Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Best Fighter plane of WWII

124 views
Skip to first unread message

AngelAlita<...>

unread,
Oct 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/15/00
to
Hi,

This is an old one but I thought I'd throw it out again (since we talked a
little while ago about the heaviest armed fighter plane)

What is the best fighter plane of WWII. In other words, put them together in
combat and who would win most times? Of course, technological developments
are important so I'll seperate them in years.

1939
(I'd chose ME109)

1940
(Spitfiremk2)

1941
(A6M2 Zero)


1942
(Focker Wulf)


1943
(Hellcat)


1944
(Mustang)


1945
(Me210)


and overall, considering who shouldered the most burdens, lasted the
longest....and still could fight reasonable well.... I'd chose the Spitfire
model.... what would you chose?


DDI

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to
In what roles?

Fighter Interceptor - Spitfire
Bomber Interceptor - Fw 190
Bomber Escort - North American P51D (Mustang)
"Circus" (offensive fighter sweep) - Hawker Tempest
Ground Attack - Typhoon perhaps (I'm not well-versed in these types)
Anti-Armor - Rocket firing Typhoon

[Slight disclaimer: I haven't given a ton of thought to these and only
considered the air war in western Europe. I'm more interested in hearing
others opinions than criticisms of mine.]


--

ngelAlita<...> <donotsendsp...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8sctf2$evri$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

Risto Tammela

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
DDI <sorry@too_much_spam.com> wrote:
> In what roles?

> Anti-Armor - Rocket firing Typhoon

I would choose Ju 87 G? Has the most impressing record.


Funny thing is that if you compare kill ratios of the fihters, the
Brewster Buffalo with a Finnish pilot has the best. 32 to 1.

t:rike

David Thornley

unread,
Oct 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/17/00
to
In article <8sg4jp$auc2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,

DDI <sorry@too_much_spam.com> wrote:
>In what roles?
>
>Fighter Interceptor - Spitfire

The Spitfire was the outstanding fighter of the war, but generally
was rather short-ranged. I agree with this.

>Bomber Interceptor - Fw 190

It did very well at the role.

>Bomber Escort - North American P51D (Mustang)

A good fighter with great range.

>"Circus" (offensive fighter sweep) - Hawker Tempest
>Ground Attack - Typhoon perhaps (I'm not well-versed in these types)

The Thunderbolt deserves consideration here, although the Typhoon
probably has the edge because of its rockets. Why would the Tempest
be superior for a fighter sweep? These comments should also apply
to the Fw 190, which was an excellent ground-attack plane.

>Anti-Armor - Rocket firing Typhoon
>

Nope. Rockets were far too inaccurate to be reliable tank-killers.
The only aircraft weapon that could reliably take out tanks was
the cannon. The Ju 87 was probably the best here, but it resembles
a fighter in the sense that I resemble a good shortstop or ballerina.
What fighters used heavy cannon against tanks? The Hurricane II did,
but that use was discontinued due to flak. The Sturmovik again was
not a fighter, but is arguably the best anti-tank aircraft. Didn't
the Fw 190 get used in this role?

The Typhoon was very effective against armor formations, as it did
take out supporting vehicles and had a tremendous morale effect,
often causing the less experienced German tankers to abandon their
tanks. (The more experienced ones had realized that the inside
of the tank was the safest place to be, but Typhoon and Thunderbolt
attacks tended to leave abandoned tanks behind.)

Carrier fighter: Corsair.
Very long-range fighter: Lightning.

The Soviet fighters were often good, but I don't think any of them quite
qualify here. The Italians produced some good designs when they got
the engines, and they might have a claim. If we get outside roles
and into less relevant details, the Italians produced the best biplane
fighter and the Japanese probably produced the most maneuverable
monoplane fighter.

>[Slight disclaimer: I haven't given a ton of thought to these and only
>considered the air war in western Europe. I'm more interested in hearing
>others opinions than criticisms of mine.]
>

Since I don't think the Japanese did all that well (partly due to
a lack of suitable engines, much like the Italians), that pretty
much leaves carrier fighters, which tended to be inferior to land-based
types, although not necessarily by much. The Soviets, as mentioned,
had good designs, although there's not one category in which a Soviet
plane seems better than the German or US or British equivalent.
If we were considering the top three in a category, I'd expect to
see Soviet planes showing up.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-


Jim Garner

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to

So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB with
80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody. an...@ncf.ca
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada

"Epargnez de l'eau; buvez du vin"

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
David Thornley wrote:

> >Fighter Interceptor - Spitfire
>
> The Spitfire was the outstanding fighter of the war, but generally
> was rather short-ranged. I agree with this.

If the Spit was the outstanding fighter of the war, why did it
have a kill ratio of less than 1.0 against German fighters in
the first 3 1/2 years of the war? At best, it equalled but did
not exceed the performance of its primary opponents until the Mk
14 became common in late 44 early 1945. It was a great aircraft
but its high rating has more to do with its beautiful lines and
pure flying characteristics than its ability as a fighter.

> >Bomber Interceptor - Fw 190
>
> It did very well at the role.

And there's really no competition since only German aircraft
are in the running.


>
> >Bomber Escort - North American P51D (Mustang)
>
> A good fighter with great range.

The P-51 consistently gets under rated. It was a better
fighter than comparable Spitfires in the most critical
features of speed, range, and armament. It could not
match the late model Spits as a pure interceptor, but
that was irrelevant as there was little or no need for
a pure interceptor after 1940.


> >"Circus" (offensive fighter sweep) - Hawker Tempest
> >Ground Attack - Typhoon perhaps (I'm not well-versed in these types)
>
> The Thunderbolt deserves consideration here, although the Typhoon
> probably has the edge because of its rockets. Why would the Tempest
> be superior for a fighter sweep? These comments should also apply
> to the Fw 190, which was an excellent ground-attack plane.

I don't see how you can rate the typhoon above the P-47. P-47s
carried rockets as well and could handle larger bomb loads than
the typhoon. The P-47 was more rugged than the typhoon and could
more than hold its own as a fighter once it shed its bombs or
rockets. The typhoon in contrast was a bust as a fighter.


Cub driver

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to

>Since I don't think the Japanese did all that well (partly due to
>a lack of suitable engines, much like the Italians), that pretty
>much leaves carrier fighters, which tended to be inferior to land-based
>types, although not necessarily by much. The Soviets, as mentioned,

The Zero was certainly the outstanding fighter in the Pacific theater
in 1941-42. While the Wildcat fought it to a draw in the first six
months of the war, the Wildcat was on the defensive, and the Zero's
role was in the offense.

The army's "Zero" was the Ki-43 Hayabusa aka Oscar. It too could fly
500 miles, fight, and return home on internal fuel, a truly remarkable
accomplishment. However, the Hayabusa had a structural defect that
could result in its shedding its wings in high-g combat, it was very
poorly armed (one 12.x mm + one 7.7 in the original; two 12.x in
production models), and the early models didn't have a reliable radio.
For all these reasons--plus it was available only in very limited
quantities--the navy had to assign Zeros to the Malaya campaign, which
should have been entirely an army show.

The Japanese breakout of December 1941 would literally have been
impossible without the Zero. It belongs in any list of outstanding
WWII fighters, even if you have to create a new category for it.

all the best - Dan Ford

Remains (a novel of the Flying Tigers)
http://danford.net/remains.htm


Yama

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to

AngelAlita<...> <donotsendsp...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8sctf2$evri$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> What is the best fighter plane of WWII. In other words, put them together
in
> combat and who would win most times?

It is not so simple. If we put, say, P-38L and P-51D against each other,
P-38 would win most of the time, but when we include cost and required
strategic materials, we see that for every P-38 you get two P-51's. Other
important strategic factor can be range. "P-51 doesn't do everything
Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin".

> 1940
> (Spitfiremk2)

Really a little to choose between MkII and later Emils.

> 1941
> (A6M2 Zero)

Only remarkable thing about Zero was it's range. Otherwise it is clearly
inferior to say Bf-109F, Spitfire V, Macchi Folgore or Yak-1.

> 1943
> (Hellcat)

I'd really take P-38, P-47, Spitfire IX etc over Hellcat most of the time.

> 1944
> (Mustang)

P-38L, Spitfire XIV.

> 1945
> (Me210)

You surely are meaning Me 262, 210 was somewhat inferior earlier heavy
fighter. At any rate, 262 really wasn't spectacular fighter, albeit a
tremendous interceptor.

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
In article <8sk2j0$5td$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>,
Jim Garner <an...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:

>So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
>Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB with
>80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?

1. Hurricanes (and Spitfires, and Gladiators, and Defiants, and Blenheim
1Fs) were operating over their own bases, so they could stay in the
combat area. Bf109s were an absolute minimum of 40-odd miles from home
and couldn't linger as long.

2. Hurricanes (and the others) were directed in their attacks by radar.
The german fighters weren't.

3. Hurricanes (and the others) had only to avoid being shot down by
enemy fighters while chewing up the bombers. The Bfs had to engage
the fighters.

4. Britain was building Hurricanes (and Spitfires) about twice as
fast as Germany was building Bf109s. We started with more fighters
than the germans and the numbers became more and more uneven through
the summer.

5. Britain was training pilots much faster than the germans. This
and (4) meant that more and more fighters were coming in as the
summer went on, and the odds were turning more and more against
the Germans.

6. The quality difference between Spitfire Is, Emils and Hurricane
IIs was within the variation of pilot ability. In good hands a
Spitfire was probably better than an Emil was better than a Hurricane,
but the stability and easy handling of the Hurricane made it a potent
weapon even in reletively unskilled hands - particularly against
bombers, where its concentrated firepower was superior to the Spit.
And knocking the bombers down was what it was about.

7. The BoB was unwinnable for the Germans anyway. If they'd kept up
their big anti-airfield attacks then they might have forced the
RAF to withdraw from the south coast, but all this would have done
would be to force the Kriegsmarine to find another reason why they
couldn't launch an invasion [1]

[1] Apart from "We have no equipment or experience" and "We'll wiped
out before we even see the beaches", that is.

--
Andy Breen ~ PPARC Advanced Research Fellow, Interplanetary Scintillation
Solar Physics Group, UW Aberystwyth
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)


Michal Rosa

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
"Jim Garner" <an...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:8sk2j0$5td$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...

>
>
> So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
> Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB with
> 80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?

Better pilots, better tactics.

--
Michal
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d s+:+ a- C++++ SU P+ L+ !E W-- N++ o+ K- w O+ !M V PS+ PE+ Y PGP- t+
5++ X++ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ D--- G++ e++>+++ h--- r+++ z+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
Jim Garner wrote:
>
> So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
> Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB with
> 80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?


I'd say the 109 was considerably better than the Spitfire
in 1940. The BoB was won by shooting down bombers, not
in fighter v. figher combat. The German fighters shot down
more RAF fighters than they lost, but the RAF took an enormous
toll on the bombers.

Was the RAF really 80% Hurricanes. My impression was that in
combat units it was more like 2:1 Hurricanes.

Jim Erickson


Yama

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to

David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:8sifai$g81c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> In article <8sg4jp$auc2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> DDI <sorry@too_much_spam.com> wrote:
> >Bomber Interceptor - Fw 190
>
> It did very well at the role.

Problem is inferior altitude performance of BMW 801-engines. So FW 190 was
not really able to challenge escorts, and it took a while to climb to
bombing altitudes as well. Personally I'd say Me 262 was best bomber
interceptor.

> >"Circus" (offensive fighter sweep) - Hawker Tempest
> >Ground Attack - Typhoon perhaps (I'm not well-versed in these types)
>
> The Thunderbolt deserves consideration here, although the Typhoon
> probably has the edge because of its rockets. Why would the Tempest
> be superior for a fighter sweep?

I really can't think anything where Typhoon is superior to Tempest, except
being a bit easier to build. Tempest had same ground-attack abilities, plus
it was faster and more maneuverable.

> >Anti-Armor - Rocket firing Typhoon
> >
> Nope. Rockets were far too inaccurate to be reliable tank-killers.
> The only aircraft weapon that could reliably take out tanks was
> the cannon.

This is true (heavy bombs over 250kg and bigger were good too) but in grand
picture rockets are better that guns, because with rockets it is easier to
destroy support installations (support vehicles, fuel/maintenance depots and
such) which result to helpless tank.

> The Soviet fighters were often good, but I don't think any of them quite
> qualify here. The Italians produced some good designs when they got
> the engines, and they might have a claim. If we get outside roles
> and into less relevant details, the Italians produced the best biplane
> fighter

Really, which is that?:)
I'd pick I-153 Chaika any day.

> Since I don't think the Japanese did all that well (partly due to
> a lack of suitable engines, much like the Italians), that pretty
> much leaves carrier fighters, which tended to be inferior to land-based
> types, although not necessarily by much. The Soviets, as mentioned,

> had good designs, although there's not one category in which a Soviet
> plane seems better than the German or US or British equivalent.

I've heard that lot of people thought that Yak-3 was superior to Spitifire
below 3000 meters. Ultimate variant, Yak-3U missed the war slightly, though.
If we include prewar fighters, I-16 was quite superior between 1935-37.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/18/00
to
Yama wrote:

> > 1941
> > (A6M2 Zero)
>
> Only remarkable thing about Zero was it's range. Otherwise it is clearly
> inferior to say Bf-109F, Spitfire V, Macchi Folgore or Yak-1.

I'd argue the Zero was better than the Spit 5. The Spitfire's strengths
were its turning ability and its climb and the Zero bested it on both
counts. Zeros were bettered by fighters like the P-40 which could exploit
high speed dives and which had good roll characteristics. Unfortunately
these were among the Spit's weaknesses. Basically its a situation where
if you pit the Spit 5 against the Zero the Japanese plane had better
performance when you compare the strengths of the two airplanes and worse
performance when you compare their weaknesses. In the Zero v. P-40 contest
one plane's strength was the other's weakness.

Jim Erickson

Timothy J. Lee

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
In article <8sifai$g81c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>Carrier fighter: Corsair.

Didn't the Corsair initially have trouble landing safely on carrier
decks and was given to land based USMC squadrons at first?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.


ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
In article <8sk2j0$5td$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>, an...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jim
Garner) wrote:

> So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
> Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB
> with
> 80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?

