PDA

View Full Version : Best defensive fighter of ww 2 ?



stalkervision
09-04-2009, 08:00 PM
There are primarily defensive fighters like the spitfire and primary offensive one's such as the me-109.

what do you believe to be the best defensive fighter plane of ww 2

stalkervision
09-04-2009, 08:00 PM
There are primarily defensive fighters like the spitfire and primary offensive one's such as the me-109.

what do you believe to be the best defensive fighter plane of ww 2

X32Wright
09-04-2009, 08:06 PM
In the game it would have to be the La5FN with the P-39 D series really close as well as the P-63's.

Treetop64
09-04-2009, 08:11 PM
I'd argue that the 109s were all defensive types, due to their very short oprational radius and climbing abilities. They may have been used offensively, but they were limited in that regard.

ElAurens
09-04-2009, 08:21 PM
Both the Spit and 109 were short ranged defensive fighters.

Much depends on what you are defending against.

If bombers are what are vexing you than an FW 190 would seem to be the best choice.

If marauding fighters or fighter bombers are your problem, then I'm gonna say La-7 or a late high boost Spitfire, or perhaps a Mustang or Ki84. Or a real wild card, the F8F Bearcat.

Ba5tard5word
09-04-2009, 08:21 PM
not sure what you mean by defensive.

stalkervision
09-04-2009, 09:18 PM
I will put it this way using a better example. The f4 was a offensive fighter (long range capability and lots of weapons) and the Mig 21 defensive (short range and limited offensive weapons). One is for area defense and one for wide ranging offensive operation.

The 109 was used as both offensively in the beginning stages and defensively in the later and the spit was used the same way only reversed.

In actuality these two fighters are both defensive aren't they! Sorry.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


get the idea now ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Defensive is therefore a short range fighter with limited offensive weapons capability.

CUJO_1970
09-04-2009, 10:18 PM
The FW190 is best at everything, always.

So I'm going with FW190.

megalopsuche
09-04-2009, 11:00 PM
Spitfire.

A good defensive fighter needs to have good powerloading...check.

A good defensive fighter needs to be able to avoid attack from higher enemies...check.

A good defensive fighter needs to be heavily armed...check.

A good defensive fighter should be easy to fly...check.

Add to that the fact that the Spitfire isn't slow, and you have a clear case for it being the best defensive fighter of the war.

TheCrux
09-04-2009, 11:20 PM
J2M Raiden, "on paper" as they say. Production and mechanical maladies IRL duly noted however.

TinyTim
09-05-2009, 12:48 AM
Versus low/med alt tactical intruders - La-7.

Versus high alt recce and strategic bombers - Ta-152.

GoToAway
09-05-2009, 01:15 AM
Clearly nothing is better in this role than the Defiant!

Ba5tard5word
09-05-2009, 02:51 AM
Well Allied aircraft had to play defense early on in the war then around 1942-43 when the tide turned and the Allies gained air superiority and started carpet bombing the Axis, the Axis had to use their fighters for defense.

BillSwagger
09-05-2009, 03:06 AM
Its also worth mentioning the F8F Bearcat.

Performance (F8F-2)

* Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 750 km/h)
* Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
* Service ceiling: 40,800 ft (12,436 m)
* Rate of climb: 6,300 ft/min (32.0 m/s)

Also carried an armament of 4 20mm cannons.

A quick climbing, nimble interceptor, and was also very capable of offering attack support.
Probably the most overlooked plane.

JtD
09-05-2009, 03:23 AM
I have a very simple basic concept:
fighters = defense
bombers = offense

Xiolablu3
09-05-2009, 06:51 AM
Spitfire, I'll take Adolf Galland's and Johnnie Johnson's opinion.

The Bearcat never fought in WW2, Bill.

Kettenhunde
09-05-2009, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'll take Adolf Galland's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

horseback
09-05-2009, 10:42 AM
Real Life (WWII): Spit XIVe, although my heart tells me that the P-38 would have been superb in this role from '42-'44 (what if Kelly Johnson had been born in Hamburg?)

In game: Spit VIII/IXe, although my eye sometimes wanders in the direction of the La-7...

A corrective note: the F4 Phantom II was conceived as a Fleet Defense fighter for an era where depth of defense became important because of the potential speed of an attacking force. It ended up taking on other roles simply because it was better at them than anything else in the current inventory. In a lot of ways, it is similar in this regard to the P-47.

cheers

horseback

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2009, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
There are primarily defensive fighters like the spitfire and primary offensive one's such as the me-109.

what do you believe to be the best defensive fighter plane of ww 2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see no difference. The same fighter that is classified as a defensive fighter can find itself in the role of offensive fighter rather quickly.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2009, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
The FW190 is best at everything, always.

So I'm going with FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not everything and certainly not always.

S!

TS_Sancho
09-05-2009, 12:21 PM
Best defensive fighter of WW2?

ME262 would have to take the prize wouldnt it?

Adolph Galland certainley thought so..

"In the last four months [January - April 1944] our day fighters have lost 1,000 pilots...we are numerically inferior and will always remain so...I believe that a great deal can be achieved with a small number of technically and far superior aircraft such as the [Me] 262 and [Me] 163...I would at this moment rather have one Me 262 in action rather than five Bf 109s. I used to say three 109s, but the situation develops and changes"

PanzerAce
09-05-2009, 12:29 PM
Sancho, the -262 is untouchable, sure....once it's up to altitude and speed, which takes awhile, which renders it incapable of being a good defensive fighter IMHO.

I would say the griffon spits were some of the best defensive fighters on paper and in theory, but in practice, it probably goes to the 109 simply for the amount of use it got.

TS_Sancho
09-05-2009, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sancho, the -262 is untouchable, sure....once it's up to altitude and speed, which takes awhile, which renders it incapable of being a good defensive fighter IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respectfully disagree. The ingame representation of the 262 (which is a reasonably close approximation) has a climbrate of 25 meters a second at 500kph at sealevel.

It doesnt take much time at all to get where you need to go with that kind of performance.

Its armorment of 4 30mm cannon complemented with 24 aerial rockets is superior to anything else of the time.

Any aircraft caught low is at a extreme disadvantage. As you stated the ME262 was untouchable by piston powered escort aircraft at its operational speed so the only reasonable opportunity the allied fighters had was to catch it at takeoff/landing.

The griffon spits and late model BF109's were fantastic performers but they were rendered obsolete the day the first operational ME262's took to the air.

R_Target
09-05-2009, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
A quick climbing, nimble interceptor, and was also very capable of offering attack support.
Probably the most overlooked plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sure, and just a few days late for the action with the first two operational squadrons on their way west when things wrapped up. My other vote is for Spitfire. Jets DQ'ed for loiter time.

Stiletto-
09-06-2009, 12:31 AM
While I really can not say the best, one can't argue the defensive abilities of the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain or the Gladiator in the defensive of Malta.

Stiletto-
09-06-2009, 12:33 AM
Or the Lerche in the defensive of UFO's! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry had a few drinks tonight and we were talking about how there have been more UFO sightings lately, and aparently some unknown species of creature found in perue. The Lerche's excellent climb rate would be good fore reconing the clouds after unidentified sightings have taken place. Or maybe people would just report more UFO's after mistaking the Lerche for them.

Pigeon_
09-06-2009, 06:16 PM
I'll go for anything that climbs fast and is well armed.

doraemil
09-07-2009, 03:31 AM
Best defense is a strong offense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



I think it would have to be the fighter that can can speed away and escape other fighters.


One that allows you dictate the fight because you can dive and your speed gets you away.

I don't have one in mind because as soon as I go on the defensive, Murphy's law kicks in and bailing out, fanning out flames, having a doc waste valuable alcohol on wounds etc.

WOLFMondo
09-07-2009, 04:22 AM
Probably either a Spit or 109. Climb rate is everything for a defensive aircraft and those two have it.

Bremspropeller
09-07-2009, 08:37 AM
F8F, no contetst - brings "Fw 190-ism" to a new level http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ElAurens
09-07-2009, 09:04 AM
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles.

Gammelpreusse
09-07-2009, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And all were obsolete at that time. One wonders how aircraft design would have developed if not for the invention of the jet engine. How would fighters look today.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2009, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed off the Dehavilland SeaHornet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
09-08-2009, 04:19 PM
So I did, and that is a tragic omission.

A beautiful and fast bird.

horseback
09-11-2009, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And all were obsolete at that time. One wonders how aircraft design would have developed if not for the invention of the jet engine. How would fighters look today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not necessarily. Jet engines were extremely cranky and unreliable through the late forties, and the fact is that military jets of the fifties drilled a lot more holes in the ground than they ever did in each other...it took about ten years for the science and engineering to start to pull even with the potential.

In the meantime, piston aircraft had greater range and quite often, payload, better acceleration from cruise or landing speeds, and were far safer and more reliable. It was not just stubbornness that led to most postwar air forces maintaining a substantial force of propellor driven combat aircraft into the early sixties--and they remained superior for some tasks until the '70s.

The last generation of Allied piston fighters were delayed because the generation of fighters before them had proved more than adequate for the task. Once they had proven successful, and the Axis had demonstrated their inability to field serious numbers of competitive fighters in mid-'44, the push to furnish the troops with the latest and greatest diminished.

cheers

horseback

TS_Sancho
09-11-2009, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And all were obsolete at that time. One wonders how aircraft design would have developed if not for the invention of the jet engine. How would fighters look today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not necessarily. Jet engines were extremely cranky and unreliable through the late forties, and the fact is that military jets of the fifties drilled a lot more holes in the ground than they ever did in each other...it took about ten years for the science and engineering to start to pull even with the potential.

