn't; again light bombload, and a very vulnerable engine doomed its effectiveness there.

The P-47 was the only aircraft in the USAAF inventory that met the requirements; high firepower, heavy load lifting capacity, high durability, and it was a strong enough fighter that it could fly bombing missions without escort. The arrival of the P-51 in Europe did not relegate the P-47 to ground attack, rather it freed it from escort duty, and gave the USAAF the ability to use the P-47 where it was most needed, on the deck.

On a side note, from all the pilot accounts I have read, the vast majority of P-47 losses occured from ground fire. I have read that the P-47 maintainged a 10:1 kill ratio, until it was shifted to ground attack, when it dropped to the now quoted 4:1. RS Johnson's memoirs recounted that the 356 had sustained very low casualties until the ground attack missions started, after which they started losing planes and pilots at a signifigantly rate than when they were facing just fighters. However, I would have to find a record of the losses by cause to be more certain.

One last side note, does anyone have information on how many tonns of fuel the P-47 destroyed? One of the Brazilian memebers had the tonnage that Brazilian P-47's destroyed, with the percentage relative to either the total destruction of Axis petrol, or too the total tonnage destroyed by P-47's. I'm having trouble tracking that down.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:33 AM
Dont get me wrong guys..I am a bigtime P-51 fan...but the P-51 as fast,maneuverable and pretty as she was had a glass jaw. You take a hit in the engine and that baby is going down soon. The Jug on the other hand was TOUGH!!! Those 8 50s could rip a plane in half...... I think the reason why so many of the Jug pilots loved that bird was that they felt more assurance at getting back to base....here in the virtual world where we shut down our computers and go to bed......eventually.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif we can forget that for those guys it was life and death...in an instant.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

The_Blue_Devil
06-15-2003, 02:09 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- What were the numbers for the P-51's kills?
-
- Interestingly enough, the P-51 first saw service
- with the USAAF as a divebomber. It failed, but it
- was very fast n the deck, and was used quite heavily
- as a reconnaissance aircraft.
-
- Basically, from the perspective of the USAAF, the
- P-47 and P-51 switched roles, one going from a pure
- airsuperiorety fighter to tactical bomber, and the
- other going from a tactical bomber, to a pure air
- superiorety fighter.
-
- As for the P-47 being retired from service after
- WWII, the USAAF never liked the Thunderbolt. It was
- big, it was ugly, and it was powered by one of those
- dreadful 'Navy' engines (never underestimate the
- level of intraservie rivalries). the P-51 was
- sleak, fast, and used an inline, and it was
- considerably cheaper to operate per plane, which was
- far more importaint in post war budget cuts. And,
- the P-47 still did see service after the war with
- the National Guard.
-
- What always gets me is how people seem to assume
- that since the P-47 spent most of the end of the war
- doing ground attack, it must have been a poor
- fighter. The P-40 was a poor fighter too, and cost
- only about a third of what a P-47 did. The main
- reason the P-47 was used as an attack aircraft, was
- because it was exceptionally good at it. We needed
- sturmoviks, as we needed bread and water, just as
- the Russians did. The difference, is we did not
- have sturmoviks.
-
- We did not have a signifigant single engined bomber
- line going into WWII, except in the Navy (those
- dreadful Navy divebombers, that the USAAF with its
- nice long runways capable of supporting twin engined
- bombers don't need to worry about).
-
- We needed a lighter bomber than our twins, so we had
- to tap our fighter lines. The P-40 couldn't do it;
- it's bomb load was light, and its engine was
- vulnerable. The P-38 couldn't; it was to big, to
- expensive, and enemy fighters in Europe ate it for
- lunch (this is pre-powered ailerons). The P-51
- couldn't; again light bombload, and a very
- vulnerable engine doomed its effectiveness there.
-
- The P-47 was the only aircraft in the USAAF
- inventory that met the requirements; high firepower,
- heavy load lifting capacity, high durability, and it
- was a strong enough fighter that it could fly
- bombing missions without escort. The arrival of the
- P-51 in Europe did not relegate the P-47 to ground
- attack, rather it freed it from escort duty, and
- gave the USAAF the ability to use the P-47 where it
- was most needed, on the deck.
-
- On a side note, from all the pilot accounts I have
- read, the vast majority of P-47 losses occured from
- ground fire. I have read that the P-47 maintainged
- a 10:1 kill ratio, until it was shifted to ground
- attack, when it dropped to the now quoted 4:1. RS
- Johnson's memoirs recounted that the 356 had
- sustained very low casualties until the ground
- attack missions started, after which they started
- losing planes and pilots at a signifigantly rate
- than when they were facing just fighters. However,
- I would have to find a record of the losses by cause
- to be more certain.
-
- One last side note, does anyone have information on
- how many tonns of fuel the P-47 destroyed? One of
- the Brazilian memebers had the tonnage that
- Brazilian P-47's destroyed, with the percentage
- relative to either the total destruction of Axis
- petrol, or too the total tonnage destroyed by
- P-47's. I'm having trouble tracking that down.
-
- Harry Voyager