By a division of effort and the fact that when the Germans switched to
attacking London the ME109 was operating close to it's range limit. IIRC
they had 15 minutes of cruise endurance to spare. By the way the Hurricane
was considered better for attacking bombers than the Mk1 Spitfire as it
was a more stable gun platform.
On a personal note I used to know a Hurricane pilot (sadly now deceased)
and he considered his plane was definitely inferior to the 109.

Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion


Greg Utrecht

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
If I had a job to do that required WWII airpower, I'd use a Mosquito.
Some models had the biggest gun ever mounted on a fighter, a 57mm 6
pounder that was used to attack submarines. The Mossy could usually
outrun an Me109 or FW 190.

It was effective as a night fighter against bombers, was also usefull
"stooging stealthily" around German Air Bases according to Edward
Bishop's book _Mosquito_ It was also ideal for locating German target
cities with Oboe or Gee navigation systems because "it could fly with
reasonable safety on a steady course through fighter defended and gun
defended areas where any other bomber flying on a straight course would
probably be destroyed" according to Sir Arthur Harris.

I believe this is also a case where German propaganda continues to
affect conventional wisdom. According to Bishop's book German
propagandists broadcast that the British were so starved for materials
they were forced to make planes out of wood.

Finally back in May 1997 this NG had first hand reports of it being
"very difficult" to detect with German 1 meter radar. To quote Heinz
Altmann:

"I was a crew member of a Wuerzburg 38 TD radar operating as part of a
88mm flak battery
in the defense of Stuttgart in 1943, and I would like to say:
1.- This radar was not difficult to operate. I was sixteen years old at
the time and had no
problems.
2 - These radar were not "new" technology. Made by Telefunken, which
showed the first
production unit in 1939, they were a well-ripened machine by 1943.
German radar
development was well ahead of the British early in the war.
3- The DeHaviland "Mosquito"
was indeed very difficult, if not impossible, to acquire and track on
these radars. I remember
an incident that will illustrate this fact: The Stuttgart airport, at
Echterdingen, was about 4
miles from our battery. A squadron of night fighters was stationed
there. This incident
happened at night. There had been an airraid. The all-clear had
sounded, and the runway
lights came on to allow the fighters to land. A Mosquito had loitered
about, probably at a
fairly low altitude, and it pounced on them. We had not seen it on our
radar, though its range
was about 15 miles. If there is any interest, I would like to
participate in a thread on WWII
radars. -- Heinz Altmann (HCAl...@aol.com)"

Goering tried to make a jet out of wood, the He-163. One of these
planes is sitting in hanger in Chino California not too far from me. I
checked and I am pretty sure the jet engine was wider longer and deeper
than the British designed 1cm radar.

I'd pick the Mossy.

Greg Utrecht

"AngelAlita<...>" <donotsendsp...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in
message news:8sctf2$evri$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> Hi,
>
> This is an old one but I thought I'd throw it out again (since we
talked a
> little while ago about the heaviest armed fighter plane)
>

> What is the best fighter plane of WWII. In other words, put them
together in

Cub driver

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

>So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
>Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB with
>80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?

The defense has a huge advantage, particularly with such short-legged
a/c as the Europeans were building at that time. The Bf 109 could
fight for only a very few minutes over Britain, especially on escort
missions to London. Furthermore, the role of the Hurri was generally
to attack the bomber force, while the higher-flying Spit engaged the
German escorts. I don't know if your 80 percent figure is accurate,
but even if it is, the less-numerous Spits would have done most of the
fighter-to-fighter combat.

Inferior planes needn't give inferior results. The AVG Flying Tigers
did very well indeed with the P-40, which the British regarded as not
up to the job of defending the home island, so they sent it to the
western desert campaign.

Indeed, the P-40 in the hands of the AVG produced far better results
than the Hurricane in the hands of the RAF in Burma.


all the best - Dan Ford

Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault & the American Volunteer Group
http://www.danford.net/book.htm
"War history as it should be written." (The Hook)

Yama

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8sl0k9$2je$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...

> Yama wrote:
> > Only remarkable thing about Zero was it's range. Otherwise it is clearly
> > inferior to say Bf-109F, Spitfire V, Macchi Folgore or Yak-1.
>
> I'd argue the Zero was better than the Spit 5. The Spitfire's strengths
> were its turning ability and its climb and the Zero bested it on both
> counts. Zeros were bettered by fighters like the P-40 which could exploit
> high speed dives and which had good roll characteristics. Unfortunately
> these were among the Spit's weaknesses.

I don't wholly agree. I haven't seen any hint that Spitfire V was bad
diver.
Early variants, with fabric ailerons had problems but metal ailerons
helped.
As I recall, later Spitfire variants were considered quite good at dive,
not
as good than say P-47/51 or FW 190 but ok. And at any rate, any Spitfire
variant was certainly better in dive than A6M2.

As for climb I don't have exact figures, but my reference in hand gives 7.5
minutes to 6100m (20kft) for Spit V and 7.4 minutes to 6000m for A6M2.
Doesn't sound like big difference, though they might be wrong. Btw Spitfire
has better power loading.

It is true that Zero could outturn Spit (dunno about roll), OTOH Spitfire
was considerably faster, had better armament and was better protected.

And as I recall, P-40's initially didn't exactly kick Zero's butt.

In fairness, considering strategic reasons again Zero surely was best
fighter for Pacific theatre at 1941-42, because of range. Spitfire would
have been rather useless for Japanese.

Harri Pihl

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
Jim Erickson kirjoitti:

> I'd argue the Zero was better than the Spit 5. The Spitfire's strengths
> were its turning ability and its climb and the Zero bested it on both
> counts. Zeros were bettered by fighters like the P-40 which could exploit
> high speed dives and which had good roll characteristics. Unfortunately
> these were among the Spit's weaknesses.

Well, Spitfire V had new metal covered ailerons which increased roll
rate a lot. And it should be noted that clipped wing low altitude
Spitfires had even better roll rate. There is pretty good aileron
comparison with 50lbs stick force containing values for all three
mentioned planes in one Naca document (NACA 868, p. 166 in the original
document and p. 42 in the PDF). You can download it in PDF-format from
or you can browse it directly from this page:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

50lbs stick force was USAAF requirement for testing (Navy required
30lbs) but in practice average pilots could do 60-75-lbs, so normal
pilot could do better roll rates. Against the Zero the Spitfire V had
clear speed, roll and dive advantage, if right tactics were used then
the Zero was in clear disadvantage.

--
Harri Pihl

firstname....@pois.nic.fi

To email put my name before att sign and remove pois.

Cub driver

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

>The army's "Zero" was the Ki-43 Hayabusa aka Oscar. It too could fly
>500 miles, fight, and return home on internal fuel, a truly remarkable
>accomplishment. However, the Hayabusa had a structural defect that

Sorry, got carried away there. The Hayabusa (and the Zero) flew
outbound on a centerline drop tank, then fought and flew home on
internal fuel.

all the best - Dan Ford

Incident at Muc Wa (a novel of war in South Vietnam)
"Sad, bawdy, and compelling" -- Detroit Free Press
http://danford.net/mucwa.htm

Incon28443

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
i would have to disagree on a number of years 1939-1942 the ijn a6m
zeke
models 2-5,
1943 the F6F-3 / F4U-2a
1944-45 the ME262-a

binnacle

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

"Jim Erickson" <j wrote in message

> Jim Garner wrote:
> >
> > So if the ME 109 of 1940 equalled the Spit and was superior to the
> > Hurricane, as most folk seem to agree, how come the RAF won the BoB
with
> > 80 percent of its fighter strength in Hurricanes?
snip

>
> Was the RAF really 80% Hurricanes. My impression was that in
> combat units it was more like 2:1 Hurricanes.

During B.O.B. the Hurricane equipped twice as many (36) Fighter Command
squadrons and accounted for 477 more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire. The
Hurricane units accounted for some 1593 kills, averaging 44.25 enemy
aircraft destroyed per squadron. Spitfire squadrons averaged 60+ per
squadron.

Source - B.O.B. by Jon Lake
ISBN 1-85605-535-3

Bill W


David Thornley

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 8:20:50 PM10/19/00
to
In article <8sn78v$efqo$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,

Timothy J. Lee <remo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <8sifai$g81c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>>Carrier fighter: Corsair.
>
>Didn't the Corsair initially have trouble landing safely on carrier
>decks and was given to land based USMC squadrons at first?
>
Yup. It also went to the British, and the Fleet Air Arm was the
first to use them on carriers. (It's been speculated here recently
that they landed in a somewhat different manner, making the visibility
problem less important.) In late 1944, it was used on US carriers, and
from my rather scanty postwar sources seems to have lasted longer in
service than the Hellcat.

The Zero was a very important carrier fighter earlier in the war,
but primarily for its range. Western fighters could match or beat
it, given proper tactics, which were not always employed. Part
of the mystique of the Zero probably comes from the pilots. The IJN
started the war with incredibly good pilots, who could make any crate
look good. Once most of these pilots were dead, the Zero seems to
have become less dangerous.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Yama wrote:

> I don't wholly agree. I haven't seen any hint that Spitfire V was bad
> diver.
> Early variants, with fabric ailerons had problems but metal ailerons
> helped.
> As I recall, later Spitfire variants were considered quite good at dive,
> not
> as good than say P-47/51 or FW 190 but ok. And at any rate, any Spitfire
> variant was certainly better in dive than A6M2.

Spitfires were never good divers, at least with respect to combat.
Late models did achieve very high speeds in dives but they were
always slow to initiate the dives which meant their opponents
could very often escape by diving. The early Mk 1s and 2's with
their float type carburators are justly criticized but the
later models never came close to matching their German opponents
or their Allied contemporaries in that critical parameter.

Jim Erickson

Fred Paxton

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
1944 mustang " D " model ---I've been told it was better than the ME2
because of fuel consumption. The ME2 had a very limited fuel supply and
could only engage for short periods. Aside from that, the Mustang was
one beautiful airplane at the right time.


ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
In article <8sn78v$efqo$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
Timothy J. Lee <remo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <8sifai$g81c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>>Carrier fighter: Corsair.
>
>Didn't the Corsair initially have trouble landing safely on carrier
>decks and was given to land based USMC squadrons at first?

The USN seems to have had trouble with it to start with, but the
FAA found a work-around quite quickly and adopted the BWBfC
with alacrity - FAA pilots seem to have had a much higher regard
for the Corsair than for the Hellcat, which was rapidly relegated
to the older and smaller 'carriers.

In the FAA's opinion, the quality-ranking of fighters available in 1944
or so seems to have been:

Corsair
Seafire
Firefly
Hellcat
Wildcat
Sea Hurricane (vanishing from service by then)

Chuck521

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Yama wrote

>Jim Erickson

> wrote

>It is true that Zero could outturn Spit (dunno about roll), OTOH Spitfire
>was considerably faster, had better armament and was better protected.
>
>And as I recall, P-40's initially didn't exactly kick Zero's butt.

Spitfire Vs were badly beaten up by Zeros in Australia at the same time that
P-40s (Ks and Ns mostly) were fairly easily dealing with it. Imagine the
difference was tactics and pilot experience (including that passed on by
earlier veterans). From what I understand, the Spitfire pilots tried to
dogfight the Zeros and lost, while the P-40 pilots avoided doing that and made
efforts to keep their speed up.


Chris Manteuffel

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
On 20 Oct 2000 00:20:50 GMT, thor...@visi.com (David Thornley)
arranged electrons in an arbitrary pattern familiar to all as:

> In late 1944, it was used on US carriers, and
>from my rather scanty postwar sources seems to have lasted longer in
>service than the Hellcat.

VF 17 and VF-16 both were equipped with Corsairs, and worked
throughout shake out and all the way to Hawaii with the Corsair. VF-17
was given the F4U-1 variant which reduced landing problems, but they
were taken off Bunker Hill anyway, because VF-16 had already
transitioned to the F6F, so they would have been the only Corsair
squadron in the Fleet. So they operated with the Marines instead
(VF-18 replaced them on Bunker Hill). This was early 1943. I don't
have my copy of "The Jolly Rogers" with me, so I can't provide the
exact date.

Chris Manteuffel
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..."
-Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Remove something from email address

Lawrence Dillard

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Without intending to insult anyone:

1) in Europe, at any given juncture, give me any aircraft remotely
comparable to yours, so long as you also furnish me with Finns to pilot
them. I wouldn't need odds given, I'd be happy with my chances. As a rule,
it was not so much the a/c as it was the person behind the stick. The Finns
were astonishingly successful in selecting their pilots.

1A) Spitfire, with two-stage supercharger (climb, acceleration, turn rate
from sea-level to above 30,000 ft; firepower, growth potential)

1B) Tempest with developed Sabre engine (speed, speed, speed at low levels;
maneuverable; devastating in ground attack role

MIGHT HAVE BEENS

1) Mustang with RR Griffon engine; all its known attributes, magnified
2) P-38 with high-altitude Merlin engine; all its known attributes,
magnified
(And give me Finns to operate them).

2) in the Far East and the Pacific:
a) early days, Dec., 1941--August, 1942; Zero-Sen (range, agility and
factor of suprise); F4 Wildcat (rugged, good roll and dive characteristics,
sufficient firepower; but needed confident pilots with an idea of how to
compete with the Zero-Sen)

b) mid-war years, 1943-1944; P-38 (range, versatility, lifting capacity
and firepower, but above all else, range)

c) Final stages, Jan., 1945,to end of war: Close call between P-51 and
P-38 (endurance, versatlity and firepower); Hayabusa for intercept

Thanks for the post.

anker...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
In article <8sctf2$evri$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
"AngelAlita<...>" <donotsendsp...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> What is the best fighter plane of WWII.

A meaningless question. Fighters were remarkably use-specific. The
issues of range, aircraft-carrier-able, armour, when introduced,
intended use all enter in. Even one-on-one does not help. How
good was the Mustang right after it took off with a full fuel
load? How good was the Me210 500 miles from base? (Couldn't
get there? That means 'no good at all'.) If you mean carrier
based (or base-able), then none of the fighters you mentioned
are on the list of contenders.

Which fighting ship was the best? Consider the LST vs. the
aircraft carrier. At Normandy, I would say the LST. But,
that does not mean that I would have used LSTs to sink the
Japanese fleet.

