PDA

View Full Version : Best U.S. Fighter in the game



huggy87
06-28-2005, 11:50 PM
I know best is subjective, but my yardstick is simply ease of scoring kills in the game. Surprisingly, I would rank the mid-late war planes in this order:

P-63
Jug
Corsair (Actually higher with the C version)
Mustang
Hellcat
Lightning

I know in real life it was (at least by kill tally):

Hellcat
Mustang
Jug
Corsair
Lightning

I also realize that the Kingcobra was never really used by the west. But that thing is a monster. If it flew as well in real life as it does in the game the US was stupid to let that go.

TAGERT.
06-29-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
I know best is subjective, but my yardstick is simply ease of scoring kills in the game. Surprisingly, I would rank the mid-late war planes in this order:

P-63
Jug
Corsair (Actually higher with the C version)
Mustang
Hellcat
Lightning

I know in real life it was (at least by kill tally):

Hellcat
Mustang
Jug
Corsair
Lightning

I also realize that the Kingcobra was never really used by the west. But that thing is a monster. If it flew as well in real life as it does in the game the US was stupid to let that go. The way I do it is to go by the color of thier helmets!

AerialTarget
06-29-2005, 12:09 AM
F-4U Corsair
P-39 Airacobra
P-63 Kingcobra
P-38 Lightning L "Late"
F-6F Hellcat
P-51 Mustang
P-47 Thunderbolt

ImpStarDuece
06-29-2005, 12:21 AM
The reasons the Kingcobra was never really adopted by the US are complicated. Plus they are further clouded by the fact that we have a very late production version of the P-63C in the game (though over 1200 of that version were produced)

Firstly, you have the negative attitude of a lot of service pilots towards its predecessor, the P-39 Aircobra, as well as that planes reputation as a difficult and potentially hazardous bird. Given the rough treatment that the Aircobra recieved from the Japanese and Germans when in US hands, its perhaps not suprising that the concept of a 'super P-39' had a less than completely favourable reaction to it.

Tied to this is what I have always percieved as a gentle but persistent bias against the P-39. To me it appears to be the 'black sheep' of the USAAF fighters of the war. It looks 'funny' in comparison with most US fighters, it's not a 'proper' fighter, i.e. its not a taildragger with the engine up front and MGs in the wings where they belong. That centrally mounted engine and strange armament combination never did it any favours in the service. Plus its also quite small and relatively lightly armoured for a US fighter, things that may of also counted against it.

Secondly, while the Kingcobra did a lot of things very well, it fit rather poorly with USAAF requirements and existing aircraft already fulfilled its designed roles. Sort of like what happen to the Whirlwhind. It had relatively poor altitude and range performance when compared to the P-51, P-47 and P-38 so that counted it out of the high altitude/long-range requirement of the USAAF. Also, while a superlative bird below 20,000 feet it didn't have the fighter bomber capabilities of the P-38 or P-47, neither in terms of ruggedness, redundancy or bomb-trucking ability.

If the USAAF had ever needed a medium ranged, medium altitude dogfighter then the P-63 would of been the right bird for it.

Thirdly, the USAAF was rapidly phasing out the P-39 in favour of other designs. It would be nonsensical to think tha they would want to reintroduce a similar type when they are busy attempting to get pilots qualified on the 'Big Three' and consolidating production and training on the types.

Fourthly, the P-63 was as much a reflection of Russian desires and needs for conditions in their uniuque theater of operation, as it was an extension of an existing US design. There was a percieved need for the Russians to have a fighter which operated effectively over 20,000 feet. Obviously the P-51,P-47 was preferred by the USAAF so something else had to go there. With a speed of over 410 mph above 24,000 feet the P-63 could be seen to fulfillt that need.