In the meantime, piston aircraft had greater range and quite often, payload, better acceleration from cruise or landing speeds, and were far safer and more reliable. It was not just stubbornness that led to most postwar air forces maintaining a substantial force of propellor driven combat aircraft into the early sixties--and they remained superior for some tasks until the '70s.

The last generation of Allied piston fighters were delayed because the generation of fighters before them had proved more than adequate for the task. Once they had proven successful, and the Axis had demonstrated their inability to field serious numbers of competitive fighters in mid-'44, the push to furnish the troops with the latest and greatest diminished.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Controlling the airspace over the Korean paeninsula wasnt decided by P51's and Yak9's, it was decided between jets.

squareusr
09-11-2009, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
(what if Kelly Johnson had been born in Hamburg?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would have met Edgar Schmued on a sea voyage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Really the question is are we talking about defense on a strategic level? Then it's interceptors with climb and firepower (think of the Mig3U that seems to be able to climb faster than it can descend without breaking up).

Individual survivability? Then it's 90% speed, 8% armor and then the rest. If you need to get the pilot from A to B you put him in a Do 335.

Being a real pain to pick off one by one? Then turning suddenly becomes surprisingly important, that's what you needed to blow enemies off the tails of your mates. "Ability to fight when forced into a position of inferiority" could be the most valid definition of defense. In the end it boils down to energy again, but then we are leaving the given topic of "defensive".

horseback
09-11-2009, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
On this we can agree Brems.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In general the Allies last generation of piston fighters were a stunning collection.

P/F-82 Twin Mustang

P-51H

F7F Tigercat

F8F Bearcat

Sea Fury

Spit XXIV

La-9

All amazing performers at their various roles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And all were obsolete at that time. One wonders how aircraft design would have developed if not for the invention of the jet engine. How would fighters look today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not necessarily. Jet engines were extremely cranky and unreliable through the late forties, and the fact is that military jets of the fifties drilled a lot more holes in the ground than they ever did in each other...it took about ten years for the science and engineering to start to pull even with the potential.

In the meantime, piston aircraft had greater range and quite often, payload, better acceleration from cruise or landing speeds, and were far safer and more reliable. It was not just stubbornness that led to most postwar air forces maintaining a substantial force of propellor driven combat aircraft into the early sixties--and they remained superior for some tasks until the '70s.

The last generation of Allied piston fighters were delayed because the generation of fighters before them had proved more than adequate for the task. Once they had proven successful, and the Axis had demonstrated their inability to field serious numbers of competitive fighters in mid-'44, the push to furnish the troops with the latest and greatest diminished.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Controlling the airspace over the Korean paeninsula wasnt decided by P51's and Yak9's, it was decided between jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My point was that at the time jets were first introduced, they had some serious flaws that limited their combat effectiveness. Most jets designed in the forties could barely compete with late generation piston fighters unless they had gotten to altitude and up to speed.

They had no acceleration to speak of, pitiful payloads and even less range.

In 1951, when the MiG-15 and the Sabrejet entered combat, the P-51D and Yak-9 were <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">8 year old designs, </span>and their range and payload capacities still exceeded those of the MiG-15 and F-86; those two jet designs were couple of generations ahead of the prop fighters, and considering how long it took for the competition to catch up, were probably fortunate accidents rather than examples of designer brilliance.

F-80s, F-84s and Meteors were the other major jet designs in Korea, and they barely ahead of the next generation prop fighters like the F4U-4/5 or the Sea Fury, and then only once they got up to speed. The major reasons they saw as much use as they did was because the front lines were so close to the MiGs based in the North. Had the UN forces tried to interdict the MiG bases, there would have been much more use of longer ranged prop fighters and attack aircraft.

A modern jet (i.e., mid '70s designs and later) can truly be said to be ready to fight almost as soon as they get their wheels up, and the last generation of propellor fighters were pretty close to that standard thirty years before that.

cheers

horseback

JG27Rails
09-11-2009, 09:45 PM
I don't know why there are 2 pages of this. all "fighter" planes are consider defensive weapons.

now i know what all of you are going to say what about bombing and strafing. and really it depends on the role. but all fighters are based on the premise of keeping other fighters or attack/bomber aircraft away from your friendly troops, planes, boats what have you.

if any fighter were considered offensive in it's purpose, it would be more of an attack/bomber.

but since this is a post about best defensive fighter i'd have to go with the 109 since it's my favorite.

CUJO_1970
09-12-2009, 06:02 AM
This was the most successful night time defensive fighter of the war:

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW4/Me110-G4-52.jpg

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW7/Me110-G4-05f.jpg