GFH


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

genrl_m...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 8:49:03 PM10/20/00
to
In article <8sl0k9$2je$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>,

Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Yama wrote:
>
> > > 1941
> > > (A6M2 Zero)
> >
> > Only remarkable thing about Zero was it's range. Otherwise it is
clearly
> > inferior to say Bf-109F, Spitfire V, Macchi Folgore or Yak-1.
>
> I'd argue the Zero was better than the Spit 5. The Spitfire's
strengths
> were its turning ability and its climb and the Zero bested it on both
> counts.

It depends on what version of the V that you are talking about. The V
was the largest production variant with differences in armament and
performance between the first ones produced in 1941 and the later
versions still in use in 1944/5.

The VIIIs which were sent to Burma and were intended to be the
replacement for the V were clearly superior in performance to the Zero
(except for range) but weren't available until 1943.

One advantage that the Spits had from the outset was speed and superior
engines. The Merlin was a better engine than anything the Japanese had
at the time.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 8:49:30 PM10/20/00
to
Harri Pihl wrote:

> Well, Spitfire V had new metal covered ailerons which increased roll
> rate a lot. And it should be noted that clipped wing low altitude
> Spitfires had even better roll rate.

The clipped wing's did improve the Spit 5 a lot, but they arrived
quite late. The terrible losses the RAF suffered at the hands of
the Germans with the Mk 5 were born primarily by the standard Mk 5.

>There is pretty good aileron
> comparison with 50lbs stick force containing values for all three
> mentioned planes in one Naca document (NACA 868, p. 166 in the original
> document and p. 42 in the PDF). You can download it in PDF-format from

> http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

> pilot could do better roll rates. Against the Zero the Spitfire V had
> clear speed, roll and dive advantage, if right tactics were used then
> the Zero was in clear disadvantage.

The data do show that the Mk 5 Spit bested the Zero in rolls. Given
that it was better in speed and in dives (although the Spit was not
so good entering dives) it should have been able to better the Zero,
although its advantages over the Zero were generally less than for
contemporary American fighters. In thinking this over, I believe
the biggest problem for the Spit was the tactics that worked for it
with the Germans played to the strengths of the Japanese fighters.
This delayed the application of appropriate tactics and goes a long
way towards explaining why the Spit did compartively poorly against
the Japanese. Even when appropriate tactics were developed its overall
advantages over the Zero were smaller than for the American P-40s,
F4Fs, and later F4U and F6Fs.

I do confess to having a rather visceral reaction to the Mk 5 Spit.
It was such a small improvement over the Mk 1 and 2, at a time
when the Me109 made far greater improvements and when the FW190
developed, that it cost the RAF dearly in lives. If the British
hadn't put so much effort into producing the inferior MK 5 they
might have been able to get the top-notch Mk 8 or the Mk 9 into
production earlier and have avoided the terrible losses they
incurred over France in 1942 and much of 1943.

Jim Erickson


Dave Gower

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 8:49:33 PM10/20/00
to

"Jim Erickson" <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8skm9k$c672$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
....The P-47 was more rugged than the typhoon and could
> more than hold its own as a fighter once it shed its bombs or
> rockets. .

I recently read the memoirs of a Me262 jet pilot who said that the
Thunderbolt was the only aircraft that they feared, because it was the only
one they could not outdive. That was because its rugged construction
allowed
it to reach the same maximum safe mach number as the jet.


Markus Dressler

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 8:49:37 PM10/20/00
to
AngelAlita<...> <donotsendsp...@bigpond.net.au> schrieb

> 1944
> (Mustang)
>
> 1945
> (Me210)
>
P-51 D in '44 / P-51 H in '45. Best all-round fighter.

Or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9. The "Dora-9" - the long-nosed variant
(with the Jumo 213 engine) of which only 674 were built - was supposed
to be the best fighter plane of WW2 by its pilots after the war. Its
successor, the Ta 152 H, even eliminated the major drawback of the 190,
the poor high-altitude performance, because of it's 14,44m ( 48 ft.)
wingspan, but *very* few did really see combat.
If I could get one of those, i would choose it. Otherwise a Mustang or
perhaps a Yakovlev Yak-9, the best russian fighter of the war.

Markus


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
better take a look see at the stats for the yak i think that P47 could
proberly have out flown it


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
the roc i have seen for the zeke are based on the series 2 models A6M-2's
The Zero had a range of 1930
miles,(with drop
tanks), had a maximum speed of 331 mph, was a single cantilevered, "bent
wing"design that featured retractable landing gear and retractable wing tips.
It was lightly
armored, nimble
and fast, the most deadly air craft design of it's time. The zero had an
operational ceiling of
39,370 feet, had a rate of climb of 4500 feet per minute and was armed with
2- 7.7 machine
guns, 2 - 20 mm cannon and could be fitted with 2- 132 pound bombs.


mike

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
> Or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9. The "Dora-9" - the long-nosed variant
> (with the Jumo 213 engine) of which only 674 were built - was supposed
> to be the best fighter plane of WW2 by its pilots after the war. Its
> successor, the Ta 152 H, even eliminated the major drawback of the 190,
> the poor high-altitude performance, because of it's 14,44m ( 48 ft.)
> wingspan, but *very* few did really see combat.

What could Dora do better than the P47M/N? The Thunderbold was faster, had
better altitude capability, better range, and great structural strength.
For that matter, what could Dora do better than a Mustang? When asked about
the FW190D Yeager has said, "we waxed their fannies."

As for the TA152, to be reasonable, you'd have to compare it with the P51H
which was faster and could fly nearly as high.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:

> It depends on what version of the V that you are talking about. The V
> was the largest production variant with differences in armament and
> performance between the first ones produced in 1941 and the later
> versions still in use in 1944/5.

You've highlighted what was the biggest problem with the Mk 5 Spit,
that it was still in operations so late in the war. While the later
versions of the Mk 5 were improved over the earlier ones, they never
matched the Mk 8 or 9 (except for a few low-level clipped wing variants)
and should have been replaced much earlier.

> The VIIIs which were sent to Burma and were intended to be the
> replacement for the V were clearly superior in performance to the Zero
> (except for range) but weren't available until 1943.

Mk 8's could have been available in late 42 or 43 but really didn't
appear in any numbers until late 1944 or even 1945. It's no surprise
that they were better than the Zero, as the late model Zeros were
only marginally better than the earlier ones, while the allied
aircraft were continually improved (albeit far too slowly with regard
to the Spitfire.)

Jim Erickson


Jukka O. Kauppinen

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
> 1) in Europe, at any given juncture, give me any aircraft remotely
> comparable to yours, so long as you also furnish me with Finns to pilot
> them. I wouldn't need odds given, I'd be happy with my chances. As a rule,
> it was not so much the a/c as it was the person behind the stick. The Finns
> were astonishingly successful in selecting their pilots.

I'd like to add a bit here, though this now will stray from the subject
itself.

The Finnish fighter pilot training during the war - and today -
was admittedly very successful. This has some very good reasons
behind, as not all pilots were very good from the start.

- Pre war training centered to the most important things and developed
good number of very skilled pilots for the Winter War. After the 3
months
long war they were blooded and could bring the lessons to the now
fast growing air force and the new pilots
- Quite good basic training. The pilots didn't maybe have a lot of
flying hours but those who got through the squadrons had the basic
skills.
- Use of veteran pilots in training. A lot of combat veterans were
rotated through the flying schools, giving their lessons to the
newbie pilots. I recently met a Brewster/109 ace who had first flown
in the 41-42 war, then trained new pilots and finally brought to fly
the 109s during the SOviet 1944 summer offensive, or the "summerwar"
as he always referred it. Another ace, Hasse Wind 75 victories, the
leading Brewster ace, spent a lot of hsi time in 1943 at flying
schools and wrote a very fine air combat manual (which I recently
got a copy of and will eventually translate it to english for the
air war enthusiasts).
- And the most important detail: new pilots were brought to the
squadrons a
"bit rough". Their training was finished in true front line squadrons.
They
were assigned to schwarms as a veteran pilot's wingman, with the veteran
responsible to train the newbie to a true combat pilot. With combat
veterans
in the flying school and combat veteran as trainer in front line
squadron the
new pilots were fed all the needed skills, and usually none or little of
the useless things.

The system worked very well. FOr example in the beginning of
Continuation War
at 1941 most squadrons had large influx of new pilots and there was some
concern how they will fare. But the training had given them the needed
edge and they performed admirably. And this wasn't only during the early
offensive phase but new pilots brough to the squadrons even during the
hardest battles of 1944 were able to outfight, survive and score
victories.

jok

--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Tel/fax +358-(0)3-222 9396 GSM 040-730 0036
MikroBitti http://www.mikrobitti.fi/ http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia

WalterM140

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
>Fighter Interceptor - Spitfire

Well, If you encountered a Spitfire, you were in a lot of trouble. The
problem is with the range.

Would you rather have an all Spitfire force or an all Mustang force?

All in all, you'd have to give the nod to either the Mustang or the Lightning,
because they had the ability to fight, and fight well, far from home.

Walt


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
but what of later varients like the A6M-8???hmmmm


Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <8sl0k4$2ij$1...@beast.tcnj.edu>,
"Yama" <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> writes:

>> >Anti-Armor - Rocket firing Typhoon
>> >
>> Nope. Rockets were far too inaccurate to be reliable tank-killers.
>> The only aircraft weapon that could reliably take out tanks was
>> the cannon.
>
> This is true (heavy bombs over 250kg and bigger were good too) but in grand
> picture rockets are better that guns, because with rockets it is easier to
> destroy support installations (support vehicles, fuel/maintenance depots and
> such) which result to helpless tank.

Well, the Il-2 Sturmovik could carry both rockets and bombs, and it
had cannons that were capable of destroying German tanks. From 1944 on
the Sturmoviks could also carry PTAB bomblet containers instead of
bombs. The bomblets were very effective against soft and lightly
armored vehicles, but with some luck could take out tanks as well. But
yes, I do realize that the Il-2 was not a fighter, and it did have
some serious shortcomings as well, most notably low speed.

>> The Soviet fighters were often good, but I don't think any of them quite
>> qualify here. The Italians produced some good designs when they got
>> the engines, and they might have a claim. If we get outside roles
>> and into less relevant details, the Italians produced the best biplane
>> fighter
>
> Really, which is that?:)
> I'd pick I-153 Chaika any day.

I believe he meant the Cr.42 Falco. It had better armament than the
I-153 (2x12.7mm vs. 4x7.62mm), but the latter was faster and had pilot
armor protection, first generation self-sealing fuel tanks and
retractable landing gear. The Falco might have been slightly more
maneuverable as well, but in any case both were very nimble as all
biplane fighters. My vote goes to the I-153, since it incorporated
more advanced features.

>> Since I don't think the Japanese did all that well (partly due to
>> a lack of suitable engines, much like the Italians), that pretty
>> much leaves carrier fighters, which tended to be inferior to land-based
>> types, although not necessarily by much. The Soviets, as mentioned,
>> had good designs, although there's not one category in which a Soviet
>> plane seems better than the German or US or British equivalent.
>
> I've heard that lot of people thought that Yak-3 was superior to Spitfire
> below 3000 meters. Ultimate variant, Yak-3U missed the war slightly, though.
> If we include prewar fighters, I-16 was quite superior between 1935-37.

Yes. If we create a category for the best low altitude tactical
fighter, the Yak-3 would be strong contender, but not the only
one. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly the P-38L Lightning was an
excellent low altitude fighter and it would be a strong contender. It
was also a very good all-round fighter.


Tero P. Mustalahti


Markus Dressler

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
mike <miked...@home.com> schrieb

> What could Dora do better than the P47M/N? The Thunderbold was
> faster, had better altitude capability, better range, and great
> structural strength.

Range didn't matter for german fighters at that time. The speed
difference is, if i remember correctly, insignificant (20 kph or so).
The P47 had the greatest structural strenght of all single-engine
fighters of WWII, but every Fw 190 was more manoeruvrable than the
Thunderbolt.

> For that matter, what could Dora do better than a Mustang? When asked
> about the FW190D Yeager has said, "we waxed their fannies."

But Chuck Yeager was an ace pilot (i think) and the german pilots were
barely trained. See below.

> As for the TA152, to be reasonable, you'd have to compare it with the
> P51H which was faster and could fly nearly as high.

Really? With that wingspan and engine I dont think that the Mustang
would have been a match above 30000 ft. Moreover, the Ta 152 had a funny
feature: Once,
Kurt Tank was attacked by 4 Mustangs while taking off. Tank's plane had
no ammo. Then he activated the MW-50 Methanole-Injection-System and
easily escaped the P-51s.

But, a good pilot always wins over a bad one, regardless of the Fighter
he's sitting in. Otherwise, no Me 262 would have shot down a single
enemy fighter.

Greetings,
Markus

John Halliwell

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/22/00
to
In article <8ste08$p1h$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>, WalterM140
<walte...@aol.com> writes

>Well, If you encountered a Spitfire, you were in a lot of trouble. The
>problem is with the range.

The Spits range was fine for the job it was designed to do (bomber
interception). Don't forget the PRU Spits were good for Berlin and back
(even operated by the USAAF that far).

>Would you rather have an all Spitfire force or an all Mustang force?

Given the all Spit force is available much earlier, it would be better
than the P-51 much later. Without the Spit/Hurricane, the P-51 may not
even have been fitted with the Merlin.

>All in all, you'd have to give the nod to either the Mustang or the Lightning,
>because they had the ability to fight, and fight well, far from home.

Depends on the role you want, for short range the Spit is far cheaper
than the Lightning (and availability was a key advantage). The Mustang
was a great fighter, not sure about the cost compared to a Spit. The
Spit historically had a far greater range of armament though (various
cannon and machine gun arrangements).

My choices:

Interceptor - Spit Mk 9 or 14 or FW190 (later ME 262)

Bomber Escort - P-51D

Fighter Bomber - Beaufighter (before BoB, Stuka)

PRU - Spit Mk 21

Nightfighter - Mosquito/Ju88

--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 9:53:57 PM10/22/00
to
In article <8squ7v$5oh$1...@beast.tcnj.edu>,
"Lawrence Dillard" <ldil...@enteract.com> writes:

> Without intending to insult anyone:
>

> 1) in Europe, at any given juncture, give me any aircraft remotely
> comparable to yours, so long as you also furnish me with Finns to pilot
> them. I wouldn't need odds given, I'd be happy with my chances. As a rule,
> it was not so much the a/c as it was the person behind the stick. The Finns
> were astonishingly successful in selecting their pilots.