The P-63 that we have int he game is a P-63C with the uprated Allison V-1710-117 engine with a war emergency rating of 1500 hp at sea level and 1800 hp with water injection. This is a substantial improvement over the P-63A which has the Allison V-1710-93 which was rated at 1325 hp at sea level and 1150 hp at 22,400 feet. The P-63C also had about 10 inches of the wing chopped out of the wings and an enlarged vertical stabiliser. So we get a super version of the 'super-P-39'.

The P-63C should really be limited to 1945 planesets though as the first deliverise to sub-variant the Soivets were in December of 1944.

Fehler
06-29-2005, 12:21 AM
In the game, that P-38 L "Late" is quite impressive. I have seen a few guys really make that bird sing. And from a blue point of view, it is the one plane I dont like seeing diving in on me!

My vote for "New best" is P-38 L "Late"

Badsight.
06-29-2005, 01:56 AM
the P-38 late is sooo much fun to fly !

the power boost is just what it needed , such an awesome plane

PBNA-Boosher
06-29-2005, 05:12 AM
P-38
P-40

geetarman
06-29-2005, 09:04 AM
Even with the new FM and possible DM changes on some planes, I still think the P-51D-20 is still the best US plane. Yes, you have to constantly trim it, but this was so in RL.

It now should be flown fast to be at it's most effective. It's not the best slow dogfighter (P-38 late much better), but I'll take it over any US fighter at speeds above 250mph. You can catch or run from almost anything and can maneuver really well at 250mph+

Doesn't do as well in the stats anymore because of it's FM characterisitcs and the inevitable tree-top slugfest you find on most servers. Keep it above and fast and swoop down on the e/a.

Slickun
06-29-2005, 01:22 PM
Tagert wrote:


I know in real life it was (at least by kill tally):

Hellcat
Mustang
Jug
Corsair
Lightning

Slick says:
Well, no. Not actually. The Hellcat is #2. The P-51 downed more planes than the Hellcat. Depending on which tally system you use, whatever source, if you total PTO, CBI, and ETO kills together, the P-51 shot down more than the Hellcat.

One credible source has the P-51 downing more in the ETO alone than the Hellcat did in the PTO.

Many sources, if you just use the PTO (Hellcat's main theatre) against the ETO (Mustang's main theatre), the Hellcat downed a few more.

The P-51 downed almost 300 in the PTO, and several hundred more in the CBI to pass the Hellcat, in even sources that "short" the P-51's totals in the ETO/MTO.

It is close, however, both over 5000 enemy A/C claimed.

horseback
06-29-2005, 01:36 PM
Maybe what he really meant was kill ratio?

The Hellcat was supposed, by all accounts, to be the easiest US fighter to fly and fight well in. Considering that it was used to land on carriers, it may have been even safer to fly combat in than the P-47, in real terms (landing on carriers conferring significant hazard factor to your combat flight to go with the usual zest of being shot at).

Certainly, it was a couple of orders of magnitude more rugged than its DM in FB/AEP/PF suggests.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
06-29-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
I know in real life it was (at least by kill tally):

Hellcat
Mustang
Jug
Corsair
Lightning

I also realize that the Kingcobra was never really used by the west. But that thing is a monster. If it flew as well in real life as it does in the game the US was stupid to let that go.
Remember that in real life, the quality of the aircraft is only a partial indicator when it comes to kill tallys. Remember that the Hellcat was up against the Japanese navy mostly and that it outperformed the opposition. Furthremore that the Hellcat also was flown by pilots with excellent training and suplemented by seasoned veterans while most Japanese navy pilots were green, poorly trained (by 1944 where most of the Hellcat kills occured), and flying slower less capable aircraft (not knocking the Zero but it wasn't as fast or tough as the Hellcat and that made a huge difference).

So that huge kill tally would be totally different in the ETO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways, I appreciate your subjective tally at the very least. Its a very good one and I more of less agree with it.