Well said Harry..Well Said.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/MercyMustangIVsmall.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:34 AM
God DAMN, stop it with the yellow background.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:43 AM
Also, it's not necessary to add Harry's entire post to yours.

You could probably have just typed "Well said Harry...Well said."


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:48 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- What were the numbers for the P-51's kills?

Just under 5000 for the USA in the ETO. Add in an unknown number of Brit kills.

- Interestingly enough, the P-51 first saw service
- with the USAAF as a divebomber. It failed, but it
- was very fast n the deck, and was used quite heavily
- as a reconnaissance aircraft.

Failed? The A-36 was highly effective in the Med. It was used until they wore out.

- Basically, from the perspective of the USAAF, the
- P-47 and P-51 switched roles, one going from a pure
- airsuperiorety fighter to tactical bomber, and the
- other going from a tactical bomber, to a pure air
- superiorety fighter.

You are assuming the AAF considered the Allison powered Mustangs the same as the Merlin powered birds. The Merlin birds were envisioned from the beginning as air superiority birds. Merlin Mustangs "pushed" the P-47 into the Tac Air roleby proving they were better in the air to air role.

I have read that the P-47 maintainged
- a 10:1 kill ratio,

The P-51's was 11 to 1, air to air, for the entire ETO campaign.

The P-51
- couldn't; again light bombload, and a very
- vulnerable engine doomed its effectiveness there.

Doomed? It had the most ground kills in the ETO. It carried 2 x 1000 bombs. Several P-51 groups were dedicated ground support groups in WW2, including the PTO and the ETO. In Korea the type carried 2 x 1000 pound bombs and 6 x rocket. While not as good in this role as the P-47, it WAS highly effective. Its losses were high in the ETO in the ground attack role, very low in the Med and PTO. The A-36 loss rate was extremely low.

The arrival of the
- P-51 in Europe did not relegate the P-47 to ground
- attack, rather it freed it from escort duty.

Freed? Lets get pragmatic. It freed it because the P-51 was the better air to air bird. If the P-51 had flopped, I guarantee the AAF would have soldiered on with the P-47 as its primary air to air bird.

The P-47 was a great Jabo. If one wants to base his assessment of "best" on that, feel free. I think there is a case to say that the P-47 was good at air to air, great at air to ground, and that qualifies it as #1.

But, trying to make the case it was as good in the air as the P-51 does not hold up to examination.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:55 AM
Again, the P-51 was a 1 trick pony http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Long range escort. It only did a moderate job mud moving, like the 109. Sure it could do it, but the P-47 and FW-190 could move more mud faster then the 109 or P-51. Also, kills dont matter. Getting home to claim them does. Thats were the 190 and P-47 excelled.

Gib

Slickun wrote:
- I haven't read the article.
-
- Ummm, has anyone checked the claim that the P-47
- shot down more E/A than any allied fighter? Not so,
- from my data. The P-51 shot down almost 5000 E/A in
- the ETO, for the USA. An unknown (by me) number of
- E/A were shot down by the Brits in Mustangs as well.
- This is more than the P-47 shot down, according to
- every total I've ever read.
-
-
- Throw in the fact that the P-51 didn't start combat
- ops for the USA until Dec 1943, in very limited
- numbers, and one quickly comes to the conclusion
- that the P-51 downed more planes in a much shorter
- time frame, in smaller numbers.
-
- The Mustang recorded 11 kills per 100 sorties, the
- P-47 2 per 100, the P-38 3 per 100.
-
- P-51's flying the same missions, in the same
- airspace, against the same enemy, at the same time
- (Jan-May 1944), recorded roughly twice the number of
- kills as P-47 groups, and 4 times the kills of P-38
- groups.
-
- The overall kill ratio of the entire P-51 force in
- the ETO is over 10:1. For the elite 56th FG, flying
- P-47 the entire war, it was 7:1.
-
- P-51's recorded more air to ground kills than any
- other type, including the P-47. P-51 losses were
- much higher on these missions, 3 per 100 sorties
- compared to 1 per 100 sorties for the P-47.
-
- If, as a previous poster stated, the goal of a
- fighter is to shoot down the other plane, there is
- no doubt which USA type was most effective at this
- in the ETO.
-
- Some folks will take exception to the kill ratios
- and kills per sortie, citing the fact that most P-38
- and P-47 groups were eventually relegated to the
- tatical role. This is true. However, after the
- debut of the P-51 in combat, and the outstanding
- results obtained (twice the kills of P-47 groups, 4
- times that of the P-38 groups), the decision of
- which planes to keep as air superiority, which as
- tac air, was very easily made. It was no accident,
- the Jugs and Lightnings weren't cheated. Each plane
- WAS put into its proper role, based on combat
- results, not whims or performance on paper.
-
- Some folks like to micro examine fighter
- performance. Well, I do too. But, the fact
- remains, that the combination of attributes the
- Mustang brought to the table, range, speed, dive,
- zoom, high speed maneuverability, proved to be
- better at destroying E/A than the P-47 or P-38
- attributes in early 1944 Europe.
-
-



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:56 AM
yeah i like the list all fair and share P-47 did its job didnt get credit due like the mustang, P-47s beat the hell of the german army in the west hard! i woulda liked Fw-190 on top well cuz it was a well rounded aircraft adapted to any role from fighter,bomber,night fighter,anti-shipping, tank buster, recon the list goes on it was the grandaddy to the modern day multi-role fighter. but P-47 won the war so it gets its due

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:59 AM
Would you like to list something a Fw190 can do, that a P-47 can't do too, and do it higher to boot.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:04 AM
hmmm beat a jug in a med altitude dog fight yeah thats one ummm bust the hell outta tanks wiht 30mm round thats 2 snap into a roll so fast ull say it was 3 rolls hmm i can go on yeah FW-190 prince of the skies! oooo wait fight in the air at night hmmmmmmmmm yeah that too

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:08 AM
SturmFuhrer42 wrote:
- hmmm beat a jug in a med altitude dog fight yeah
- thats one ummm bust the hell outta tanks wiht 30mm
- round thats 2 snap into a roll so fast ull say it
- was 3 rolls hmm i can go on yeah FW-190 prince of
- the skies! oooo wait fight in the air at night
- hmmmmmmmmm yeah that too



All hail the new king of grammar and aviation.

LONG LIVE THE KING!




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:08 AM
Just so everyone knows:

I am not SturmFuhrer42. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:09 AM
Haha/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .



Message Edited on 06/14/0310:10PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:10 AM
Rockets
How's it roll up high?
Winning a DF is only your opinion. Lots of dead Fw190's won't agree with you.


Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:10 AM
SturmFuhrer42 wrote:
gibberish...
-
-

Translation please? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



We few, we happy few, we band of Würgerwhiners...
http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:13 AM
He's Helltoupee's brother.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:15 AM
From what I understand, the P-47 destroyed about 6,000 aircraft on the ground.

According to http://www.p47advocates.com/thep47.html the P-47 managed 546,000 combat sorties, with a combat loss rate of 0.7% (combat losses being aicraft lost on missions where they were fired upon), 132,000 tons of boms dropped, 135 millions 0.50 cal. rounds fired, 1.5 million hours of combat (though a signifigant portion of that is likely escort missions), 11878 enemy aircraft destroyed (half on the ground), 160,000 military vehicles destroyed, and 9,000 locomotives destroyed, 86,000 rail cars ( http://www.flightjournal.com/gallery/p47.asp).

I suspect the numbers are a bit high, given the site, but that indicates the sort of destruction the P-47 dropped on Germany.

I still can't find the amount of fuel the plane destroyed, though, I did find an assesment of the overal Allied fuel bombing effort. It was rather amazing. They actually managed to reduce general oil production to around 25% of capacity, and kept it there. I'll post that in a new thread as soon as I get back.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:17 AM
BuzzU wrote:

-Lots of dead Fw190's won't agree with you.

Watch it there Mr.Peaches /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Are you trying to incite a riot?

Slow news day?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:25 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
I can recognize the outstanding
- qualities of say...the FW-190 with no sweat off my
- brow...it was a good plane but the best? I dont
- think so. The loosing side doesnt get to have the
- best......IMO...no offense intended. In a war
- situation loosing the war says a lot.....it was good
- but apparently not good enough..

LMAO, not your finest post in here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
YOu say all the time that no plane, man... can win the war, and now you say the 190 can't be the best WWII fighter because it didn't win the war? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll put that one on the anger u felt at the insults the guy said in his post /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nic


http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar... +1 for shooting him down on HL woohoo!

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:25 AM
For Harry and the Blue Devil

Look fellas. You are backing a very very fine airplane. My Dad flew it for goodness sake. I can't say anything bad about it, and usually take pains to avoid bashing anyone's favorite plane. You are free, welcome, to think it was the best plane of WW2. It certainly is in the running.

However, there is so much evidence to support the fact that the P-51 was a better air to air fighter I don't really think it is a question, any more than there is a question which was a better ground attack plane.

Doolittle and Kepner were desperate for a fighter to take the bombers deep into Germany and rack up kills. The P-38 took em deep, but did not rack up kills. The P-51 was hoped to be the answer, and it was. The following chart attempts to quantify what the 8th AF brass realized they had in the Mustang. It shows plane type, groups available, and kills for several months of the Jan-May 1944 time frame. Again, the three types were flying on the same missions, same days, over the same ground, against the same opponents. Some months the number of groups available is misleading. For example, for most of Feb there were two P-51 groups. The 4th FG recieved P-51's very late in the month.


Month...........Type..........Groups........Kills
Jan 1944........P-47............9............136
.....................P-38............2.............30
.....................P-51............1.............36

Feb 1944........P-47............9............217
.....................P-38............2.............28
.....................P-51............3.............84

Mar 1944........P-47............7............210
.....................P-38............3.............25
.....................P-51............4............186

Apr 1944........P-47............6............113
.....................P-38............3.............25
.....................P-51............5............257

Did the gamble pay off? Yes indeedy. As I posted several times, the P-51 groups were scoring, very roughly, at a rate twice that of the P-47 groups.

How smart do you have to be to figure this one out? If you want to say the P-51 "freed" the P-47 for the Tac Air role, so be it. The point is, anyone could figure out which type was better at shooting down enemy A/C in the air. Doolittle and Kepner saw it right away.

If you feel the P-47's air to ground abilities are enough better to "pass" the P-51, I won't argue. I do know this. There is no question that in the ETO, for the AAF, the Mustang was better at air to air than the T-Bolt or Lightning, and that is why it got that role.

Edited to try to get the chart to look right.



Message Edited on 06/15/03 02:27AM by Slickun

Message Edited on 06/15/03 02:28AM by Slickun

Message Edited on 06/15/0302:28AM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:51 AM
From America's 100,000 by Dean


P-47
About 2 of 3 of every P-47 get into action.
5222 are lost (0.7% combat).
3572 kills in the air.
3315 kills on the ground.

Destroyed from D-Day until VE-Day:
8600 railway cars
9000 locomotives
6000 armored vehicles
68000 trucks


P-51
The USAAF in Europe claims:
4950 air to air
4131 air to ground
2520 P-51's lost (some 450 air to air).
Some 300 more kills in the Pacific, and an unknown number with other countries. I have never seen the figures for British P-51's, but there were several aces.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:54 AM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- SturmFuhrer42 wrote:
-- hmmm beat a jug in a med altitude dog fight yeah
-- thats one ummm bust the hell outta tanks wiht 30mm
-- round thats 2 snap into a roll so fast ull say it
-- was 3 rolls hmm i can go on yeah FW-190 prince of
-- the skies! oooo wait fight in the air at night
-- hmmmmmmmmm yeah that too
-
-
-
- All hail the new king of grammar and aviation.
-
- LONG LIVE THE KING!

congrats u made urself the bigger wise ***! all hail the wisest *** of all grammar yeah ok right i need to impress ya to death with grammar here some more mispeling and run on sentences....get a life u know wat i was trying to get across.....idiot

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:58 AM
SturmFuhrer42 wrote:
- congrats u made urself the bigger wise ***! all hail
- the wisest *** of all grammar yeah ok right i need
- to impress ya to death with grammar here some more
- mispeling and run on sentences....get a life u know
- wat i was trying to get across.....idiot



Drat...I am defeated.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 07:01 AM
Don`t know what the single best would be but i really believe that no fighter worked harder in the war than the 109s.

Flight Journal..for anyone interested in the p-38,also released a special summer addition on that plane from front to back.Its packed with stories and pictures.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:56 AM
BuzzU wrote:
- Would you like to list something a Fw190 can do,
- that a P-47 can't do too, and do it higher to boot.
-
- Da Buzz


dogfight


http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:59 AM
- BuzzU wrote:
-- Would you like to list something a Fw190 can do,
-- that a P-47 can't do too, and do it higher to boot.
--
-- Da Buzz

Lose the war





"The Peacock will be on time, fan his tail."

William Frederick "Bull" Halsey

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 09:23 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- I can recognize the outstanding
- qualities of say...the FW-190 with no sweat off my
- brow...it was a good plane but the best? I dont
- think so. The loosing side doesnt get to have the
- best......IMO...no offense intended. In a war
- situation loosing the war says a lot.....it was good
- but apparently not good enough..

That's hardly very good logic. On that basis the
Allies won the Battle in France in May 1940, as they
had the better tanks (and more of them). Very often
the loosing side can have the best, but employ them
badly, or just screw up, like Napolean. (This is not
to say that the Germans in WW2 had the best planes,
just refuting your logic).

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:55 PM
Hiya, Slickun!

Er....did you think that my comment about the misuse of statistics was aimed at you personally? It most certainly was not. But the fact remains, when discussions of this nature come up, statistics ARE frequently abused.

My more important point is, what CRITERIA are we going to use, to decide what should be deemed the 'best' fighter of WW2. Until your criteria are decided, it is a waste of time looking at statistics.

One person may decide on a particular set of criteria, but there is a problem. Others are choosing DIFFERENT criteria and often, their reasons for choosing them are just as valid as anyone elses.

Even when people agree on a set of criteria, differences can still arise over priorities, emphasis and the selection/presentation of the statistics.

If your aim is to 'prove' that only ONE aircraft could possibly deserve the title 'Best Fighter of WW2', you are putting yourself on a hiding-to-nothing, IMHO.

Like I said, people can take a number of different approaches and come up with a number of different answers. Using the criteria/rationale/statistics chosen by the people putting their arguments forward, each claim could be 'proven' in its own way.

Just to make sure I didn't misunderstand you.... in that post, you seem to have referred only to the P-51, P-47 and P-38. Does this mean that you think these are the only three possible contenders? Is it really just a three-horse race?

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:41 PM
Finally justice..!

<center>http://members.chello.nl/pgkiljan/il2/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:30 AM
brightness /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 03:57 AM
lmao on too many posts in this thread...hehe thrust...parry...RIPOST....quack !

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:28 AM
SturmFuhrer42 wrote:
-
- congrats u made urself the bigger wise ***! all hail
- the wisest *** of all grammar yeah ok right i need
- to impress ya to death with grammar here some more
- mispeling and run on sentences....get a life u know
- wat i was trying to get across.....idiot



AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHASSHATAHAHAHAHAHA

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 03:53 PM
- Just to make sure I didn't misunderstand you.... in
- that post, you seem to have referred only to the
- P-51, P-47 and P-38. Does this mean that you think
- these are the only three possible contenders? Is it
- really just a three-horse race?
-
- Best regards,
- panther3485

Hey Panther!

I tried to be very clear that I was talking about AAF planes in the ETO. Only posting in regard to this fairly narrow designation. I was doing that to try to use stats that are relevant, and in an attempt to alleviate some of the very things you express in the bulk of your post. The stats and durn lies thing.

The three types were in "competition" at the same time and same place, doing the same thing. Flying escorts over Germany during the crucial Jan-May 1944 time frame. Most of the combats started at high altitude, well into the Jugs' envelope. As close to "even", as relevant to compare, as one can find.

It was all in response to the folks that feel the P-47 was the best all around plane in WW2, as the title of this entire thread suggests. Several posters feel that the P-47 was as good as the Mustang in air to air, and better at air to ground, and that the decision to put the T-Bolt into a Tac Air role was based solely because it was better at air to ground.

My primitive chart shows that the P-51, in "even" competition with the P-47, over the same ground against the same enemy, same missions, got kills at roughly twice the rate of P-47 groups. The P-38 is a very distant third.

So, my point of contention is that if you want to think the P-47 was the best fighter of WW2, go right ahead, but base the decision on the Jug being enough better at the air to ground role to make up for the Mustang being better air to air.

I posted stats that looked at total kills for the war, kills per sortie, losses, and the month by month totals for the three types in Jan-Apr 1944. What other numbers could I possibly include? I swear I'm not holding anything back.

Hubert Zemke, who commanded groups featuring all three types, and was CO of the 56th FG, felt the Mustang was the best of the three. The Germans, flying captured AAF planes, felt so as well. My Dad flew both types, and also feels the P-51 was better in the air to air role below 30,000 feet. So, besides stats, I've now included testimonials from a leader of the types in combat, an intimate acquaintance who flew and loved both, and the enemy.

- If your aim is to 'prove' that only ONE aircraft
- could possibly deserve the title 'Best Fighter of
- WW2', you are putting yourself on a
- hiding-to-nothing, IMHO

BTW, I pushed carrier planes as the "best all around" of WW2, either the Hellcat or Corsair. I think any plane not carrier qualifies can't lay claim the title.





Message Edited on 06/16/0302:56PM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 05:07 PM
Slickun wrote:

- I think any plane not carrier qualifies can't lay
- claim the title.


But Slickun, my Focke-Wulf didn't have any carriers to fly off of.

Cut me some slack, man! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 05:26 PM
They IS wrong, best fighter of WWII were:

1) I16
2) I153
3) LaGG 3 (41 model)
4) Yak 3
5) VVS rear gunner I forgot his name.....

---------------

And for that matter the wors ones now:


1) Fw190 (good for suicide ride)
2) P47 (good only for strapin on some bombs)
3) Bf109 (one hit anywhere and you are out)
4) Me262 (cathing fire if you breath too deeply)
5) P51 well, just wait.....

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 06:00 PM
I don't think the facts are THAT easy to read:
# kills / # sorties and # losses / # sorties = winner.

The tactical and strategic circumstances also do matter.

Where do you fly? Over friendly or enemy territory?
Over enemy territory you have to deal with FLAK, over friendly you don't.
Then: are you outnumbered? You can fly the best aircraft, but when you are outnumbered all the time you will still have higher loss/sortie ratio and probably a lower kill/sortie ratio.

The first fgure will be in favor of the P-47, since when it arrived the allies were flying more offensive, but the latter probably would be against it. Since the UK aircraft flew quite some time being outnumbered. Or at least more outnumbered then when the US arrived to reinforce them.
We all know that the BoB was a fatigue battle for the RAF at least, being bombed all the time. what also is debet to the scores of the pilots flying then. It was the other way around when the USAF and RAF sent out bombers day and night (and during the day escorted) to knock out the Luftwaffe.

But I sure do like the outcome since it was the Mustang who has most of the fame, just like the Spitfire over the Hurricane.

I would rather see this research devided over the years, so the scores of aircraft per year. That would also seperate the modern and the old aircraft a little, especially when you also spread the data over the sub-types of aircraft.

<center>
<table><tr><td colspan=3>
http://www.1java.org/images/sigs/1java-sh.jpg
</td></tr>
<tr><th align="left">
1e Jachtvliegtuig afdeeling (http://www.1java.org)
</th>
<th>My skins (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=1.JaVA_Serval)</th>
<th>
Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh)</th></tr></table>
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 06:22 PM
Buncha Freaks.

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];</script>
&lt;script> var a=doc.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["TurboCrotch")!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML="RatFink";</script>
&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://www.goobage.com/pics/skull.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>var
a=doc.body.getElementsByTagName("u");for(vari=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["TurboCrotch")!=-1)a[i].style.color="#000000"}</script>
&lt;script>a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-5].bgColor="#000000";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-8].bgColor="#595959";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor="#595959";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#000000";</script>
<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>"Fear accompanies the possibility of death. Calm shepherd's the certainty of it."</font></font size></center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Ka D'Argo</font></font size></center>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 06:22 PM
"How can ANYONE state that P47 was a great fighter, it can be murdered 1-1 by any other one, even zero, if it gets upclose."

Wow, you really don't understand air combat.

The whole idea is to hit the other guy, where it hurts the most, while he isn't looking and then run away as fast as you can before his buddies can catch you.

One thing that is always missed in these discussions is this:

A P-47 can escape any plane in the air (excepting the ME-262) AT WILL...

Step 1) Throw everything in the cockpit forward.
Step 2) Point nose towards ground.
Step 3) Wave goodbye to Axis pilot. Use of single fingers not necessary, but funny nonetheless.