The secret is very simple: you must have so few fighters that only the
best candidates can become fighter pilots. Finnish tactics were also
right from the start of the war. The Soviets used obsolete tactics and
had poor pilots, especially in 1941-1942, which made life of Finnish
rookie pilots much easier.


Tero P. Mustalahti


Bill Shatzer

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 9:55:30 PM10/22/00
to

On 21 Oct 2000, Incon28443 wrote:

> but what of later varients like the A6M-8???hmmmm

With a total production of two aircraft, the A6M-8 hardly counts. And,
while better than the previous Zero fighters it was still 50 mph slower
than the F4U-1D.

And, by the time it could have entered service in significant numbers, it
would have been facing not F4U-1Ds but F4U-4s, F2Gs, and F8Fs - which
would have put it even further behind the performance curve.

Cheer and all,


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 9:55:55 PM10/22/00
to
>>But Chuck Yeager was an ace pilot (i think) and the german pilots were barely
trained. <<
it wasnt so much a lack of training as more likely pilot fatuege, allied
aircrews were being constantly rotated during the course of the war yet ALL
german piots were in it for the duration, no rotation home, just an occasional
leave.
also by mid 1944, the german ability to eithor produce petroleom products or
deliver what was produced was becoming a major problem for them by later in
the year(44) there production of all fuels was less than (an average) 2200
tons per day for the enitire reich. getting it there caused this number to
drop due to insessent allied air attacks, (some % was destroyed), so air wings
often only recieved a small % of there allotment of fuel and had to limit
missions of all types, this is rather ironic since the production of aircraft
hit its high point in 44 as well, with a 2000 plane fighter fleet having been
delivered to the western front in the later third of that year,

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 9:56:27 PM10/22/00
to
In article <8ste05$p19$1...@beast.tcnj.edu>,
incon...@aol.cominconofu (Incon28443) writes:

> but what of later varients like the A6M-8???hmmmm

The A6M8 was only a marginal improvement over the A6M5, which in turn was
only slightly better than the A6M3. The A6M8 did have a significantly
more powerful engine than the earlier Zero models, but the increased
engine power did not translate to improved performance. Maximum speed
increased only by a few mph.

The basic design of the Zero simply did not have very much development
potential. It was optimized for high maneuverability and dogfight
tactics and it was not possible to transform it into a high speed
energy fighter. Ironically, some of the later improvements, such as
armor and self sealing fuel tanks actually decreased maneuverability
as well, so that the late model Zeros were not quite as nimble as the
early models, but still not significantly faster either. It was a
lose-lose situation and by the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" in June 1944
the Zero was clearly obsolescent. The F6F Hellcat, which was by no
means was an outstanding fighter, was clearly superior.


Tero P. Mustalahti


Jim Garner

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 9:56:52 PM10/22/00
to
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
>
> In the FAA's opinion, the quality-ranking of fighters available in 1944
> or so seems to have been:


As you say, that was 1944. Earlier the FAA had to use Blackburn Roc and
Fairey Fulmar fighters. Any take on those?
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody. an...@ncf.ca
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada

"Epargnez de l'eau; buvez du vin"

Incon28443

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
i had thought that varients of the F4-U Corsair were still in service at
the
start of the Vietnem conflict i am going by memory but i am
reasonably sure that i had seen film clips of them being used in a ground
support actions

Incon28443

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
Spitfire Vs were badly beaten up by Zeros in Australia at the same time
that
P-40s (Ks and Ns mostly) were fairly easily dealing with it. Imagine the
difference was tactics and pilot experience (including that passed on by
earlier veterans). From what I understand, the Spitfire pilots tried to
dogfight the Zeros and lost, while the P-40 pilots avoided doing that and
made
efforts to keep their speed up.


The F4F-3 was a more rugged aircraft and was to make up the majority of the
US
airfleet
for the next14-18 months; however, it had a much shorter range, 845 miles,
a
lower Max speed,
328 mph and a much slower climb rate, only 2265 feet per minute. The
operational ceiling was
also slightly lower at 37,500 feet.
The P-40 was faster than the Zero, Max speed was 343 mph, but it
had a lower
ceiling,
30,000 feet, a much shorter "loaded" range, 750 miles and was also more
heavily
armed carrying
6 - 50 cal browning machine guns but far, far less maneuverable.

The US pilots tactics, in the F4F and the P-40 was, whenever possible, to
get
above their opponents,
so that they could then dive through the enemy formation in a firing pass,
continuing their dive and then trying to climb back up to a favorable
altitude
for another attack. Efforts were made to avoid close-in dogfights, where
the
Zero clearly had the advantage. The P-40
tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s
had
a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast
as
you could, taking advantage of their higher speed.
other us planes of the A6M2's era 1939-1941 The P-400 Airacobra was no
match
for the Zero in air-to-air combat, and Saburo Sakai, ( an early Japanese
ace),
regarded the P-39 Mohawk as a relatively easy "kill" for a pilot of any
skill
level.

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <8skm9k$c672$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> writes:

>> >Bomber Interceptor - Fw 190
>>
>> It did very well at the role.
>
> And there's really no competition since only German aircraft
> are in the running.

Japanese as well. However, the Fw 190 probably still wins, unless we
count the Me 262. The Me 262 was probably the only fighter in WW2
which had heavy enough armament to shoot down heavy bombers and and
could still escape from the escorts. The Fw 190 bomber destroyer
models had too much extra armament and armor to effectively fight the
escorts.

>> >Bomber Escort - North American P51D (Mustang)
>>
>> A good fighter with great range.
>
> The P-51 consistently gets under rated. It was a better
> fighter than comparable Spitfires in the most critical
> features of speed, range, and armament.

Underrated? Typically the P-51 gets overrated as the overall best
fighter of WW2, which can not be properly justified. I also strongly
disagree with you in the armament question. Post-war tests showed
conclusively that two 20mm cannons were at least as effective as six
..50 cal machine guns, and the Spitfire carried either four .303 cal or
two .50 cal machine guns in additions to two 20mm cannons (Late models
carried four 20mm cannons, but they did not see much combat). So if
anything the Spitfire had better armament than the P-51.

> I don't see how you can rate the typhoon above the P-47. P-47s
> carried rockets as well and could handle larger bomb loads than
> the typhoon. The P-47 was more rugged than the typhoon and could


> more than hold its own as a fighter once it shed its bombs or

> rockets. The typhoon in contrast was a bust as a fighter.

The Typhoon was not a bad fighter at the low altitudes typical for
ground attack missions, in fact it was rather good, and could very
well hold its own against German fighters. The Tempest addressed the
problems with the high altitude performance and the result was an
excellent all-round fighter.


Tero P. Mustalahti

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <8skmf5$8h9s$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
a...@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:

> 7. The BoB was unwinnable for the Germans anyway. If they'd kept up
> their big anti-airfield attacks then they might have forced the
> RAF to withdraw from the south coast, but all this would have done
> would be to force the Kriegsmarine to find another reason why they
> couldn't launch an invasion [1]
>
> [1] Apart from "We have no equipment or experience" and "We'll wiped
> out before we even see the beaches", that is.

Did they really need any other reasons? The first one was obviously
very true and the Kriegsmarine admirals were smart enough to realize
that even without the involvement of the RAF, the Luftwaffe would have
had a very difficult task in keeping the RN surface fleet away from
the relatively defenseless German invasion fleet. The Germans had lost
so many destroyers during the invasion of Norway that the German
surface fleet was weaker than ever, and the U-boats could not replace
surface vessels.


Tero P. Mustalahti


Dave Gower

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to

"Yama" <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message
news:8skmes$8h9q$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> ...262 really wasn't spectacular fighter, albeit a
> tremendous interceptor.

This example is a perfect illustration of how difficult it is to rate an
aircraft. On paper the Me262 should have ruled the skies over Germany. It
had adequate range for defensive combat over the Reich, was 100mph faster
than the best allied fighters, could out-climb them by a wide margin and
had
more hitting power than almost anything else in the sky.

In practice however, it was almost as much of a menace to its own pilots as
to the enemy. The engines were prone to failure (there was a critical
shortage of high-temperature alloys). The aircraft was tricky to take off
and land (many of the German casualties happened at that time). And its low
air drag meant that it was very easy to dive too close to the speed of
sound, which in those days meant immediate destruction.

Even as a bomber interceptor its fast approach speed to the target limited
the time available for firing the cannon. The jet pilots felt the aircraft
only reached its full potential when rockets became available, but by then
the war was almost over.

A good illustration of the old engineering maxim that "the first examples
of
a new technology are almost always inferior to the last examples of an old
technology." It is perhaps indicative that the Allied response was to speed
production of the ultimate Mustang, the P-51H. This would still have been
50mph slower than the jet but have few of its liabilities.


Harri Pihl

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
Jim Erickson kirjoiitti

> The clipped wing's did improve the Spit 5 a lot, but they arrived quite late.

So what? The Spitfire V rolled clearly better than the Zero with normal
wing too.

> The terrible
> losses the RAF suffered at the hands of the Germans with the Mk 5 were born primarily
> by the standard Mk 5.

I was under impression that you wanted compare the Zero (1942 models)
and the Spitfire V (b model I suppose). The Spitfire IX was basicly same
as the V except engine and two stage Merlin was not ready for the
production before spring 1942. The Spitfire V and the Bf 109F were
pretty much equall, but the Fw 190A was superior, infact in late 1941
the Fw 190A was superior against anything in service all over the world.


> In thinking this over, I believe the biggest
> problem for the Spit was the tactics that worked for it with the Germans played to the
> strengths of the Japanese fighters. This delayed the application of appropriate tactics
> and goes a long way towards explaining why the Spit did compartively poorly against the
> Japanese.

Well, there is pretty good text about first Zero vs Spitfire combats and
how Spitfire tactics evolved in the "Aircraft versus Aircraft" by Normal
Franks. Once right tactics had been learnt then the Spitfire V did well.
Not much difference if compared to learning curve of the P-40 units.
Wrong tactics were not fault of the plane, Brits should have studied
American tactics before combat.

> Even when appropriate tactics were developed its overall advantages over
> the Zero were smaller than for the American P-40s, F4Fs, and later F4U and F6Fs.

Hmm... I can think two areas where the F4F and the P-40 have a clear
edge over the Spitfire V when fighting against Zeros in 1941. Range and
vulnerability. In all other areas Spitfire V was about as good or better
than the P-40 or the F4F. Generally I see the F4F as weakest of these
three, no speed advantage, no dive advantage (about same as Zero
according to Eric Brown), roll advantage smaller than other's. There are
couple good comparison between Zero vs F4F and Zero vs Seafire in the
"Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown (he flew them all).

--
Harri Pihl

firstname....@pois.nic.fi

To email put my name before att sign and remove pois.

C.C.Jordan

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
On 21 Oct 2000 20:56:41 -0400, "Markus Dressler" <markus....@gmx.de>
wrote:

>mike <miked...@home.com> schrieb
>
>> What could Dora do better than the P47M/N? The Thunderbold was
>> faster, had better altitude capability, better range, and great
>> structural strength.
>
>Range didn't matter for german fighters at that time. The speed
>difference is, if i remember correctly, insignificant (20 kph or so).
>The P47 had the greatest structural strenght of all single-engine
>fighters of WWII, but every Fw 190 was more manoeruvrable than the
>Thunderbolt.

Several points:
1) A P-47M could attain speeds of 480 mph at 34,000 ft. The Fw 190
could barely get up that high. The 190D wasn't much better.
2) In terms of maneuverability, the P-47 was at a disadvantage below
20,000 ft. From 20,000 to 30,000 it was at least as agile as anything
in service with the Luftwaffe. Go above 30,000 ft and the Thunderbolt
was in a class by itself. Only a handful of Ta 152s ever saw combat, so
they were not a factor at all. Besides, the air battles took place at the
altitudes where the bombers flew. Therefore, stellar performance above
40,000 ft was essentially useless anyway.

>
>> For that matter, what could Dora do better than a Mustang? When asked
>> about the FW190D Yeager has said, "we waxed their fannies."
>

>But Chuck Yeager was an ace pilot (i think) and the german pilots were

>barely trained. See below.

Yeager obtained half of his kills over student pilots. Moreover, he was
shot
down himself. So, no, Yeager is not a very good example.


>> As for the TA152, to be reasonable, you'd have to compare it with the
>> P51H which was faster and could fly nearly as high.
>
>Really? With that wingspan and engine I dont think that the Mustang
>would have been a match above 30000 ft. Moreover, the Ta 152 had a funny
>feature: Once, Kurt Tank was attacked by 4 Mustangs while taking off. Tank's plane had
>no ammo. Then he activated the MW-50 Methanole-Injection-System and
>easily escaped the P-51s.

Considering that the P-51H was designed specifically for Pacific
deployment,
and none served in the ETO, the point is moot. However, just for the
record,
the 2,218 hp P-51H would have overtaken Tank in short order, MW 50
not withstanding. The P-51H was a different animal altogether (487 mph).

Now, as to the best fighter of WWII:
If we consider the all-around ability of any single fighter type, then
there can
be no comparison the the Vought F4U-4 Corsair. 446 mph, 4,200+ fpm
rate of climb, up to 4,000 lbs of under-wing ordnance, excellent rate of
roll,
and the ability to operate from land or carrier. Let's not forget about an
airframe built like a brick outhouse either. Nor should we overlook its
good
range (It could make a round trip to Berlin and back). All these factors
combine
to add up to the best all-around prop driven fighter aircraft to see combat

during the war.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <8ste09$p1k$1...@beast.tcnj.edu>,
"Markus Dressler" <markus....@gmx.de> writes:

> Really? With that wingspan and engine I dont think that the Mustang
> would have been a match above 30000 ft.

That is probably true. Wing area really makes a difference at high
altitudes.

> Moreover, the Ta 152 had a funny feature: Once, Kurt Tank was
> attacked by 4 Mustangs while taking off. Tank's plane had no
> ammo. Then he activated the MW-50 Methanole-Injection-System and
> easily escaped the P-51s.

Well, those Mustangs were P-51Ds. The P-51H really was faster than the
Ta 152H at medium altitudes. Above 30,000 ft the Ta 152H was faster if
the MW-50 system was used. However, the difference was not very
significant in either case.