As fighters go:
P-51D-5/20 Mustang
F4U-1A/C/D Corsair
P-63C Kingcobra
P-47D-27 Thunderbolt
P-38L Lightning
P-51B/C Mustang
F6F Hellcat
P-38J Lightning
P-47D-10/22

I find it hard to rate them like this in a linear graph. I realize its an overall thing but sometimes I feel that the P-38 is the best possible fighter for the job while other times I feel the Mustang is...or the P-63 is...it really depends highly on the situation and the mission profile.

HayateAce
06-29-2005, 02:50 PM
The best United States aircraft in the game is the Lagg3. Developed in 2001 by Sam Walton, the Lagg3 proved itself from the very beginning with it's superior damage model and turn ability.

USA!

http://acn.waw.pl/sturm/Obrazki/LaGG3%20ph0.jpg

Translate: Lagg is best ~ Oleg.

horseback
06-29-2005, 02:59 PM
Comparative evaluations are tough, in the context of USN/USMC fighters vs USAAF fighters, particularly when Naval Aviators (as a group: the best in either group would fit in well in any group) were apparently a few notches better than the USAAF fighter pilots, and IJAAF and IJN a/c usually less 'capable' than the ones found in the US inventory.

However, USAAF pilots experienced in the early Pacific campaigns almost uniformly excelled in the ETO or Med (do names like Jim Howard, George Preddy, or John D. Landers ring a bell?), while ETO veterans found tough sledding trying to put the few rounds necessary into their intended Japanese victims...

That said, I believe that the Hellcat, in the Pacific context, was a better all-around fighter than any of its American contemporaries, followed by the Mustang, the F4U-4 Corsair, the Thunderbolt, and then the Lightning.

The most important qualities of a WWII fighter were survivability, flyability, and availability, in that order, and the Hellcat had all those qualities in spades.

cheers

horseback

Jasko76
06-29-2005, 03:16 PM
Mustang all the way! It's fast, maneuverable, reasonably well armed, has excellent visibility, great handling. It may be a bit fragile, but... it's difficult to hit it in the first place if flown well!

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 03:29 PM
statistics from WWII

total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air in order of most destroyed first

P-51 5,944
F6F 5,168
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,661
F4U 2,140
P-40 1,993

partial break down, the F6F destroyed more aircraft in the PTO than the P-51 did in the ETO

P-51 ETO 4,239 e/a destroyed air
F6F PTO 5,168 this figure is for both carrier and land based units

the big 3 usaaf fighters in the MTO

2,697 for the three types

P-38 1,431 53%
P-51 1,063 39%
P-47 203 8%

the big 3 usaaf army fighters in the PTO

2683 total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air

P-38 1,708 64%
P-47 696 26%
P-51 279 10%

CBI, the P-40 out scored the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined

1,259 total enemy aircraft destroyed in the air

P-40 741 59%
P-51 345 27%
P-38 157 12.5%
p-47 16 1.5%

I do not have any figures or am too lazy to look them up for the P-39, buffalo, F4F, spitfire or any other aircraft I forgot to list that the usa used in the war

in resonse to a few who included the P-51 and P-47 as better in the PTO than the P-38 was. you must consider 3 very important facts that involved fighting in the PTO

#1 the bases were very crude and short. according to the pilots manuals for those three aircraft the P-38 could take off in half the distance of a P-47 and P-51. this was a major problem in the PTO. also since the runways were very crude the P-47 and P-51 had delicate landing gear which frequently collapsed when operating from crude runways. tire blow outs on the P-47 were also frequent.

#2 in the PTO the P-47 lacked the needed range and was often left out of the fight simply because it couldnt get there.

#3 twin engine safety was actually a concern. I have read quite a bit about the USAAC in the PTO and pilots of single engined a/c always expressed the fact that they wished they had a P-38. The reasons given were, in a P-38 if you lost an engine for any reason you could usually return to base on the other, in every other fighter you were done. it was very dishartening to fly over territory and look down to see schools of sharks in the water and bailing out into jungle islands proved even more dangerous, japanese troops, head hunters, snakes, crocs, mosquitos that carried many diseases, etc etc.