Robin Olds:

"Being able to dive out is the fighter pilot's ace in the hole."


Mustangs are hella-cool. They do all kinds of nifty things. But personally, I want the ability to escape at my choosing. I'm not there to dogfight. I'm there to shove my .50's up yer a$$ and pull the trigger.



************************************************** *******

I'll take my car with 382 fully forged cubic inches of fire-breathing, MPFI, nitrous sniffing, all aluminum, tire-roasting Chevrolet power, thank you very much.


"If you can turn, you aren't going fast enough."

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 06:24 PM
FW190fan wrote:
-
But Slickun, my Focke-Wulf didn't have any carriers
- to fly off of.
-
- Cut me some slack, man!

So sorry!

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 06:33 PM
Serval_EAF310 wrote:
- I don't think the facts are THAT easy to read:
- # kills / # sorties and # losses / # sorties =
- winner.
-
- The tactical and strategic circumstances also do
- matter.
-
- Where do you fly? Over friendly or enemy territory?
- Over enemy territory you have to deal with FLAK,
- over friendly you don't.
- Then: are you outnumbered? You can fly the best
- aircraft, but when you are outnumbered all the time
- you will still have higher loss/sortie ratio and
- probably a lower kill/sortie ratio.
-
- The first fgure will be in favor of the P-47, since
- when it arrived the allies were flying more
- offensive, but the latter probably would be against
- it. Since the UK aircraft flew quite some time being
- outnumbered. Or at least more outnumbered then when
- the US arrived to reinforce them.
- We all know that the BoB was a fatigue battle for
- the RAF at least, being bombed all the time. what
- also is debet to the scores of the pilots flying
- then. It was the other way around when the USAF and
- RAF sent out bombers day and night (and during the
- day escorted) to knock out the Luftwaffe.
-
- But I sure do like the outcome since it was the
- Mustang who has most of the fame, just like the
- Spitfire over the Hurricane.
-
- I would rather see this research devided over the
- years, so the scores of aircraft per year. That
- would also seperate the modern and the old aircraft
- a little, especially when you also spread the data
- over the sub-types of aircraft.
-

That is why I use the Jan-May 1944 time frame. As easy to compare the P-38, P-51 and P-47 as any other time frame.

They all:
1. Flew the same mission.
2. Flew at the same altitudes.
3. Fought the same opponents.
4. Flew during as intense a period of aerial combat as was experienced in WW2 for any length of time.
5. Were flown by pilots coming from the same training schools.
6. Were faced with the same supply constraints.
7. Were flying from generally the same areas to the combats.

Any way you slice it, the P-51 was the most effective of the three types in the air to air role. This new type, with many bugs, half the firepower, still proved to be a better air superiority fighter.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 11:12 AM
Hiya again, Slickun!

No, I don't think you are holding out on me! In fact, I think you've been very forthright in your presentation.

Just as you appeared to misconstrue my first post as an attack on your stats (which it wasn't), it now seems that I may have misunderstood your intentions, for which I must apologize.

The parameters of your proposition (correct me if I've still got it wrong) were confined to a comparison between the three leading US fighter types employed in the ETO. Presumably, this was to make a case for the P-51 over the P-47 in a strictly air-to-air environment.

Within those parameters, I couldn't agree more! I came to the same conclusion as you, decades ago.

To put it even more strongly, I'm frankly surprised that you'd have to work so hard to make that particular case, because it's difficult for me to imagine how anyone could disagree. (Perhaps that's why I misunderstood - I was looking for something that wasn't there!)

I've just been interrupted by something urgent and have to go offline for a while. I'm enjoying the discussion and would like to continue it. Consider this 'part one' of my post - part two is coming later. Bye for now!

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 02:18 PM
panther3845 wrote:
- The parameters of your proposition (correct me if
- I've still got it wrong) were confined to a
- comparison between the three leading US fighter
- types employed in the ETO. Presumably, this was to
- make a case for the P-51 over the P-47 in a strictly
- air-to-air environment

Yep. You got it. If folks want to think the P-47 was a better all around A/C they are welcome to that opinion. But, facts show that the P-51 was a better air superiority fighter.

And certainly no need to apologize for anything.

My Dad flew the P-47N stateside in WW2. The war ended while his unit was awaiting shipping to Ie Shima (off Okinawa), preparing to fly 8 hour escort missions for B-29's.

After the war he was part of the US occupation force in Japan. He had a choice to fly the Mustang, Lightning, or Jug to get his flying time in. He chose the Mustang, as that had been what he'd wanted to fly anyway.

He got a LOT of hours in the P-51D and F-6 photo recon version. He basically says the P-47 gets huge marks for sturdiness, performance above 30,000 feet, and firepower.

But he thinks the Mustang was a better fighter.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 03:07 PM
interesting logic,

perhaps was sherman tank too better as panther and tiger


- Bearcat99 wrote:
- I can recognize the outstanding
-- qualities of say...the FW-190 with no sweat off my
-- brow...it was a good plane but the best? I dont
-- think so. The loosing side doesnt get to have the
-- best......IMO...no offense intended. In a war
-- situation loosing the war says a lot.....it was good
-- but apparently not good enough..


Message Edited on 06/17/0305:24PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:56 PM
Hiya Slickun - back again.

Yep - sounds fair enough to me, mate! On the (Merlin engined) P-51 as the pick of that bunch for air-to-air, you'll certainly get no argument from me.
Case Proven! Next!

Now, to get to part two of my post:

The opening statement that started this thread was "P-47 named best fighter of WWII by Flight journal". Then, when I clicked on this I saw seven fighters mentioned, with first place going to the P-47. (A few readers may have missed the "p.s. this is for the ETO" underneath.)

Notice, the statement is not qualified with "best all-round" or "best multi-role" or "most rugged get-you-home" or anything else. The "p.s. this is ETO", even if noticed, could be confusing to some. Even if you know what that stands for, (and I assume most of us would), some might not be aware of precisely what areas are included/excluded.

Already then, we can see that "Best of WWII" would have been better stated as "Best in the Western European Theater of WWII" or something similar.

One of the criteria you put forward as being paramount is the ability to operate from a carrier. I would profoundly agree, in reference to the Pacific (which seems to have been excluded from the original question). Slightly less critical, perhaps, for CBI, where more of the participating aircraft were land-based anyway.

Somewhat less critical again, I would have thought, for the ETO - if we are going to confine ourselves to that area. Nevertheless, I take the point about the F4U and F6F - both magnificent fighters and definite war-winners in the Pacific.

A fundamental question concerns the perceived roles of a fighter. In my mind, air-to-air has always been by far the most important area - that is, pursuit/interception, escort duties and general air superiority. After all, isn't that what we want fighters to do?

Versatility is wonderful to have, of course, and if a fighter lends itself well to ground attack, so much the better but in my view, if we are talking about FIGHTERS, that's the icing, not the cake.

Then, of course, there can be different ideas about design priorities. Some fighters were great interceptors but not so hot in the escort role, due to limited range. Some were fantastic dog-fighters but couldn't take a lot of punishment.

Among other considerations are the 'when and where and how effective' of a fighter's service. If it was competitive in 1939/40, was it still a competitive design by 1944/45? How much of the war did it serve for? All of it? Half of it? The last few months? How many different theatres? How effective was it? Was it produced in large enough numbers to make a difference?

I could go on, because there are many more considerations, but I'm sure you are aware of them all, so I won't bore you. You will also realize, of course, that our conclusions will always depend upon what weight and priority we give to all these different factors.

Most of what I've said is intended to address the ridiculously sweeping 'best fighter of WWII' question - not the much more specific topic that you were working on. In this sense, were were barking up rather different trees.

I've found nothing wrong with any of the information you put forward. If we narrow our question down to a particular theatre/campaign/stage of the war, it should be possible to come to reasonable conclusions about what plane did best at what task.

If we try to make more sweeping generalizations, we are asking for trouble.

Best regards,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 05:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Dylan_D wrote:
-- In a recent article in LFight journal this is the
-- conclusion they came to:
--
-- Best fighters of WWII
--
-- 7. P-38
-- 6. 109
-- 5. YAk 1-9 series
-- 4. P-51
-- 3. Spit
-- 2. 190
-- 1. P-47
--
-- What do you guys think?
-
-
- Their personal opinion that's all. Impossible to
- support with facts.
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
-


I think hucebein is mad his precious 109 didn't win!!

If it were me, it'd be like this:

7. Yak 1-9
6. 109
5.190
4. Spit
3. P-38
2. P-51
1. P-47

<Center> I had a cool signature here, but obviously the word document is vulgar.</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 06:03 PM
haha...




---------------------------------------



under 30k?