Tero P. Mustalahti


Bill Shatzer

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Incon28443 wrote:

> i had thought that varients of the F4-U Corsair were still in service at

> the start of the Vietnem conflict. i am going by memory but i am


> reasonably sure that i had seen film clips of them being used in a ground
> support actions

The French used a number of F4U-7s and a few recycled ex-USMC AU-1s in
Indochina up until 1954. But, large numbers of Corsairs were being used
during this period in Korea as well by the USN and the USMC. Pre-1954, the
Corsair was still viable as a ground attack aircraft - while not as good
as the AD-1, it was available in much greater numbers.

However, no F4Us were used by US forces in Vietnam after the French left.
The "Vietnam conflict" is generally regarded as having begun in 1963 and
no Corsairs remained in US service at that date.


Cheers and all,

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <8t05t4$bm78$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,

Jim Garner <an...@eNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>ANDREW ROBERT BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
>>
>> In the FAA's opinion, the quality-ranking of fighters available in 1944
>> or so seems to have been:
>As you say, that was 1944. Earlier the FAA had to use Blackburn Roc and
>Fairey Fulmar fighters. Any take on those?

The Roc was an almightly turkey, and I don't think anyone ever pretended
otherwise. It served on very few ships in its brief front-line career,
and I don't think it was assigned to ships that were going in harm's
way even before that. The Fulmar did suprisingly well in the Med. -
like a lot of Fairey products it was tough and more agile than it
looked. Provided pilots didn't get into turning fights with CR42s
it wasn't a bad proposition at all, underpowered though it was.
Having that, the Martlet was clearly the best thing around as
a 'carrier fighter when it came into service in late 1940. The Hurricane
was at least as good an aeroplane, but the early carrier-conversions
were of already elderly airframes (Hurricane Is), and by the time the
true carrier-conversions of Hurricanes started to come through the
design was starting to look tired. Once the Seafire started to appear
it was clearly a better fighting aeroplane than the Martlet, but
not such a good tool for operating from a 'carrier - it's no accident
that Martlets tended to operate from carriers in the Atlantic and
the northern ocean and Seafires in the Med.
The Hellcat (Gannet at first) seemed to offer an improvement on
the Martlet's performance while still being a good 'carrier
plane, but the FAA never seems to have really taken to it.
The Corsair, however, was very well liked (if that's the right
work - Norman Hanson always reckoned that the Sea Gladiator was
the finest aeroplane - purely judged as an aeroplane - he ever
came across, but the Corsair was the supreme weapon).

--
Andy Breen ~ PPARC Advanced Research Fellow, Interplanetary Scintillation
Solar Physics Group, UW Aberystwyth
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)

killgi...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 9:16:59 PM10/23/00
to
The sole reason the Brits won the BoB was due to a lone He 111 bomber
that got lost and ditched its bombload over London. This led to a RAF
raid on Berlin and subsequently Hitlers order to bomb CIVILIAN targets.
Prior to this, the Luftwaffe had destroyed HALF of Britains fighter
strength and wreaked havoc on RAF airfields. Britain needed a miracle to
stay alive in the air, and they got it from Hitler! Neither the Spitfire
nor the "gallant 300 RAF fighter pilots" saved England... if anyone gets
credit, it should be the He 111 crew.

Killgirl

"Miss Devious & Mischievous"


Yama

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 9:18:11 PM10/23/00
to

Harri Pihl <etunimi....@pois.nic.fi> wrote in message
news:3a090265...@news.dialix.com.au...

> and the Spitfire V (b model I suppose). The Spitfire IX was basicly same
> as the V except engine and two stage Merlin was not ready for the
> production before spring 1942. The Spitfire V and the Bf 109F were
> pretty much equall,

Hmm. The V was really little than Spitfire I with more powerful engine. By
contrast, 109F had not only more powerful engine, it had improved
aerodynamics and structure. Despite Spit V now having horsepower advantage
over Messerschmitt, most sources seem to agree that F was faster, climbed
better and also was better match in turning fight than Emil had been. About
only thing Spitfire had advantage was it's better armament.
(of course it also matters what exact variant we consider, both 109F and
Spit V saw much development).

> Hmm... I can think two areas where the F4F and the P-40 have a clear
> edge over the Spitfire V when fighting against Zeros in 1941. Range and
> vulnerability. In all other areas Spitfire V was about as good or better
> than the P-40 or the F4F. Generally I see the F4F as weakest of these
> three, no speed advantage, no dive advantage (about same as Zero
> according to Eric Brown)

No dive advantage? What does he exactly mean by this? Maybe F4F was not
really hot in initial acceleration of the dive? At least it was reportedly
much easier to control in dive than Zeke and also had considerably greater
maximum diving speed.

I've read some Brown's texts, they are interesting but do not seem
infallible, for example one of his article about Bf-109 had lots of
inaccuracies and mistakes.

Yama

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 9:17:57 PM10/23/00
to

Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8spj3e$elb$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
> Spitfires were never good divers, at least with respect to combat.
> Late models did achieve very high speeds in dives but they were
> always slow to initiate the dives which meant their opponents
> could very often escape by diving. The early Mk 1s and 2's with
> their float type carburators are justly criticized but the
> later models never came close to matching their German opponents
> or their Allied contemporaries in that critical parameter.

This is not completely true, for example Spitfire XIV was roughly equal in
diving ability compared to FW 190 and Bf-109G. German planes might have had
small edge in initial acceleration, but that is not everything what matters.

As for Zero, I have never heard about it being manifested for it's great
diving abilities. I take it might have had small edge in initial
acceleration but it's never exceed speed was so lame (less than 600km/h in
case of A6M2) that it hardly was a big difference, especially as it suffered
from stiffening controls to same or greater extent than early Spitfires, and
to say nothing about later models.


Yama

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to

Chuck521 <chuc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8squ7v$5of$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...

> Spitfire Vs were badly beaten up by Zeros in Australia at the same time
that
> P-40s (Ks and Ns mostly) were fairly easily dealing with it.

As I' have understood, Spitfires being beaten by Zero's happened relatively
early in the war, and P-40K's began to enter squadrons by autumn 1942 and Ns
only next year: perhaps you have confused the models?

I might agree that Jim E's original point about putting one plane's strength
against other plane's weakness may have some merit, but to my amateur's eye
it seems that Spitfire can do so many things better than P-40 that I find it
hard to accept that it was worse against Zero than P-40.

When RAF Far East squadrons got Spitfire VIII's, they pretty much wiped out
Japanese. Of course by then Japanese pilot quality had dropped sharply.

WalterM140

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
Mr. Halliwell sends:

>Interceptor - Spit Mk 9 or 14 or FW190 (later ME 262)

>Bomber Escort - P-51D

>Fighter Bomber - Beaufighter (before BoB, Stuka)

>PRU - Spit Mk 21

>Nightfighter - Mosquito/Ju88


You've really made the argument for the Lightning, because it could --and
did--- do all of those missions.

Walt


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
you maintain that>>>>"Hmm... I can think two areas where the F4F and the P-40

have a clear
edge over the Spitfire V when fighting against Zeros in 1941. Range and
vulnerability' >>>>
The Zero had a range of 1930
miles,(with drop tanks), had a maximum speed of 331 mph, was a single
cantilevered, "bent wing"design that featured retractable landing gear and
retractable wing tips. It was lightly armored, nimble and fast, the most
deadly air craft design of it's time. The zero had an operational ceiling of
39,370 feet, had a rate of climb of 4500 feet per minute and was armed with
2-7.7 machine guns, 2 - 20 mm cannon and could be fitted with 2- 132 pound
bombs.
The P-40 was faster than the Zero, Max speed was 343 mph, but it had
a lower ceiling,30,000 feet, a much shorter "loaded" range, 750 miles and was

also more heavily armed carrying
6 - 50 cal browning machine guns but far, far less maneuverable.
The F4F-3 was a more rugged aircraft and was to make up the majority of
the US airfleet for the next14-18 months; however, it had a much shorter range,
845 miles, a lower Max speed,
328 mph and a much slower climb rate, only 2265 feet per minute. The
operational ceiling was also slightly lower at 37,500 feet.
The US pilots tactics, in the F4F was, whenever possible, to get above

their
opponents, so that they could then dive through the enemy formation in a firing
pass, continuing their dive and then trying to climb back up to a favorable
altitude for another attack.
Efforts were made to avoid close-in dogfights, where the Zero clearly had the
advantage. The P-40s tactics that most

often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height
advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could.
The Airacobra was no match for the Zero in air-to-air combat, and Saburo Sakai,
( an early Japanese ace), regarded the P-39 as a relatively

easy "kill" for a pilot of any skill level.

Taking this as a given; the only real advantages that eithor the P-40 or the
F4F-3 had were that they were more able to with stand combat damage,(armored
cockpits / airframes and self sealing tanks), than the zeke. they were far
less agile and slower to climb so that in 1941 and early 42 the zero was
clearly the better aircraft.


ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
On 18 Oct 2000 16:19:21 -0400, Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:

>I'd argue the Zero was better than the Spit 5. The Spitfire's
strengths
>were its turning ability and its climb and the Zero bested it on both
>counts.

In October 1944, the FAA compared a Seafire LIIC (broadly similar to the
Spitfire LF Vb) against a captured Zeke 52 at Patuxent River.

The Seafire outclimbed the Zeke to 25,000ft, rolled faster over 180 IAS,
dived faster (and with more stability) and could easily outrun it below
15,000 feet. The only measure of performance superiority the Zeke had
in any area was it's turning circle.

>Zeros were bettered by fighters like the P-40 which could exploit
>high speed dives and which had good roll characteristics.

Both of these were areas where the Spitfire enjoyed a marked superiority
over the Zero.

> Unfortunately
>these were among the Spit's weaknesses.

This of course is a relative term (see above).

> Basically its a situation where
>if you pit the Spit 5 against the Zero the Japanese plane had better
>performance

By this standard (turning ability alone), the Spitfire V had better
performance than the Fw190A.

Gavin Bailey


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
On 18 Oct 2000 17:27:50 GMT, Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:

>I'd say the 109 was considerably better than the Spitfire
>in 1940. The BoB was won by shooting down bombers, not
>in fighter v. figher combat. The German fighters shot down
>more RAF fighters than they lost, but the RAF took an enormous
>toll on the bombers.

This doesn't address the losses of the Jagdwaffe at the hands of Fighter
Command. The most important single issue was the losses inflicted on
the bombers, but the losses inflicted on the Luftwaffe fighter arm were
significant and cannot be ignored. For any realistic assessment, the
Bf109E and the Spitfire I/II's used in the battle were essentially
equivalent in performance.

ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:49:30 GMT, Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu>
wrote:

>I do confess to having a rather visceral reaction to the Mk 5 Spit.

I had noticed, but I respect your honest admission of prejudice -
something seldom seen on this NG.

>It was such a small improvement over the Mk 1 and 2, at a time
>when the Me109 made far greater improvements

The MkV arrived in operational service in early 1941, and was roughly
contemporary with the early Bf109F. It is certainly true that it was
inferior in some areas of performance with the later Bf109F's and
particularly the Fw190A, but several factors should be considered here.

1. The British expected to fight a second BoB in the summer of
1941, and at the end of 1940 the Spitfire V was a reasonable compromise
in terms of improved performance (specifically at high levels where the
next round of fighting was expected to centre) and armament against the
absolute imperative to avoid long production delays caused by retooling
production lines for any other fighter (and the alternatives available
then were... the Typhoon....). The British need for large-scale
production of adequate fighter aircraft *right now* should not be
underestimated. The enemy was twenty miles away, and the threat was
believed in all seriousness to be a matter of life and death to the
nation. The same factor accounts for the continued production of the
Hurricane in the Mark II version.

2. The Merlin 60 series was certainly installed in the Spitfire as
fast as could have been reasonably expected (July 1942), and it the
Griffon was not far behind (early 1943), along with the Typhoon and
low-level adaptions of the Spit V. The Spit V only really suffered from
about 6 months (the first half of 1942) where the performance
differential of it's major opponents (the Fw190) was of a margin that
had any significant effect on operations (and even then, it did not
curtail offensive fighter operations).

3. The relative decisiveness of the performance differential of the
Fw190 is generally overstated (e.g. by Caldwell, who has on several
instances I have found, exaggerated British losses and minimised German
losses). The real problem for the RAF was the loss of tactical
advantage on fighter sweeps and the loss of pilots over enemy territory.
If the positions had been reversed in 1941-42, a major Luftwaffe
offensive over Britain would have suffered much in the same manner (and
as much as it did in 1940 - losing 17 aircraft and almost all of the
relevant crews for every 5 RAF pilots lost), despite the performance
advantage of the later Bf109F's and the Fw190A over the Spit V.

The issue of tactical advantage and deployment is probably the most
important in air combat, but is consistently overlooked because it is
intangible when compared to things such as black and white performance
test figures, which offer a seductive standard for simplistic absolute
judgements.

>and when the FW190
>developed, that it cost the RAF dearly in lives. If the British
>hadn't put so much effort into producing the inferior MK 5 they
>might have been able to get the top-notch Mk 8 or the Mk 9 into
>production earlier and have avoided the terrible losses they
>incurred over France in 1942 and much of 1943.

The Merlin was a smaller engine than the comparable DB and BMW units in
the Messerschmitt and the Focke-Wulf, and as such it's lower output and
consequent influence on performance should not be suprising. What is
suprising is that the improvement in supercharging and boost pressures
was such that the Spit IX was still an enormous advance over the Spit I.
The Spitfire was designed in 1936, and it's main contemporary was the
Bf109. As such I have to say that it remained competitive in terms of
operational performance far more effectively.

AngelAlita<...>

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
If the Germans had built ME109s with good droptanks earlier on, would that
have been a decisive factor in the BoB?

> By a division of effort and the fact that when the Germans switched to
> attacking London the ME109 was operating close to it's range limit. IIRC


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
but fred the me262-a only needed a short time it was after all an bomber
intercetpor or at least some factions within the reich wanted to use it as
such especially when it first came out in 1943, had it been used effectively
then and had they turned to mass producing it they could have made a very
serious impact on the outcome of the airwar in europe; over germany in the very
least, however when Hitler was first shown the Me262 he demanded that it be
refitted as a longrange bomber and speciffically ordered that it not be used as
eithor a fighter or an interceptor. He later changed his mind in mid 1944 but
by then it was too late for it to make its greatest impact. I should also
notethat Albert Speer and several high ranking officers did indeed go behind
Hitlers back and they ordered a reconfiguring of the aircraft, and that is the
only reason that the Me262-a-d ever saw any combat as an interceptor/fighter at
all.