WarWolfe_1
06-29-2005, 04:40 PM
From Reading numorus accounts(and this in the veiw of ww2 pilots) I would say its a toss up between the 47 and corsair. And that also could go ETO 47 PTO corsair.

huggy87
06-29-2005, 08:32 PM
Slickun and Boillo-loco,
I'm curious where you got your figures. I'm not disputing yours, they are just different than what I have seen before. Somewhere, (I'm at work now and can't look it up) I saw that the Mustangs total kill tally for all theaters was 4950. Also, I thought the P-38 was 2000 something for all theaters. Again, what I saw could have been wrong.

bolillo_loco
06-29-2005, 09:00 PM
there are several publications that give tallys. most of them base their information on some test called "something something usaaf credits for destruction of e/a study #85" and another more recent one because many consider study #85 to contain many errors, but unfortunately I have forgotten what the second study is called.

the book I mostly used was
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764314580/qid=1.../102-7682527-5908122 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764314580/qid=1120099125/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7682527-5908122)

for the P-38 I also compaired the data from this book to william wolfe's book. they are both pretty mucht he same.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/093802135...122?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0938021354/qid=1120099892/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7682527-5908122?v=glance&s=books)

the P-51 and especially the P-47 scored the bulk and majority of their victories in the ETO

in the PTO the 38 destroyed more e/a in the air than the P-51 and P-47 combined, about 75% more

in the MTO the 38 destroyed more e/a in the air than the P-51 and P-47 combined, about 13% more

general reference books will omit figures or mistate figures to promote what ever aircraft they are writting about. one common ommission is with the P-38. many books will state that the P-38 shoot down more japanese aircraft than any other fighter. a play on words, it shot down more than all of the usaaf fighters combined, but the hellcat clearly shot down over 2x as many japanese aircraft.

many books only list carrier born figures for the hellcat which is almost 5,000 even. they exclude those destroyed by land based hellcats which add another 150 ish to the tally

geetarman
06-30-2005, 08:45 AM
I would agree that prior to getting a base like those on Iwo, the P-38 was the best, most suitable USAAC fighter in the Pacific. Once the larger bases were established, the Mustangs could comfortably use them. The two engine thing was definately a big plus too!

Bringing it back down to what one prefers to enter combat with, I just think the Mustang, over all, is a good bit better than the others.

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-30-2005, 09:06 AM
In-game? As long as the planesets are historically accurate, I'd have to say the best/easiest US aircraft to score with would have to be the F4F. That's right, the F4F Wildcat! Give it enough altitude and it makes very quick work out of those flash-paper Japanese birds...even with the .50's


TB

fordfan25
06-30-2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
In the game, that P-38 L "Late" is quite impressive. I have seen a few guys really make that bird sing. And from a blue point of view, it is the one plane I dont like seeing diving in on me!

My vote for "New best" is P-38 L "Late"

yea me to as long as your not alone on the map in a 1 on 1 fight. unless that other fighter is a 190. i would say the corsair but i think it has been cut down badly in this last patch "as if it wernt alre3ady" in severl key areas such as durabilty and the fact even with radeator open it over heats VERY fast and takes a luner cycle to cool down. the new mark3 stang is the ride i feel the safest in because of its high speed but only 4X.50 and the IMO complete BS wing break in a dive keep it froom being my fav. the Jug/hellcat IMO suffers from the same crude as the F4

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 11:32 AM
One of the other problems with the P-63, in terms of USAAF service, that doesn't affect us in the game is that it required an additional type of ammunition, 37mm, that nothing else in the inventory used. It's one more thing to worry about in terms of logistics, especially in terms of the PTO. The VVS was already using 37mm rounds with the P39, so in that sense the P63 was just an improved P39 in logistics terms.