Incon28443

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
sorry: also lets not forget the N1K2 george made by Kawanishi, it was
easily comperable to its comtemporaries but had little impact due to low
production numbers; only 1440 were produced

ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
On 21 Oct 2000 17:41:27 GMT, Jim Erickson <jw...@COLUMBIA.EDU> wrote:

>Mk 8's could have been available in late 42 or 43

The first Mk VIII's were produced in November 1942, and the earliest
possible date for a single squadron to be formed would have been
December1942/January 1943 (IIRC 30 had been produced by the end
of December 1942). As it was, shipping them to the Far East cost months
of time.

>but really didn't
>appear in any numbers until late 1944 or even 1945. It's no surprise
>that they were better than the Zero, as the late model Zeros were
>only marginally better than the earlier ones, while the allied
>aircraft were continually improved (albeit far too slowly with regard
>to the Spitfire.)

Name me another aircraft that first flew in 1936 which remained in
production throughout the war, came in a total of over 20 recognised
marks, doubled it's weight, doubled it's rate of climb, tripled it's
range, increased it's maximum speed by 100 mph and quadrupled it's
firepower in this period. Regardless of the inflated mythology
surrounding the Spitfire, this is not an inconsiderable development
record, and it's combat record speaks for itself for anybody prepared to
make the effort to study it objectively.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
Yama wrote:

> I might agree that Jim E's original point about putting one plane's strength
> against other plane's weakness may have some merit, but to my amateur's eye
> it seems that Spitfire can do so many things better than P-40 that I find it
> hard to accept that it was worse against Zero than P-40.

Compared to the Spit 5 the P-40 B,C, E etc don't match up too badly. The P-40
was deficient in climb and in turning. Top speeds were similar, but the
P-40 was better considerably better in ruggedness, armarment (perhpas not,
the B) in the roll and in the dive. As those were the primary strengths
against the Zero it matched up better against it than did the Spit 5.
On the other hand, against the Germans, the Spit 5 was probably at less
of a disadvantage than was the P-40.


> When RAF Far East squadrons got Spitfire VIII's, they pretty much wiped out
> Japanese. Of course by then Japanese pilot quality had dropped sharply.

As they should have. The Mk 8 was an outstanding aircraft that was much
better than anything the Japanese had. Even good pilots would have had a
very rough time in a Zero against a Spitfire 8. The key difference here
is that the Spitfire was continuously, if too slowly, improved, while the
Zero later Zeros were little better than the earlier models.

Jim Erickson

ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
In article <8t2o0j$e81g$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
"Yama" <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:

> Hmm. The V was really little than Spitfire I with more powerful
engine. By
> contrast, 109F had not only more powerful engine, it had improved
> aerodynamics and structure.

The early Bf109 F-2's which equipped the likes of JG. 26 in the summer
of 1941 and which were directly contemporary with the Spitfire Vb were
equipped with the same DB 601N engine as was the earlier Bf109 E-7. The
F-4 had a more powerful engine, but enterted effective combat service at
the earliest 6 months or so after the Spitfire V.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> significant and cannot be ignored. For any realistic assessment, the
> Bf109E and the Spitfire I/II's used in the battle were essentially
> equivalent in performance.

This is the conclusion of nearly every book I've ever seen, but I think
it's largely a cop out. Curiously, the conclusion almost always follows
a comment on the DRAMATIC superiority of the Me109E in a dive. The Me109's
diving ability gave it a huge advantage on the escape. Me109s could almost
always get away from Spits by executing a quick dive and once they did so
they were safe. Spits could under some circumstances out turn Me109s but
that left them still in the thick of things and vulnerable. Molders had
the chance to fly a captured Spitfire and while he considered it a
delightful plane, the problem with the engine cutting out in a dive,
made it a completely unacceptable warplane to him.

While I'm always wary of "bottom line" claims, Spit proponents have to
explain why the Me109 had a positive kill ratio over the Spit in
1940-42 on both offensive and defensive operations if they want to
establish the parity, let alone superiority, of the Spit.

Jim Erickson

WalterM140

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
Mr. Bailey sends:

>Name me another aircraft that first flew in 1936 which remained in
>production throughout the war, came in a total of over 20 recognised
>marks, doubled it's weight, doubled it's rate of climb, tripled it's
>range, increased it's maximum speed by 100 mph and quadrupled it's
>firepower in this period. Regardless of the inflated mythology
>surrounding the Spitfire, this is not an inconsiderable development
>record, and it's combat record speaks for itself for anybody prepared to
>make the effort to study it objectively.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

To be somewhat facetious, all those accomplishments wouldn't be hard if you
started with a low enough base line.

The Spitfire is a magnificent aircraft, no doubt about it.

Now plug it into the mission to kill Yamamoto that P-38's successfully executed
in April, 1943. But you won't get very far, will you?

Walt

Markus Dressler

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
C.C.Jordan <Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> schrieb

> >Range didn't matter for german fighters at that time. The speed
> >difference is, if i remember correctly, insignificant (20 kph or so).
> >The P47 had the greatest structural strenght of all single-engine
> >fighters of WWII, but every Fw 190 was more manoeruvrable than the
> >Thunderbolt.
>
> Several points:
> 1) A P-47M could attain speeds of 480 mph at 34,000 ft. The Fw 190
> could barely get up that high. The 190D wasn't much better.

Yes, it was awfully fast. My source says 750 kph (469 mph) at 9800 m
(32600 ft). But there must have been a reason why only 133 were built
(end of war?).

> From 20,000 to 30,000 it was at least as agile as anything
> in service with the Luftwaffe.

If it's true, it's impressive, given the T-Bolts weight of more than
twice a Me 109.

> Besides, the air battles took place at the
> altitudes where the bombers flew.

That seems logical.

> Considering that the P-51H was designed specifically for Pacific
> deployment, and none served in the ETO, the point is moot.
> However, just for the record, the 2,218 hp P-51H would have
> overtaken Tank in short order, MW 50 not withstanding. The P-51H
> was a different animal altogether (487 mph).

I could find no dates on the Mustang-H, but 487 mph makes this version
the fastest single-engine piston-fighter of all times, or not? I think
it always wins in these air-races in the United States...

> Now, as to the best fighter of WWII:
> If we consider the all-around ability of any single fighter type, then
> there can be no comparison the the Vought F4U-4 Corsair.

A pretty plane. As a child, i used to watch the TV-series about the
squadron VMF-214 with the pilot Gregory Boyington ("Pazifikgeschwader
214" - don't know the english title...) :). It would have been
interesting to see its performance against european fighters, which were
more heavily armed, less agile and more robust than Japanese ones.

Mit freundlichen gruessen,
Markus


Andrew Clark

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to

<ifr...@my-deja.com> wrote

> 1. The British expected to fight a second BoB in the summer of
> 1941,

To be precise, the British knew from Enigma from the end of 1940 onwards
that Germany was moving its land forces eastward in probable preparation for
an attack on the USSR. The Defence Committee therefore set out as a basis
for BCE war planning that it was not expected that Germany would attempt an
major invasion of the UK in 1941, although raids of up to corp. strength
were "likely".

However, the Defence Committee also said that a sustained bombing attack on
British industry and military resources could be expected prior to the LW
moving the bulk of its forces eastward in the spring or summer of 1941, and
that even after any move to the east, a significant proportion of LW
strength would remain facing Britain. Accordingly, as you say, the British
expected to fight a major air campaign in 1941 and designed and produced
their aircraft accordingly.

Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Name me another aircraft that first flew in 1936 which remained in
> production throughout the war, came in a total of over 20 recognised
> marks, doubled it's weight, doubled it's rate of climb, tripled it's
> range, increased it's maximum speed by 100 mph and quadrupled it's
> firepower in this period.

All true, but to a degree beside the point. One could take this
same tack and argue that the RAF was saddled with an old aircraft
and would have been better served with something newer, like
the P-47 or the P-51. Once the BoB (OK, Malta too) was over
the British didn't really need an aircraft with the strengths of
the Spitfire. If they'd developed something with long-range offensive
capabilities they would have been better off. If they'd developed
something that was a combination of a good fighter and good attack
aircraft they would have been better off.

> Regardless of the inflated mythology
> surrounding the Spitfire, this is not an inconsiderable development
> record, and it's combat record speaks for itself for anybody prepared to
> make the effort to study it objectively.

The problem is that the myth serves to disguise the problematic aspects
of the Spitfire's record. It was still an outstanding record given
the circumstances, but it never had the record or the performance to
justify any claims that it was the BEST fighter for anything but certain
specialized tasks.

Consider:

1940-41, the Me109 was its equal or better in both offensive and
defensive roles. That's what the head-to-head combat record shows.

1942, the FW190 was far superior.

1943, the remained on top but with the emergence of its equal, the Mk 9,
the menace of the FW190 was gradually countered. Of course the US
bombing campaign also began to seriously influence German tactics and
there was less opportunity for the Spitfire in combat. By mid to late
1943, I think a fair assessment would put the P-47 as the best available
allied fighter.

1944, the P-51 was much better than the Spit 9 in air combat against
the Germans. Both the P-51 and P-47 were better against ground targets
than the Spitfire. This is significant since the Spitfires were heavily
engaged against ground targets in Normandy and thereafter. There is a
quote in Max Hasting's Overlord to the effect that US 9th AF
Gen "Pete" Quesada believed the RAF was severely hampered in its
operations at the time by its enormous "incubus" of Spitfires. I can't
see any reason to contradict that assessment.

1945, the Mk14 was indeed a great aircraft, but at best, it was pretty
much a match for the P-51D in absolute performance and the P-47M was
just as good or better. Still the American fighters had the critical
advantage that they could take the fight to the enemy while the Spit
remained hampered by its range. As far as I can tell the Mk14 was
about equal to the FW190D. It's also worth noting that while I'm
comparing the Mk 14 for 1945, the Mk 9 (and 16) were still far more
numerous.

I'd be happy to hear if you think this is a misrepresentative brief
summation of the Spitfire's comparative record. It was certainly a
good record, but the Spit never achieved the dominance in battle that the
FW190, or the P-51, or the F6F or F4U (against the Japanese) did.
While I don't really know what it means to say that a record stands for
itself, the only credible claim that the Spit was the best WWII fighter
would be that it was active and competitive at the highest levels for
almost the entire war. That is an outstanding achievement, but, for me,
it fall short of superlative.

Jim Erickson


genrl_m...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
In article <8sskg7$8nk4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
jw...@COLUMBIA.EDU wrote:
> genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > It depends on what version of the V that you are talking about.
<snip>
>
> You've highlighted what was the biggest problem with the Mk 5 Spit,
> that it was still in operations so late in the war. <snip> should
have been replaced much earlier.
>
The situation isn't that simple. In order to bring out a new model,
the production plants had to be retooled, squadrons refitted and
retrained. The situation is especially difficult when the squadrons in
question were in active combat. ISTM that the RAF would have allocated
the newest versions of the fighters where they were needed most.
Sectors that saw the most air combat most got or should have gotten the
latest versions first. Units not engaged in regular air combat, were
used for ground support or for other support operations could keep the
older models for longer.

ISTM that one of the problems that the RAF had was that they did have
too many models of Spitfires in operation at one time. In 1945, they
had Vs, VIIIs, IXs, XIVs and XVIs in action. There were a number of
circumstances that led to it. i.e. the VIII was in development to
replace the V when the FW-190 was introduced so the IX which was
essentially a souped up V was introduced to combat it. The XVI had the
Packard Built Merlin because Rolls Royce didn't have sufficient
production capability. Perhaps the powers that be at the time decided
to have what aircraft it could available rather than having the best
aircraft in smaller numbers.

westprog 2000

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
In article <8t3tfs$btu$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>,
walte...@aol.com (WalterM140) wrote:
> Mr. Halliwell sends:

Interceptor, Bomber Escort, Fighter Bomber, PRU, Nightfighter

> You've really made the argument for the Lightning, because it could --

> and did--- do all of those missions.

Or perhaps the Bf 110 - which also performed all the above (I can't
speak 100% for sure about the PRU role).

Perhaps that is why the Me 210 was first suggested. It was able to do a
lot of things equally badly.

Any twin-engined fighter will, all else being equal, be more versatile
than the single-engined. The question then becomes - does it do each
role better than the more specialised aircraft?

Maybe there should be a seperate heading for versatility. If we break
the list down by role, year, and nation we should be able to include
every aircraft that saw active service.

--
J/

Markus Dressler

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
<ifr...@my-deja.com> schrieb

> Name me another aircraft that first flew in 1936 which remained in
> production throughout the war,

The Bf 109 first flew in September 1935 and not only remained in
production throughout the war, but was produced until 1948 in the former
CSSR and until 1958 in Spain. 33,000 were built. Only the Battleplane
Il-2 Sturmovik was built in even larger numbers.

> came in a total of over 20 recognised marks,

You can't compare it one by one, but it was widely used for almost
everything like the Spitfire and if you count the modifications (E-4,
F-3, G-16, K-6 and so on) there are many more than 20.

> doubled it's weight,

The Me 109 nearly did ( 109-A: about 2000 kg, 109-G 10 : 3678 kg, but
less agile due to the increased weight )

> doubled it's rate of climb,

109 B-2: 9.8 min for 6000 m, thats 10.2 m/sec
109 G-2: 24.5 m/sec
more than doubled

> tripled it's range,

Okay, the Spit is superior here :
B-2: 450 km
E-3: 660 km
Purely short range.

> increased it's maximum speed by 100 mph

109: 150 mph ( B-2: 470 kph, K-4: 710 kph )

> and quadrupled it's firepower in this period.

First 109 : 2 x 7,62 mm Machine Gun
Some 109-K: 3 x 30 mm MK 103-Cannon, 2 x 13,1 mm MG131
I would count this as ten-fold or so, but okay, the first armament was a
joke.

> Regardless of the inflated mythology
> surrounding the Spitfire, this is not an inconsiderable development
> record, and it's combat record speaks for itself for anybody prepared
> to make the effort to study it objectively.

That's right, both airplanes went through the longest development and
combat history of all fighters. The efforts of improving them to their
limit were remarkable, with the better results for the Spitfire (she
didn't lost her agility like the 109-G and K).

Greetings, and sorry for the metric system ;)
Markus

killgi...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:42 AM10/26/00
to
Best aircraft of WW2? I'll go with the Me 109 for these reasons:

-Since combat efficiency is a combination of man AND machine- the best
fighter pilots of WW2 were German and the majority CHOSE to fly the Me
109 to the end.

- Over 35,000 were produced. Early models had the advantage of
superchargers, fuel injection, and cannon armament (compared to MGs).
Later models could be configured in many ways with field conversion kits
and performance maintained by improving the DB 605 engine. Although
outclassed by 1945, the Me 109 remained a potent fighting machine.

- The Me 109 remained a fighter aircraft until the end - unlike the FW
190 which was developed into a multirole aircraft.

"Miss Devious & Mischievous"

Tero P. Mustalahti

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:42 AM10/26/00
to
In article <8t09hu$4so$1...@beast.tcnj.edu>,
John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> writes:

> My choices:


>
> Interceptor - Spit Mk 9 or 14 or FW190 (later ME 262)

The Spitfire did not have heavy enough armament for an interceptor, at
least not if we assume that four engined bombers would have been the
target. The Spitfire 21 was finally able to carry four 20mm cannons,
but the Tempest was more durable and a better gunnery platform, so the
Tempest was probably the best Allied interceptor. It also did some
actual intercepting, albeit V1s, not bombers.

> Fighter Bomber - Beaufighter (before BoB, Stuka)

Do you mean a purpose-designed fighter-bomber? If so, then the
Beaufighter is a good choice. However, the Mosquito VI, P-38 Lightning
(especially the later models) and F4U Corsair were better
fighter-bombers than the Beaufighter, even though the Mosquito was
originally a light bomber and the latter two fighters. I also do not
think that the Beaufighter was much superior to its German
counterpart, the Me 410 Hornisse.

By the way, the Ju 87 Stuka was never a fighter-bomber by a long
shot. It was a good dive bomber, but that was about it. It could not
match even the old Polish PZL P.11 fighter in air combat.

> Nightfighter - Mosquito/Ju88

The He 219 Uhu was a better night fighter than the Ju 88, and the
Mosquito was better than either German aircraft. Why? Compare speed
and maneuverability. The British also had better radar sets.


Tero P. Mustalahti

Guy Tipton

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:43 AM10/26/00
to
Hi Folks

Incon28443 wrote:

> i had thought that varients of the F4-U Corsair were still in service at
> the
> start of the Vietnem conflict i am going by memory but i am
> reasonably sure that i had seen film clips of them being used in a ground
> support actions

I think that you are correct if you mean in French service. In addition the
Bearcat was in use by the Vietnamese and (?) Cambodian Air Forces.
InVietnamese service the Bearcat was used until '67 IIRC. I believe that
some PRU Misquitos were still in use in Egyptian and Arab Emraties
service. Again IIRC the Spitfire was pretty much out of service in the
'60s.

What other WW2 fighter type aircraft were still in service in the '60s?
A turboprop engined version of the Mustang was proposed for use as
a CAS aircraft in 'Nam in the late '60s. What else?

Guy Tipton

ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:44 AM10/26/00
to
On 18 Oct 2000 17:23:00 GMT, Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:

>If the Spit was the outstanding fighter of the war, why did it
>have a kill ratio of less than 1.0 against German fighters in
>the first 3 1/2 years of the war?

Because of a factor always overlooked by later generations looking to
exaggerate the differences between aircraft in search of ridiculously
infantile delusions of national superiority.

I'm referring to tactical advantage (normally based on height and
position). For example, during the BoB, Spitfires were obliged to
engage enemy bombers at very short notice and could not always assume
the tactical initiative first. During fighter sweeps over France, the
Spitfire was also handicapped by being tied to close escort missions,
exposure to AA fire and the fact that they were operating over enemy
territory against high-quality opposition with comparable aircraft which
had the advantages of operating over home ground and generally with the
tactical advantage.

>At best, it equalled but did
>not exceed the performance of its primary opponents

While the Spitfire does enjoy a powerful intersection of objective
performance and national mythology, by any objective standard it was an
outstanding fighter, and only the Bf109 and Fw190 enjoyed any measure of
significant performance superiority or even equality with it in the
west. Equally, at various times different marks of Spitfire did
out-perform the contemporary versions of these types.

>The P-51 consistently gets under rated.

On the contrary, it has been remorselessly hyped as the decisive fighter
aircraft of the ETO for years now.

> It was a better
>fighter than comparable Spitfires in the most critical
>features of speed, range, and armament.

Only in terms of range was this true. When the first Mustangs entered
significant operational service, they were roughly contemporary with the
Spitfire IX, and the P-51B was roughly contemporary with the Spitfire
XIV. Both of these aircraft had performance advantages over the
relevant version of the Mustang (apart from acceleration in the dive,
but rate of climb, speed, and turning circle were all superior, while
rate of roll was better at all but maximum speed and even then was equal
with clipped wing-tips*), although these were of marginal importance in
the real world of operational service.

[* based on operational testing by the AFDU of the Mustang I & X and
Spitfire IX, and the Spitfire XIV against the Mustang III (P-51B) and
Spitfire IX. Also Tony Gaze's recollections of avoiding Mustangs in his
Spitfire XIV quoted in Caldwell are worth remembering over this issue.]

> It could not
>match the late model Spits as a pure interceptor, but
>that was irrelevant as there was little or no need for
>a pure interceptor after 1940.

Which is why Spitfires were employed as tactical fighters.

>I don't see how you can rate the typhoon above the P-47. P-47s
>carried rockets as well and could handle larger bomb loads than
>the typhoon.

I thought they both could carry 1,000lbs operational load (2x500lb
bombs)?

> The P-47 was more rugged than the typhoon and could
>more than hold its own as a fighter once it shed its bombs or
>rockets. The typhoon in contrast was a bust as a fighter.

This is not reflected in the experiences of those who actually flew
Typhoons or had to fight them at the low altitudes used on tactical
missions.

Gavin Bailey

AngelAlita<...>

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:45 AM10/26/00
to
Opps, sorry I meant the ME 262.... the 210 was the heavy fighter-bomber that
didn't do so well.


Jim Erickson

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:49 AM10/26/00
to
ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> >Mk 8's could have been available in late 42 or 43

> The first Mk VIII's were produced in November 1942, and the earliest
> possible date for a single squadron to be formed would have been
> December1942/January 1943 (IIRC 30 had been produced by the end

Just a small clarification as the word could is ambiguous.
What I meant is that with better planning and foresight the
RAF could have had an improved Spitfire sooner than it did.
Something like the Mk 8 could have been available in Europe
in fairly substantial numbers in 1942 under those circumstances.
Of course, one of your previous posts outlined some of the
reasons for the slow development of the Spitfire, and while
I appreciate those difficulties, I think the British could
have done much better than they did.

Jim Erickson


David Thornley

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:46 AM10/26/00
to
In article <8skmim$8nmg$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,

Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>I'd say the 109 was considerably better than the Spitfire
>in 1940. The BoB was won by shooting down bombers, not
>in fighter v. figher combat. The German fighters shot down
>more RAF fighters than they lost, but the RAF took an enormous
>toll on the bombers.
>
It seems simple enough to me. The German fighters were shooting
at British fighters, whereas the British fighters were trying
to get to the German bombers. This means that the German fighters
were not the primary targets, and they got to shoot at enemies
that were trying to do something else.

No wonder the German fighters had a favorable kill ratio, regardless
of any fighter or pilot quality issues.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-


Markus Dressler

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:46 AM10/26/00
to
Incon28443 <incon...@aol.cominconofu> schrieb

> also by mid 1944, the german ability to eithor produce petroleom
> products or deliver what was produced was becoming a major
> problem for them by later in the year(44) there production of
> all fuels was less than (an average) 2200 tons per day for the
> enitire reich.

That's right, they had to fly their missions, if any, mostly with some
kind of synthetic fuel, which wasn't of the same quality as 'real' fuel.
After several air raids on the Romanian refiney of Ploesti by B-24
Liberator Bombers, the supply constantly kept dropping.

> this is rather ironic since the production of aircraft
> hit its high point in 44 as well, with a 2000 plane fighter fleet
> having been delivered to the western front in the later third of
> that year

The german aircraft production reached its peak of 40,593 in '44 (mostly
fighters) due to the efforts of decentralised production, but I don't
think that less than a tenth of these planes actually flow. Only the ace
pilots and squadrons (e.G. the JG 7 equipped with Me 262s) got fuel and
fought on until the liberation of nazi-tyranny (e.G. the last great
air-battle of WWII on March 18th 1945, where six Me 262s shot down 30
Allied planes, 25 B-17 & 5 P-51, while losing 1 plane themselves).

Greetings,
Markus


David Thornley

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:52 AM10/26/00
to
In article <8t3tfs$btu$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>,

WalterM140 <walte...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Interceptor - Spit Mk 9 or 14 or FW190 (later ME 262)
>>Bomber Escort - P-51D

>>Fighter Bomber - Beaufighter (before BoB, Stuka)
>>PRU - Spit Mk 21
>>Nightfighter - Mosquito/Ju88

>
>You've really made the argument for the Lightning, because it could --and
>did--- do all of those missions.
>
It was not in general the best aircraft for these missions. It was
very versatile, but if we were to make a category for most versatile
aircraft it would have to go to the Mosquito or Ju 88.

So, here's a category for the P-38: If you had only one airframe
available as day fighter, night fighter, light bomber, photo-recon,
and long-range bomber escort, which would you pick? The Mosquito
comes up somewhat short for day fighter (the Ju 88 is out of the
question), so I'd go with the P-38.

Nice aircraft, although it never did find much of a niche in the
European theater. It was expensive, though, and hard to learn to
fly well.

Bill Shatzer

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:50 AM10/26/00
to

On 24 Oct 2000 ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Name me another aircraft that first flew in 1936 which remained in

> production throughout the war, came in a total of over 20 recognised
> marks, doubled it's weight, doubled it's rate of climb, tripled it's
> range, increased it's maximum speed by 100 mph and quadrupled it's
> firepower in this period.

If you consider the P-40 as a re-engined P-36, I think the P-40 meets all
those criteria except maybe firepower which only tripled rather than
quadrupled.

The Macchi 200/202/205/205N comes close as well - although the original
MC.200 only dates to 1937 and not 1936.

Of course, the Spitfire XIV in production in 1945 was -not- the same
aircraft as the original 1936 prototype. While they shared a similar
design concept, there were no interchangable parts between the two.

Cheers and all,

Freddie Clark

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:51 AM10/26/00
to
I have to dispute this, to my Knowledge the brits were never really in dire
straits vis Aircraft ( the Beaverbrook drive for pots and pans was a huge
publicity stunt, with most or none being used, it was simply a civilian
morale booster). The major problem was always a lack of pilots. replacement
aircraft were generally available very quickly, but to train a pilot was a
time consuming process. I also think that BC would have hit berlin with or
without the help of the He-111 mentioned. As the head of the Luftwaffe Mr
Meyer underestimated british offensive resolve and overestimated the ability
of german interceptors/AA defence, especially in those early days when
nightfighting was still really in its infancy.
plus the real killer, the Spit was so much better looking than anything else
produced throughout the war.

--
Regards
Freddie
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the
devil in the House of Commons."
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill

ICQ # 13534849
Yahoo - waylan...@yahoo.com

C.C.Jordan

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:47 AM10/26/00
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:18:30 GMT, Harri Pihl <etunimi....@pois.nic.fi>
wrote:

>Jim Erickson kirjoiitti

>> Even when appropriate tactics were developed its overall advantages over
>> the Zero were smaller than for the American P-40s, F4Fs, and later F4U and F6Fs.
>
>Hmm... I can think two areas where the F4F and the P-40 have a clear
>edge over the Spitfire V when fighting against Zeros in 1941. Range and
>vulnerability.

I would add to this, rate of roll for the P-40 and dive acceleration for both
the P-40 and F4F-3. If I recall correctly, the Spitfire Mk.Vb still suffered
from fuel starvation in a pushover. Thus, the A6M has an initial advantage,
although short lived. Both the P-40 and F4F could simply bunt over and
accelerate away from the Zero. The Spitfire Mk.Vb had to roll inverted
prior to diving, or suffer the engine losing power for a few, critical,
moments.

>In all other areas Spitfire V was about as good or better
>than the P-40 or the F4F. Generally I see the F4F as weakest of these
>three, no speed advantage, no dive advantage (about same as Zero
>according to Eric Brown), roll advantage smaller than other's. There are
>couple good comparison between Zero vs F4F and Zero vs Seafire in the
>"Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown (he flew them all).

I realize that Eric Brown is well respected in Britain and Europe in
general. Nonetheless, here in the U.S. there are several test pilots with
at least as much experience in total time and numbers of different aircraft.
Bob Hall and Corky Meyer are two of these. Hall is now dead. However,
his test reports still exist. Corky is still with us and currently writes
extensively on his experiences. Both men worked for Grumman. Hall
was the Chief Engineer and supervised all testing. Meyer would rise
to Chief Test Pilot.

Meyer has flown most Marks of the Spitfire and Seafire. He positively loves the
plane. Corky also logged a great deal of time in a captured A6M2 and
the A6M5 as well. Again, he liked the Zero as an airplane, but loathed it
as a fighter. With respect to the later model Zero, Corky said, " We few
who were allowed to test it found that it was all hype and legend."
(See Flight Journal, February 1998 and the WWII fighter special edition
of January 2000. Flight Journal also publishes articles by Eric Brown
Back issues of Flight Journal can be ordered from their web site at this URL:
https://www.flightjournal.com/store/bissue.asp)

Corky disagrees with Brown's contention that the F4F could not out-dive
the A6M Zero. Unlike the Zero, the Wildcat (all models) did not have
a dive speed redline. The F4F-3 was rated by the Navy as having a terminal
dive velocity of 485 mph (TAS) @ 10,000 ft. Grumman, on the other hand,
claimed a terminal dive velocity of 515 mph (TAS) @ 12,000 ft. Either way,
Meyer says that the Zero was a "dog" in a dive and could not get away from,
nor hope to catch the Wildcat by diving.