In the game the P63 seems to work well for me online. Subjectively (it might just be the luck of the draw with network lag, and so on) the 37mm gun actually seems to fire less 'rubber bullets' now. Perhaps the network code was tweaked between 3.04 and 4.01? Or it might just be that I was unlucky with connections with the P-63 under 3.04 and lucky since then.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
One of the other problems with the P-63, in terms of USAAF service, that doesn't affect us in the game is that it required an additional type of ammunition, 37mm, that nothing else in the inventory used. It's one more thing to worry about in terms of logistics, especially in terms of the PTO. The VVS was already using 37mm rounds with the P39, so in that sense the P63 was just an improved P39 in logistics terms.

In the game the P63 seems to work well for me online. Subjectively (it might just be the luck of the draw with network lag, and so on) the 37mm gun actually seems to fire less 'rubber bullets' now. Perhaps the network code was tweaked between 3.04 and 4.01? Or it might just be that I was unlucky with connections with the P-63 under 3.04 and lucky since then.

if you want to know why the USAAF was not interested in the P-63 it is very simple, it lacked range. its range was not much greater than that of the spitfire and less than what the P-47D had. The P-47 was slated to be phased out of production mostly because of range issues. Republic answered the call and produced the 47N and saved the day for the P-47.

range was the most important factor which made a fighter usefull. w/o range any positive attributes of a fighter are useless because it cannot get to the fight. the second most important thing that makes a good fighter is its ability to adapt to multiple types of missions, for ground attack being one of the most important. the P-63 lacked both range and ability to carry heavy bomb loads and rockets. I dont care how successful it was or wasnt in russia, if it would have had range it could have been even more successful. stayed well out of range of german aircraft, but still struck home. like the 8th airforce did. they were well out of range of german fighters, yet they were able to hit the german airbases and destroy enemy aircraft while they sat on the ground. the P-63 was "america's spitfire Mk IX"

the P-47 for example IMO would have been far more successful in the MTO and PTO if it had only had range.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 04:02 PM
if you want to know why the USAAF was not interested in the P-63 it is very simple, it lacked range.

I'm aware of this. I just noted that if the USAAF had gone with the P-63, even despite this, another disadvantage would have been the armament ammunition requirements.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 04:08 PM
the P-63 was "america's spitfire Mk IX"

The Spitfire IX was introduced in mid 1942, though. The Spitfire XIV arrived only just after the P-63 first saw service.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the P-63 was "america's spitfire Mk IX"

The Spitfire IX was introduced in mid 1942, though. The Spitfire XIV arrived only just after the P-63 first saw service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am well aware of when they both became available. I meant to say that they both had similar performance and were both very short ranged.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 04:59 PM
as far as the best fighter in the game...........hum well the 190A and 190D series in my opinion.

choice of 20mm or 30mm which both cause a lot of damage, ample 20mm ammo, rate of roll, dives and zooms well, fast at all altitudes, hard to knock down the list goes on and on. the only thing it doesnt do well is turn at low speeds, which is a pretty useless feature in this game simply because if you stay on the deck turning and turning at low speed somebody comes along and shoots you when your not looking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif a lot of mean people play this game.

faustnik
06-30-2005, 06:03 PM
as far as the best fighter in the game...........hum well the 190A and 190D series in my opinion.

The Fw190A has poor performance above 6,000 meters in the sim and in reality. The Dora is (and was) certainly an excellent a/c.

bolillo_loco
06-30-2005, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as far as the best fighter in the game...........hum well the 190A and 190D series in my opinion.

The Fw190A has poor performance above 6,000 meters in the sim and in reality. The Dora is (and was) certainly an excellent a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea? I moved on to the 190A series to do my testing. similar to the post on the P-38. I think you will be shocked with its performance over 6,000 meters, in regards to top speed. I havent checked climb rates yet. I have the A9, and both D9s to test for speed before I go onto climb rates.