Despite the general lack of performance, the various models of the F4F/FM
series managed to shoot down 905 enemy aircraft while only losing 178
to enemy aircraft. This translates to a kill to loss ratio of just under 7:1,
not bad for carrier fighter that was first conceived in 1936.

Above, I mentioned a special WWII fighter edition of Flight Journal.
This issue also has an outstanding piece written by Brown, that should be
required reading for all students of WWII aviation history. It is still
available as a back issue from the Flight Journal via the web site
listed above. The cost is $3.95 US plus the cost of mailing. This issue
is well worth the trouble to obtain it. More often than not, one will find
combat and test pilots who disagree strongly with Brown's declarations
and opinions. Nonetheless, Capt. Brown's experience and knowledge
are such that they must be seriously considered in any historical analysis
of WWII fighter aircraft.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org


AngelAlita<...>

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:17:50 AM10/26/00
to
I assume the positive kill ratio for the ME109 pilots was due to their extra
combat experience in the Spanish Civil War.

The German's experience in that earlier war helped them to prepare a few
years earlier for WWII. That gave them the edge.

I remember hearing an American RAF pilot, who flew in the SCW under the
Republican side, complain that the Spitfires Mk1 and 2 did not have their
machine guns properly zeroed making it harder to kill the enemy.


Harri Pihl

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:35:23 AM10/26/00
to
Jim Erickson kirjoitti:

> 1940-41, the Me109 was its equal or better in both offensive and
> defensive roles. That's what the head-to-head combat record shows.

What kind of head-to-head combat record you mean?



> 1942, the FW190 was far superior.

But despite it was superior fighter it did could not reach dominance in
air neither in France or over England.

> 1943, the remained on top but with the emergence of its equal, the Mk 9,
> the menace of the FW190 was gradually countered. Of course the US
> bombing campaign also began to seriously influence German tactics and
> there was less opportunity for the Spitfire in combat. By mid to late
> 1943, I think a fair assessment would put the P-47 as the best available
> allied fighter.

The P-47 might have been best available allied high altitude fighter,
but below 6000m the Spitfire IX or later models were better except in
dive. It should be noted even USAF used Spitfire very succesfully in the
MTO.



> 1944, the P-51 was much better than the Spit 9 in air combat against
> the Germans. Both the P-51 and P-47 were better against ground targets
> than the Spitfire. This is significant since the Spitfires were heavily
> engaged against ground targets in Normandy and thereafter. There is a
> quote in Max Hasting's Overlord to the effect that US 9th AF
> Gen "Pete" Quesada believed the RAF was severely hampered in its
> operations at the time by its enormous "incubus" of Spitfires. I can't
> see any reason to contradict that assessment.

The Spitfire was designed as short range interceptor, not as long range
escort fighter or fighter bomber. Spitfire was one of the first allied
planes to operate from Normandy.



> 1945, the Mk14 was indeed a great aircraft, but at best, it was pretty
> much a match for the P-51D in absolute performance and the P-47M was
> just as good or better.

The Spitfire XIV climbed a lot better than the P-47M or the P-51. And
the P-47M did not see much combat, just last weeks of the war, infact
there were a lot trouble with it.

> Still the American fighters had the critical
> advantage that they could take the fight to the enemy while the Spit
> remained hampered by its range. As far as I can tell the Mk14 was
> about equal to the FW190D. It's also worth noting that while I'm
> comparing the Mk 14 for 1945, the Mk 9 (and 16) were still far more
> numerous.

So what, all air forces tend to use old aircraft too and the Spitfire IX
did still fine.

> I'd be happy to hear if you think this is a misrepresentative brief
> summation of the Spitfire's comparative record. It was certainly a
> good record, but the Spit never achieved the dominance in battle that the
> FW190, or the P-51, or the F6F or F4U (against the Japanese) did.
> While I don't really know what it means to say that a record stands for
> itself, the only credible claim that the Spit was the best WWII fighter
> would be that it was active and competitive at the highest levels for
> almost the entire war. That is an outstanding achievement, but, for me,
> it fall short of superlative.

The Spitfire and the Hurricane won day time air dominance over England
in 1940 and the Spitfire keeped it until the end of the war with the
little help from the Tempest, the Typhoon and the Mustang. This was the
task it was designed for.

My own subjective opinion is that the Dewoitine D.520 and the Spitfire I
were the best fighters of the WWII because they were so beautiful
airplanes. It all depends on scale...

--
Harri Pihl

firstname....@pois.nic.fi

To email put my name before att sign and remove pois.

Dave Gower

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 12:03:30 PM10/26/00
to

"Markus Dressler" <markus....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:8t75e5$efva$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> I could find no dates on the Mustang-H,

According to "P-51 bomber escort" (Ballentine weapons book No 26) it was
ordered Aug 44, first flew Feb 45, original order for 2500 cut back
"drastically" at end of the war. "...came too late to see action...".

Eventually 550 were built, and saw extensive service, including Korea.

ifr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 12:07:58 PM10/26/00
to
On 24 Oct 2000 17:58:39 -0400, Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote:

>ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> significant and cannot be ignored. For any realistic assessment, the
>> Bf109E and the Spitfire I/II's used in the battle were essentially
>> equivalent in performance.
>
>This is the conclusion of nearly every book I've ever seen, but I think
>it's largely a cop out.

I don't. Let me explain why in simple terms. Marginal differences in
performance can be significant, particularly when they are exploited by
experienced pilots, but the bald fact is that tactical advantage was
always the most important factor in aerial combat. This helps explain
why (all things being equal) the squadron that claimed the most Bf109's
during the BoB was a Hurricane squadron, and also expains why most
pilots never even saw the aircraft that shot them down before it was too
late to exploit any performance advantage they might have had.

>Curiously, the conclusion almost always follows
>a comment on the DRAMATIC superiority of the Me109E in a dive. The
Me109's
>diving ability gave it a huge advantage on the escape.

Which was significant, providing that the pilot was able to start diving
at the right moment, and that he wasn't being attacked at a zero
deflection angle by an enemy fighter already in a dive with a wider
margin of overtaking speed. This explains why Bf109's were shot down by
diving Spitfires and Hurricanes regardless of the Bf109's objective
performance advantage in initiating steep climbs or dives.

> Me109s could almost
>always get away from Spits by executing a quick dive and once they did
so
>they were safe.

This is an excessively simplistic summary of aerial combat, reducing a
complex and fluid situation with numerous factors of wildly varying
importance to a binary summary which although selectively true, does not
account for the wider experience of the reality of air combat. I can
produce examples of Bf109's being shot down by Spitfires in dives for
various reasons, which indicate that any paper performance difference
needs to be qualified by operational reality before being used to make
sweeping and apparently definative assertions.

>Spits could under some circumstances out turn Me109s but
>that left them still in the thick of things and vulnerable. Molders
had
>the chance to fly a captured Spitfire and while he considered it a
>delightful plane, the problem with the engine cutting out in a dive,
>made it a completely unacceptable warplane to him.

Enough performance comparisons were made with captured operational
aircraft to know, for example, that the Spitfire could out-turn the
Bf109E when flown to it's limits above the stall. However, the key
factor (on both sides) was having a pilot experienced enough to exploit
the full performance of his aircraft without hesitation.

>While I'm always wary of "bottom line" claims, Spit proponents have to
>explain why the Me109 had a positive kill ratio over the Spit in
>1940-42 on both offensive and defensive operations if they want to
>establish the parity, let alone superiority, of the Spit.

Because tactical operational considerations were paramount, and thus the
Me262 could be and was regularly shot down by piston engined fighters,
despite the large performance superiority it had on paper. I'm not at
all clear that the Luftwaffe did experience a favourable kill ratio
against the RAF in the closing stages of the BoB (when operations were
almost exclusively fighter-vs-fighter). In the final weeks of the
battle, the Luftwaffe was losing more fighters than the RAF lost. On
15th September, for example, the Luftwaffe lost 25 Bf109's to RAF
fighter attack, while the RAF lost a maximum of 22 fighters to Luftwaffe
fighter attack (13 were observed, nine were lost to unknown causes).
Given that the Hurricane was experiencing approximately a 50% higher
casualty rate than the Spitfire was at this time, if all the British
aircraft involved in this action had been Spitfires, it is not
unreasonable to postulate a British loss rate of perhaps 16-18 aircraft
or so, and this analysis completely ignores the bombers which were the
main focus of the British effort. This does not convincingly
demonstrate the presumed superiority of the Bf109 over the Spitfire.

I wouldn't want to argue to any extent that the Spitfire was superior to
the Bf109, because (at least at that stage) I don't think it was, but I
think I'd like to see a detailed analysis of operations which could
prove any significant operational superiority of the Bf109E over the
Spifire I/II that transcended the more important factors of tactical
advantage, pilot experience and relative position.

David Thornley

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 4:18:19 PM10/26/00
to
In article <8t1t0m$115$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>,
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:

>The Hellcat (Gannet at first) seemed to offer an improvement on
>the Martlet's performance while still being a good 'carrier
>plane, but the FAA never seems to have really taken to it.

Without actually going out and looking at dates, it seems to me
that Hellcats were starting to join the US Fleet at more or less
the same time that Corsairs were joining the RN. Could it be that
the RN was getting access to two carrier fighter that represented
significant improvements, and preferred the better? Or did the RN
consider the Firefly and Seafire better?

IIRC, the RN carriers deployed to the Pacific for the Okinawa
operation primarily carried Corsairs, but also Seafires and
Fireflies. (The last two of the Illustrious family had hangars
just a bit too short for Corsairs, and had to use other fighters.)

me

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 4:18:19 PM10/26/00
to

"Jim Erickson" <jw...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8t75od$efte$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...

> ifr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> 1940-41, the Me109 was its equal or better in both offensive and
> defensive roles. That's what the head-to-head combat record shows.
>
Not at all. The Spitfire had an exellent record in the defensive battles of
the BOB, and in the offensive during the first 6 months of 1941 the RAF
detroyed more German aircraft than they lost. The claimed advantages the RAF
possesed in the BoB (range, fighting over own territory etc) were also
possesed by the Germans during the first half of 41, but the RAF still came
out on top.


> 1942, the FW190 was far superior.
>

In the first half of 42 certainly. The 190 was clearly superior to the Spit
V. In the second half the Spit IX was better than the 190, and improvements
to the Spit V helped it close the gap on the Fw.

> 1943, the remained on top but with the emergence of its equal, the Mk 9,
> the menace of the FW190 was gradually countered. Of course the US
> bombing campaign also began to seriously influence German tactics and
> there was less opportunity for the Spitfire in combat. By mid to late
> 1943, I think a fair assessment would put the P-47 as the best available
> allied fighter.

The P47 had better range than most mars of Spit, but it was clearly not the
superior fighter. Less opportunity for the Spitfire in combat? The US bomber
raids increased the opportunities for Spitfires, the Germans were forced to
defend against the bombers and their Spitfire (and P47) escorts. Previously
the Luftwaffe had attacked only when conditions were most favourable.


> 1944, the P-51 was much better than the Spit 9 in air combat against
> the Germans.

Granted. The P51 was inferior to the Spit XIV however, which was introduced
into service in January 44, 1 month after the P51B and several months before
the P51D.


> Both the P-51 and P-47 were better against ground targets
> than the Spitfire. This is significant since the Spitfires were heavily

> engaged against ground targets in Normandy and thereafter... US 9th AF


> Gen "Pete" Quesada believed the RAF was severely hampered in its
> operations at the time by its enormous "incubus" of Spitfires. I can't
> see any reason to contradict that assessment.

The P51 was a better ground attack aircraft in what respect? It had a more
vulnerable radiator installation than the Spit, and lacked cannons. Against
that it could carry a greater weight of bombs. It was slightly fatser than
the Spit at sea level, but the Spit XIV running on 150 octane fuel was
significantly faster at sea level.
As well as about 35 squadrons of Spitfires assigned to the 2nd Tactical Air
Force in Normandy, there were more than 20 squadrons of Typhoons, the finest
ground attack aircraft in Western Europe in 1944. With the Spit being at
least the equal of the Mustang, and the Typhoon better than the P47, the RAF
can't have been too badly hampered.

> 1945, the Mk14 was indeed a great aircraft, but at best, it was pretty
> much a match for the P-51D in absolute performance and the P-47M was
> just as good or better.

The Spit XIV had superior speed, vastly better climb rate, and was more
manoeuverable than the Mustang. It could also dive safely to higher speeds
than the mustang. The only disadvantage it had was range, but there is no
technical reason why the Spitfire could carry out long range missions. Some
late war Spit IX and XVIs had a range on full internal fuel of more than
1000 miles, and if wing drop tanks had been used as well (they were
successfully trialed) the range could have exeeded 2000 miles.

> As far as I can tell the Mk14 was
> about equal to the FW190D. It's also worth noting that while I'm
> comparing the Mk 14 for 1945, the Mk 9 (and 16) were still far more
> numerous.

That just shows the superiority of the basic design. Name a 1942 American
fighter mark still in front line service in 1945. The basic Spit IX was
still capable of fighting on rougly equal terms with any German piston
engined aircraft. Eric Brown (who test flew and fought all these aircraft)
rated the Spit XIV as the best, the 190 D9 as second and the Mustang third.

> It was certainly a
> good record, but the Spit never achieved the dominance in battle that the
> FW190, or the P-51, or the F6F or F4U (against the Japanese) did.

The Fw 190 achieved dominance over the Spit for about 6 months. Before and
after that period the Spit was a better fighter than anything the Luftwaffe
could put up. The P51 never outclassed it's German oposition, merely
outnumbered them. I found the following quote on a board dedicated to WW2
fighters:
"Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The
Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly
Spitifres, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular averson
to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much
respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned
their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

the only credible claim that the Spit was the best WWII fighter
> would be that it was active and competitive at the highest levels for
> almost the entire war. That is an outstanding achievement, but, for me,
> it fall short of superlative.
>

> Jim Erickson
The only credible claim the Spit has to being the best fighter of the war is
that before the advent of truly effective jets in 1945, the Spitfire at
almost any point during the war was the fighter most likely to win in any
encounter between 2 aircraft, providing the pilots were of equal skill.


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages