Best fighter [Archive] - Page 2 - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

robert

8th February 2004, 14:36

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

To robert:

The He 100 (He-112) Is not appropriate to this dicussion. This aircraft,although a good performer, was never accepted by the Luftwaffe much less make it to production. The prototype and about a dozen "pre-production" models were privatly built by Heinkle in the hope that it would be accepted.

These planes were provided to the Luftwaffe strictly for propaganda purposes and to fool English intelligence into believing that a new fighter had arrived on the scene. The dozen-or-so airccraft were repeatedly painted in different paint schemes to make it look like they existed in larger numbers.

Also, it was the 100 V3 that set the record of 394.6 mph in June 1938 and crashed trying to better it in Sep. 1938. The 100 V4 was not even built at this time.

The He 100 V8 raised the record to 463.92 in March 1939, but this was a highly modified version built for this purpose only (as was the Bf 109 R which later upped the record to 469 mph).

It was the never-produced He 100 D-1 that was specified at 416 mph.

The Mig 3 was first flown in late 1941. Its maximum speed was only 398 mph.

If we're going to discuss WW11 fighters, then I agree with a previous poster that we should consider only those that reached production and not one-of-a-kind.exotic types.

The He 100 and He 112 are two completely different aircraft. The He 112 saw production and service with several air forces, including Spain, Hungary, and Rumania. The He 100 was sometimes referred to as the "He 113" for propaganda purposes.

The He 100 V4, registration D-IRCN, was the prototype for the He 100D fighter series. It first flew in September 1938, and during testing that month, it reached 670 kph, or 416 mph. On October 22, 1938, the landing gear collapsed and the aircraft was badly damaged. This was not the specially modified aircraft, the He 100 V8, that set the speed record in 1939. My source is Heinkel He 100, by Hans-Peter Dabrowski, Schiffer Books, 1991.

It was a prototype fighter, no more, no less. The fact that it was not produced in quantity, to me is totally irrelevent. It was a fighter, and it did break 400+ mph before the XP-38. There was no way of knowing at the time that it would not become an operational fighter. Therefore, it has every right to be called the first 400+ mph fighter, not the P-38.

I fully agree with your point that that we should limit the discussion of the best fighter of WW2 to those that saw actual service. I would not nominate the He 100 as a candidate for "best" fighter, based on its lack of combat service. However, a distinction such as the first 400+ plus mph fighter should not be dependent on whether it actually entered service or not. It would be similar to having a discussion about whether a certain baseball player should be in the Hall of Fame. If someone said that Mel Ott, a Hall of Famer and a deserving one, should be in the the Hall of Fame because he hit 18 homers at age 19 in 1928 and that is the All-Time record for a teenager, and I pointed out that Tony Conigliaro holds the record with 24 home runs at age 19 in 1964, that would not mean that Conigliaro should be a Hall of Famer. It's just pointing out a single, unrelated, fact, which has no bearing on the full greatness of either Ott's or Conigliaro's career. In the same way, it is a fact that the He 100 was the first fighter prototype to break 400+ mph. This has no bearing on whether the P-38 or He 100 was a greater fighter (obviously in the great scheme of things, the P-38 was). It's just pointing out a fact not directly related to the rest of the discussion, but still true.

The I-200, the prototype of the MiG-1/3 series, first flew on April 5, 1940, and was clocked at 648 kpm, or 402.6 mph, during a flight on May 24, 1940. Source: Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. One by Gordon and Khazanov.

And in any case, it still wouldn't be the P-38, because the Fw 190A, Spitfire IX, and Typhoon I could all do 400+ mph in service prior to the first 400+ mph operational P-38.

robert

8th February 2004, 14:52

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hello simon:

Of the planes you mentioned, only the Firebrand could be considered a fighter (the jury is still out on the Fw 190 carrying torpedos. Possible, I guess, but I'm not aware of it).

The Focke Wulf Fw 190A-5/U14 was the torpedo carrying version of the Fw 190. Only two were produced, and although tests were successful, it was never used operationally. I could not find a photo of the Fw 190A-5/U-14 on the Internet (although if you do a web search, you can get confirmation that it was built and flown), but there is an excellent picture showing the aircraft fitted with a torpedo on page 19 on Peter G. Cooksley's Aerodata International No. 1 - Focke Wulf Fw 190A. The same photo is shown on page 206 of William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich.

GregP

8th February 2004, 17:03

Icksydad, Hi!

I looked a bit into the Russian structural problems. Seems most planes as designed were all metal, but metal was in short supply. As a reult, they made some of the structure out of wood. Some of the wood was glue-bonded, and the glue didn't hold up too well to the severe Russian elements. So ... it seems they had some glue separation problems that were cured, but not right away. Sounds king of like the Western problems with fighters ... cured, but not right away.

Hi Lightning!

The most important characteristic of a SHOOTER is hitting the target. It is called marksmanship and has little to do with the gun or the cartridge as long as the gun/cartridge combination is repeatable and accurate (all the major WWII guns and cartridges WERE). So hitting the target falls to the pilot.

So, the fighter designer must place the best resources at the pilot's disposal. That means he has to select the best weapons for the intended role. If that role was to shoot down bombers in WWII, then cannons were the order of the day (weight of fire). If the role was as an air superiority fighter intended to destroy other enemy fighters in WWII, then machine guns (rate of fire) was the order of the day.

All the great aces were superb marksmen. Han Marseilles was supposed to be almost perfect from deflection angles of 60Â° or more, as was Richard Bong. Hartmann was not as good a shot (according to his own account), but was a superb pilot who was in complete command of the aircraft. He simply got close and pulled the trigger.

Most of the "natural marksmen" were rural boys who grew up hunting and knew how to "lead" a target simply by experience.

CAPILATUS

8th February 2004, 21:53

I've been enjoying the forum since I came in! What the great opinions!

So, the fighter designer must place the best resources at the pilot's disposal. That means he has to select the best weapons for the intended role. If that role was to shoot down bombers in WWII, then cannons were the order of the day (weight of fire). If the role was as an air superiority fighter intended to destroy other enemy fighters in WWII, then machine guns (rate of fire) was the order of the day.

As I told before I can discuss just from theoretical poin of view. In Korea we can see the result of practical side. Definitley we really can compare two almost equal with monouverbility fighters but with different approach to weapon. That's the answer we all were talking about. At the end of the days F-86 were "reequipped" with cannons. They learned! To you, dear Greg, it's a clear example of using the meaning weight of fire. Two fighters mentioned above were the fighter as you, gentlemen, know.

Yes you may say - it's up to the pilots. But let me remind you in Korea met two school of top pilots, lot of pilots who had combat experience in WWII.

So, up to the topic. Having a number of the fighters with equal chracteristics including weight of fire figure, we have to shoose cannon version. That's my personal opinion. :)

ickysdad

9th February 2004, 12:44

Hey GregP! Thanks for the info! That's kind of what I was driving at before.I wasn't criticisiing the basic designs of Soviet fighters,but that they had severe problems with procuring proper materials at times and this carried over to thier engines to.It's a small wonder they were even able to field an airforce considering some shortages in strategic materials.

Lightning

10th February 2004, 08:33

Hi robert,

As far as the "V" numbers for the He 100 series are concerned, I have consulted multiple reference works on the subject ,and there are conflicting statements as to which was which. With that in mind, we'll just have to decide for ourselves the validity of the information derived from them.

I knew 5 seconds after I sent my post that someone would question my linking of the He 100 with the He 112. Let me explain: During the testing of the He 100, it was referred to as the He 112 to purposely give validity to that otherwise inferior aircraft. Again, the propaganda machine was in high gear. It can also be noted that, early on, the He 100 was called the He 113. that was changed because it was viewed as "unlucky".

Anyway, a fighter that never became a fighter was never a fighter in the first place--only a footnote to aviation history.

I 200 / Mig 1 / Mig 3: April 5, 1940 was almost 14 months after the XP-38 was lost on an ill-advised cross-country speed dash.

If we're going to cite prototype performance as valid to this dicussion, then the fact that the production Fw 190A, Spitfire IX, and Typhoon exceeded 400mph is not to the point since theey did not preceed the XP-38

GregP

11th February 2004, 03:13

Hi Capilatus,

Good point about the Sabres being equipped with cannons late in their development life. I have a unique viewpoint on this because I lived in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. for 23 years and had a very good friend who owned three MiG-15s.

Two were single seaters and one was a 2-seat MiG-15 UTI. We got the UTI assembled and running in flight-ready condition, and it is a very interesting aircraft. The single seaters will probably never fly again. They were all obtained from China (People's Air Museum outside Bejing), and the Chinese cut the wiring harnesses. They removed about 6 inches every 2 to 3 feet. So, unless someone wants to completely rewire the planes, they are static disply pieces only at this time.

They were clever with the UTI. They turned every other hydraulic check valve around ... so we had a fun time figuring THAT out, but we eventually got it running with the help of a couple of former MiG mechanics from the Polish Air Force.

Anyway, the MiG-15 is a robust, simple design and flies quite well. It is designed so that it is almost impossible to go supersonic in it. As the speed builds, the tendency is to nose up. Even if you invert, the MiG-15 will pull through horizontal and climb (assuming you have enough altitude to start with ... otherwise smoking hole in the ground).

Anyway, to the point, both the MiG and the Sabre were very good fighters. The MiG was smaller and lighter and had about the same power, so it could climb better and initial acceleration was quicker. Top speed at altitude was about equal with the Sabre being slightly faster after both got up to top speed, but the initial acceleration of the MiG gave it a slight lead in a drag race. So the Sabre pilots usually THOUGHT the MiG was faster.

I have checked out BOTH planes side by side in detail.

The systems on the Sabre are better in my opinion, but there is little to choose, performance wise. Looking at ergonomics, the Sabre is slightly better, and the Sabres cockpit enviromnment was better.

If you want to talk serviceability, the MiG wins, hands down. It is simple to maintain. It also has rough field and even grass / dirt field capability. The landing gear is VERY robust.

The gunsight in the MiG is quite good though I can't compare it with the Sabre since I have never sat in a Sabre cockpit with the gunsight turned on as I have in the MiG. Control of the MiG's gunsight is simple and easy ... the control is the throttle handle. Twist one way and the sight ring expands ... twist the other and it contracts. When the ring matches the target's wingspan, FIRE.

The MiG DOES have one very peculiar characteristic that is of concern to potential buyers.

The canopy frame does not fit tightly to the airframe, so it leaks in the rain.

When the engine starts, a built-in air compressor fills a rubber seal around the cockpit and it expands tightly, making the canopy seal and making pressurization possbile. But with the engine off, you will need a cockpit cover on the MiG if you don't want to find several inches of water in the cockpit after a rain.

I am impressed with the simplicity of the MiG's design when compared with the Sabre which, seen side by side, seems unnecessarily complex. A simple comparison would be in electronic connectors. The Sabre has many connector types. The MiG has only 4 or 5 connector types, so spares parts are fewer.

There is nothing wrong with the Sabre, it is a good airplane and gave years of reliable service.

However, all hype and personal opinions aside, there is nothing wrong with the MiG either. Nice plane. Rugged and dependable.

Lightning

12th February 2004, 07:23

Regarding the number of kills by the F6F--

When comparing fighters, it must be kept in mind that number of aircraft shot down is only one of many criteria.

The F6F was a very fine airplane,but it is more of a significant fighter than a great fighter.

The Hellcat enjoyed the luxury of being at the right place at the right time under the right conditions against the optimal enemy. It was produced in great numbers (over 12,000) and almost all of these were concentrated in the Pacific area.
Hellcats were part of the carrier war in which huge numbers of aircraft were engaged in large air battles (e.g. the "Marianas Turkey Shoot"). There were therefore many more opportunities to engage the enemy than had been the case earlier in the war(and in a much shorter time).

And who were the enemy at that juncture? By the time these battles took place, the Japanese pilots were of very poor quality. Many were only trained to take off and land! Training in tactics was a luxury they couldn't afford.

The Japanese planes were, by this time, old and worn out. They were also obsolescent. Their maintenance was lacking in quality. Spare parts and fuel were in short supply

Gone were the days when the Japanese flew against the
Americans with superbly trained pilots flying brand-new state-of-the art fighters.

These conditions could not have been more favorable to the Hellcat.

In reality, when compared to other top-of-the-line fighters,the F6F was not all that good performance wise. It was not very fast; it had only a little above average rate of climb; It's range was not great; nor could it dive very fast. It was, however, a very good "dogfighter", and that,combined with the advantages stated above, is why it was so sucessful. (Although Hellcat pilots were still taught not to dogfight the Zero one-on-one.)

When viewed from the perspective of being a potent,versatile, multi-role fighter, things look different. It was not a very good fighter bomber. As an escort fighter, it was limited in range and altitude. These same range and altitude limitations, as well as its rate of climb, preclude its being a good interceptor. Photo-recon was also not its strong suit.

It was probably the most rugged naval fighter ever built. It could absorb tremendous damage and keep flying. But this is only an asset when you are on the receiving end. Ruggedness comes with a price-- more weight,less range, impaired performance.

In my opinion,(and that's all it is), if the Hellcat had appeared earlier in the war, and had it been used in the same roles as were the Navy and the AAF fighters at that time, it would not have attained such lofty success.

This would certainly have been the case had it met the early might of the Luftwaffe. (The F6F was used in very limited numbers by the British navy during the invasion of southern France, but their impact was not great.)

I believe that the F6F was not quite as good as the following allied fighters:
P-38
P-47
P-51
F4U
Spitfire
Typhoon/Tempest
And maybe a few others

I submit the foregoing for your consideration and comments.

Ricky

12th February 2004, 18:52

I agree (and have said before...) that the Hellcat's impressive kill ratio was more due to circumstances than the aircraft.

[^]

robert

13th February 2004, 04:10

The problem with assessing the F6F is how to balance an aircraft's paper performance with an aircraft's combat record. I'd be inclined to emphasize what it actually accomplished, and use the specifications to "break ties" between aircraft with similar combat records. For example, no-one would dispute that the Tempest had better "paper" performance than the Hurricane, but the Hurricane would make my list of the ten "greatest" fighters of the war, and the Tempest wouldn't, based on what the Hurricane accomplished.

The same with the Hellcat. No, it probably wouldn't win in a dogfight with a Spitfire, but the Hellcat's combat record is extraordinary, even if the opposition was not as fierce as it would have been in 1942. To recap, the F6F destoyed 5,163 enemy aircraft in the Pacific for the loss of 270, a kill ration of 19.1 to 1. To directly compare it with the other major USN/USMC fighter of the late-war period, the F4U, which operated at approximately the same time, destroyed 2,140 enemy aircraft for a loss of 189, a kill ratio of 11.3 to 1. In both total numbers and kill ratio, the F6F's record is far more impressive. The P-38 destroyed 1,700 aircraft in the Pacific, a little over one-third of the F6F's total. You simply can't explain that kind of dominance away - it is a truly exceptional performance. The F4U and P-38 would presumably have operated under similar conditions against the Japanese as the F6F from 1943 on, but they didn't come close to matching its record.

As far as the F6F being "not a very good fighter bomber", that's just plain wrong. The F6F could carry "a trio of 1,000 lb bombs, one on each of the stub wings close in to the fuselage and one on the centre-line in lieu of the drop tank, and six 5-in rockets, three under each outer wing panel" according to Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy. Brown goes on to note that "the Hellcat competently offered the strike potential that the US Navy needed to offset the reduced number of bombers aboard the service's fleet carriers." US Navy records show that the F6F dropped 6,509 tons of bombs on target in the Pacific, and expended 71,737 rockets on target. It was a fine fighter bomber.

As for "photo-recon was also not its strong suit", several hundred Hellcats were converted to F6F-5P photo birds, and they did excellent work with both the USN/USMC and the FAA. The F6F-5P carried three additional external fuel tanks to greatly increase its range. Marine F6F-5Ps photographed the Kyushu beaches in preparation for a possible invasion, and did an excellent job. The had to be escorted by USAAF fighters, because the Marine F4Us lacked the range to accompany them.

As for Japanese fighters being "by this time, old and worn out" when the Hellcat reached service, here are the production figures for Japanese fighters:

1941 - 1,080
1942 - 2,935
1943 - 7,147
1944 - 13,811

In other words, there were 20,000+ Japanese fighters made in 1943/44 compared to about 4,000 in 1941/42. The later ones included such excellent fighters as the Shiden-Kai and Hayate. I don't see how their fighters could have been old and worn out, although I do agree that the standard of Japanese pilot training regressed as the war went on.

The Hellcat's virtues - it was rugged, manueverable, easy to fly, easy to build (and cheap - it was 2/3 the price of an F4U), far outweigh any lack of "paper" performance. That it would not have fared as well against the Fw 190, I agree. I wasn't designed to do so. The Fw 190 would also not have fared so well on an aircraft carrier...

The Hellcat did what it was supposed to do magnificently, and on that basis, I think it clearly ranks as one of the five greatest fighters of the war - a distinction I would not give to the P-38, P-47, F4U, Typhoon, or Tempest (which isn't meant as an insult at all...)

Lightning

13th February 2004, 06:59

Based on what it accomplished during the course of the war, the P-40 would be considered great. Based on its performance how would it fare?

The Corsair was a land-based aircraft for a considerable portion of its WWII operational life because of its problems in qualifying for carrier use. To fairly compare it with the F6F, I think the record of the latter in its land-based operations should be used for the same period. At any rate I don't think very many people would consider the F6F as being a better fighter than the Cosair, which is believed by many aviation historians to be the finest naval fighter of the war.

As to "cheap" and "easy to build", these considerations were of little importance to a pilot engaged in a life-or-death struggle with a highly trained enemy flying a first-rate fighter; it's lucky that this description did not fit the enemy at that time.

Re; photo-recon capability-- A lot of airccraft were used in this role to one degree of success or another (even four-engined bombers!). It was not the strong suit of each. Also, what other photo-recon aircraft were available on the carriers at the time?

The problem with this discussion, to this point, is the definition of the word "great". Several airplanes during the war were made "great" by circumstances. One that comes immediately to mind (and was mentioned by you, robert) is the Hurricane. Its role in the Battle of Brittain was more significant than that of the Spitfire. The Hurricane achieved greatness there. Would anyone seriously say that the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Spitfire? (or the F6F?)

Are we discussing the "best" fighters or the "greatest" fighters of WWII? The word "best" is pretty straight-forward, although the criteria must be agreed upon. The meaning of "great" is much more elusive. Who is greater, Babe Ruth or Winston Churchill? See what I mean?

More later.

ickysdad

13th February 2004, 12:32

Erich Brown would disagree on the F6F not fairing well against a '190 he states it would be an extremely balanced affair.the source his book "Duels in the Sky".

robert

13th February 2004, 16:25

Hi Lightning:

At any rate I don't think very many people would consider the F6F as being a better fighter than the Cosair, which is believed by many aviation historians to be the finest naval fighter of the war.

Eric Brown does, and he knows more about it than anyone in the world. In his rankings of the greatest naval fighters of the war, in Duels In the Sky, he rates the F6F #1 and the F4U #4. It's hardly a scientific survey, but my feeling is that more books I've read give the F6F the title of best naval fighter of the war than the F4U.

As you note, it comes down to the definition of greatest. I guess we're going to have to agree to respectfully disagree on this one. But I think that the F6F was a far greater fighter than the F4U, and it's not even close. As I noted in my earlier post, I believe strongly in looking at a balance of paper performance and combat record to judge which fighter is "best", and it's a matter of taste how those two factors are reconciled.

As to "cheap" and "easy to build", these considerations were of little importance to a pilot engaged in a life-or-death struggle with a highly trained enemy flying a first-rate fighter; it's lucky that this description did not fit the enemy at that time.

OK, "inexpensive" would have been a better chioce of words in my original post than "cheap". But yes, that's of vital importance to a pilot if it's the difference between being able to outnumber your enemy as opposed to being outnumbered. The F6F's ability to be built quickly, and at a price considerably less than that of the F4U are factors that weigh heavily in its favor.

As for the Hurricane, I personally wouldn't put it ahead of either the Spitfire or F6F on paper, but you could certainly make a legitimate case for it as the most important Allied fighter of the war (just to clarify, I'm not endorsing that position - I'd still vote for the Spitfire):

"The Hurricane was reknowned for its viceless flying qualities, capacity to withstand extensive battle damage, steadiness as a gun platform, ease and speed of refuelling and re-arming, and its agility in combat. Its sturdy wide-track undercarriage recommended it for operations from relatively poor airfield surfaces and this, combined with its ease of maintenance and repair, resulted in the Hurricane serving both in the Middle and Far East about two years before the first Spitfires arrived. The Hurricane it was therefore that fought at times and in theaters under greatest threat, and suffered heavy casualities accordingly. Yet, on account of the weight of this responsibility, Hurricane pilots destroyed more enemy aircraft - German, Italian, and Japanese, than any other Allied fighter during the Second World War, and by a substantial margin."

- Francis K. Mason, The British Fighter Since 1912.

robert

13th February 2004, 16:30

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

Erich Brown would disagree on the F6F not fairing well against a '190 he states it would be an extremely balanced affair.the source his book "Duels in the Sky".

You're absolutely right; I'd forgotten that. Eric Brown notes that "This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor."

Ricky

13th February 2004, 18:46

quote:As for Japanese fighters being "by this time, old and worn out" when the Hellcat reached service, here are the production figures for Japanese fighters:

1941 - 1,080
1942 - 2,935
1943 - 7,147
1944 - 13,811

In other words, there were 20,000+ Japanese fighters made in 1943/44 compared to about 4,000 in 1941/42. The later ones included such excellent fighters as the Shiden-Kai and Hayate. I don't see how their fighters could have been old and worn out, although I do agree that the standard of Japanese pilot training regressed as the war went on.

It was not only the standard of the pilots that fell. By 1944 Japan's Industry was in a bit of a state, and a pilot could never be sure if his lovely new Hayate would actually work properly (for example, not being able to climb beyong 10,000 feet, or reach anything like their top speed).
It is lovely to have 20,000+ aircraft, but if they don't work properly, why have them at all?

Cross-reference to France 1940 - because of the disruption caused by the Nationalisation of the Aero-Industry, when the Germans invaded the French had several very fine aircraft available [Bloch MB150, the newest Dewontine, even the Potez 631 twin-engine fighter] which could not be used in significant numbers bacause they had not manufactured enough propellors yet!

GregP

17th February 2004, 08:08

This discussion has been a lot of fun!

But the F6F Hellcat has the best air-to-air victory ratio of any piston fighter ever produced anywhere by anyone.

The paper figures are quite misleading. Its level flight performance was almost identical with the F4U-1 in real life in low boost and high boost stages. The Corsair was a few knots faster in the main stage since the Corsair used ram air in the main stage and the F6F did not. And that is no surprise since they both had the same engine and propeller.

About the only thing the F6F needed was a better rate of roll ... and this did not seem to affect its lethality at all versus the enemy.

So ... I'm not too sure by what measure you belittle the F6F. It's combat record says it all.

Hey, on paper the MiG-29 and Su-27 are wonderful. In real life, the F-15 has never lost an engagement. If I have to engage in combat, give me an F-15 Eagle any day.

Ricky

17th February 2004, 18:14

True, the F-15 has an astonishingly good combat record.
But then, (to the best of my knowledge) it has never fought the MiG 29 or Su 27 (or at least, not in the hands of equally trained pilots), so we'll never know...

GregP

18th February 2004, 03:55

I agree about the "equally trained pilots" part, but they have met in mock dogfights ... and the Eagle has won them all. If I am not mistaken, they have met in real combat at least once, and the Eagle won.

When East and West Germany united, the former East Germans had MiG-29's and they were integrated with the Luftwaffe. They were employed in many NATO exercises. In one, a reserve fighter squadron out of Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, U.S.A. was sent to Norway and was to simulate attacks on Germany for 2 weeks. They flew 8 turn 4, 6 turn 4, and 4 turn 4 mission for 14 days with 16 Eagles, and never missed a sortie.

8 turn 4 means 8 Eagles in the morning followed by recovery and 4 Eagles in the afternoon. The MiGs were supposed to counter the Eagles and prevent the attack.

Accoring to the Reserve unit, the MiGs shoed up with the correfct amount of aircraft only on the first day and never met the full compliment after that ... and they had 30 MiGs to use. Also, the Eagles successfully conducted the attack EVERY day.

If I want to fly an airshow, give me a Sukhoi Su-27. If I want to prevail in combat, give me an Eagle. If you think any differently, then 120 kills to zero losses means nothing to you? The Eagle has kicked butt in service with the U.S.A., Saudi Arabia, and Israel against all opponents, and has won in Japanese service in exercises as well. The MiGs and Sukhois look good on peper, and may well be everything the Russians SAY they are in the hands of expert pilots, but they have not shown up very well in real combat.

At least the MiG-15 DID show up well in the hands of Russian pilots in Korea. Overall, the Sabres won handily, but one-on-one versus Russian-flown MiG-15s, the ratio was pretty close to even (or slightly in favor of the MiGs if you believe the Russians).

The latest generation of MiGs and Sukhois can't make that claim.

GregP

18th February 2004, 04:06

I checked and the F-15 downed four MiG-29s during the Balkan conflict after Desert Storm. That takes it to 101.5 vicitories versus zero losses in air-to-air combat.

There have been operational losses, but not in combat. Also, during the Balkan conflict and Desert Storm combinedm the Eagle achieved more than 95+% launch reliability ... the highest of any aircraft in service. That means that 95+% of the Eagles that were scheduled to take off on a mission DID take off and fly that mission.

So ... again ... if I have to fly in combat, I'll take an F-15 Eagle!

I have not yet uncovered an engagement between F-15 Eagles and Su-27/33/35 Flankers, but will look into it.

Lightning

18th February 2004, 06:21

Hi robert et al:

The description you quote of the Hurricane could very well fit the F6F, but you still seem to favor the Spitfire. I use the same rationale when comparing the F6F to the other significant fighters of WWII.

In a one-on-one comparison between any two fighters, the relative numbers available in theater becomes meaningless. Even if you use numerical superiority as a measure of a types capability, the quality of the aircraft in opposition has to be consdered. Who would be in a better situation, a pilot in a "Defiant" enjoying a 5:3 advantage in numbers over a flight of Fw190s, or any one of the Fw190 pilots? (Pilot skills being equal.)

Along the same lines, kill ratio has to be directly related to the quality of the opposition. I think this is too obvious to require further clarification.

If number of aircraft built were a true indicator of greatness, then the Bf109 would be the greatest fighter of all-32,000!

GregP

18th February 2004, 16:46

Not to put a damper on your argument, Lightning, but many people claim the Bf 109 IS the greatest fighter of all time. Almost all Germans think that, and the 109 DID shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other competing aircraft on either side of the conflict.

I say the F6F Hellcat was the best.

Show me a pilot who flew the Hellcat in combat as well as other fighters in combat ... and he'll pick the Hellcat. Viceless handling, superior turning ability, pretty decent speed, FAST acceleration, and stalls were no trouble at all ... so you could rack it around in turns that would see other fighters were snap-rolling away and shoot your opponent.

Kill ratio MAY indicate the quality of the opponents, but it can ALSO indicate the quality of the mount. American Navy pilots were good and their mount was good. Their success is a testament to both, and youa re wrong to write it all off to poor Japanese pilots. Saburo Sakai was the second or third ranking Japanese ace and HE said the Hellcat was the best opposition he ever encountered, including Corsairs and Mustangs.

Would you rate Saburo Sakai as a "poor quality" pilot? I wouldn't!

Lightning

20th February 2004, 06:55

Hi GregP:

We both know that the Bf109 is not the best, or the greatest, fighter of the war. It had too many limitations to offset its strengths. Also, it is not surprising that the most-produced fighter of all time shot down the most planes. If number of kills is the criteria, then the Bf109 is a better fighter than the F6F. You clearly don't believe that since you said you think the Hellcat is best. (The issue of 19:1 kill ratio is addressed later.)

I don't believe either of us knows what every Hellcat pilot who flew other types would say when asked to compare them. Ask Dick Bong which fighter he thought was the best - and George Preddy - and Hub Zemke - and Pappy Boyington - and Joe Foss - and........... You'd get quite a few different answers.

With its weight and large wing, I believe there were quite a few fighters that could accelerate away from the Hellcat.

Re: Snap rolling out of a turn. The P-38, with its counter-ratating propellers, was almost immune to this at any speed, as many single-engine fighters who tried to out-turn a Lightning at near-stall speed learned to their sorrow. the F6F was not alone in having this advantage.

I have infinite respect for Saburo Sakai, and I know how he felt about the Hellcat. His is , however, one of many oppinions held by preeminent fighter pilots of WWII.

At war's end, there were precious few old hands like Sakai. There were far too many instances of Japanese novices flying along straght-and-level while their formation was picked off , one-by-one by Hellcat pilots without ever taking evasive action! These easy kills contributed significantly to the 19:1 ratio.

Good pilots in good planes (which the F6F definitely was) have the advantege over good pilots in average planes (which the Japanese were flying at war's end). Good pilots in good planes have an insurmountable advantage over poorly trained pilots in average planes; they shoot them down at a rate of 19:1.

simon

23rd February 2004, 21:02

"To the above poster, the rest of the fighter pilot world agrees that weight and rate of fire are the MOST important chraracteristics of a gun (in an aircraft)."

Sorry to backtrack, but I haven't had much of a chance to comment recently.

I have to disagree with this. Reliability is the single most important characteristic, everything else is secondary. Early cannon armed Spitfire MkIbs were withdrawn, despite having a higher weight of fire because their cannon frequently jammed after firing as little as half a dozen rounds.

The point is that to try and rate and aircraft using weight of fire as a factor leaves too much information out as there are so many factors that determine what made a good or bad weapon, including the intended target. To use just weight of fire is like using the total engine Horsepower, but not considering speed and rate of climb to rate the aircraft.

If you are trying to judge an aircraft's worth as a gun platform you have to consider not just the weight of fire, but the reliability, muzzle velocities and cyclic rates of the weapons as well. Otherwise you're better not considering it, it's too easy to get the wrong impression.

simon

23rd February 2004, 21:25

I would suggest that we open this out a bit. If we can include humiliating prototypes in the "Worst Fighter" section, surely we can include types that didn't make combat in the "Best Fighter" thread?

Along those lines I'd say that one of the better efforts to come out of the tail end of the war has got to be the Supermarine Spiteful.

Corsarius

23rd February 2004, 22:42

Fine. I'll see your spiteful and raise you a CA-15. :D

CAPILATUS

24th February 2004, 04:50

Just came to the forum from days off...
Mmmmmm! I've just read about MIG-29 against F-15...

Ai-ai-ai, dear Grag!
What's a shame!

I checked and the F-15 downed four MiG-29s during the Balkan conflict after Desert Storm. That takes it to 101.5 vicitories versus zero losses in air-to-air combat.

Iraq
According to NATO source they downed 8 MIG-29 (sure no losses! Ha-ha!), according to Saddam's - no losses in MIG-29 and they downed 5-7 planes using MIG-29.

Yugoslavia
Dear Greg, I've never heard about 100 MIG-29 (the more so downed!)
As far as I know for the moment Yugoslavia was attacked it had only 13 planes named MIG-29. Total MIG-29 losses - 4.
Just couple of cases:

At 19:00 23 March 1999, one (!) MIG-29 was up to intercept big group of planes. The pilot (major Aliya Arizanov) downed one but after occured damage was forced to escape.

At 20:30 colonel Kulachin was airborn to cover damaged MIG-21 by F-15.
In few minutes he went to dogfight that was going for 15 min! For that time damaged MiG-21 could make to the airfield and Kulachkin left the fight. And I'm quite sure he was fighting at least with 4! NATO didn't use to fly less.

According to NATO source they downed 7 MIG-29 with no losses, Yugoslavs diclare 4 losses and claim about downed 2 F-15 and 3 F-117 in dogfights with MIG-29.

The truth is out there... Yes, I really wish we could have a real story. Who lies? - No idea.

So, it seems not only on paper...

Lightning

24th February 2004, 05:34

Hi Simon:

I certainly agree with your comments regarding reliability being of utmost importance in aerial (or any other kind of) gunnery. You are so obviously right.

In addition to the other characteristics you mention, the range, accuracy, and gun location should also be mentioned. Adolf Galland said that one gun in the nose was worth two in the wings.

CAPILATUS

24th February 2004, 07:54

To Simon,
To Lightning.

Dear comrades, let me remind you with my deepest respect, I do nominate mainly Russians fighters which I better know and have more information. The topic is named "The best fighter" so, please, stop playing words and give more facts.

OK. Let me explane you WHY I suggest consider weight of fire.
Here the facts: ;)

machine-gun M2, 12,7mm mainly used gun in American fighters.
rate 750 r/sec (30kg)

Cannons:
SHVAK 20mm - 800r/sec (40kg)
B-20 20mm - 800r/sec (25kg)
N-37 37mm - 400r/sec (103kg)

Even quite old for that time American cannon M4(P-39) could give 150r/sec

As you can see 20mm Soviet cannons have better rate.

You may say - What about 12 machine-guns ageinst 2 or 3 cannons?

Dear Lightning, you just gave an answer!

"In addition to the other characteristics you mention, the range, accuracy, and gun location should also be mentioned. Adolf Galland said that one gun in the nose was worth two in the wings".

As far as I know converging of fire was concentrated normally at 250m in front of the plane, but in real combat you never know how things could go, you could catch the target in gunsight at 50, 100m or what ever, catching the target at 100m from the nose effective the rate of fire with present converging angle (250m) would go to less than a half!

Having a gun installed in nose you haven't got a headache about the distance as just fire from any!

So guys, weight of fire here is absolute thing. I know, I'm talking about. [8D]

Having the same mass (M2-30kg, B-20 25kg) American designers could borrow some Russians cannons for their planes. Ha-ha! Could you imagine Mustang with 6 (!) cannons 20mm!

Corsarius

24th February 2004, 10:58

Capitalus, regarding air to air kills and battle claims:

corsarius' infallible rule of pilot/kill claims
1) All pilot's 'kill' claims are automatically divided by three by general staff to gain actual numbers of enemy aircraft destroyed

2) Should this have been a lone occurrence with no other fighters or observers in the vicinity, the number is automatically divided by six.

Use this rule and you will always get actual kill numbers, regardless of the side claiming them.

GregP

24th February 2004, 17:43

Hi Capilatus,

I said 101.5 documented kills for the F-15, not 101.5 MiG-29's. I only knew of 4 claimed MiG-29's by F-15's.

As far as the guns go, the Soviet Union and the Russians have always had some of the best guns. Somehow, Soviet designers usually manage to put more muzzle energy into their cannons than we do.

Please don't misunderstand me here, I am not putting down the MiGs or the Sukhois. They are good planes with world-class performance. It's just that the F-15 has been involved in more shooting wars than the front-line Russian fighters (something that is a good claim for the Russians!). Also, no Russian-flown MiG-29 or Sukhoi Flanker has engaged an F-15 to my knowledge, so please do not infer that I am saying Americans are the best fighter pilots.

Many of the F-15's air-to-air kills came with Israelis flying the F-15s. Other allies of the U,S,A, also have documented kills.

Yes, kills claimed during WWII and Korea were sometimes dubious. However, modern kills, say ... post 1970, are not. All the F-15 victories were seen and witnessed by wingmen and/or cameras and/or radar. I don't know of an F-15 kill that was claimed but unverified by at least one other source. If you think otherwise, let me know which ones were unverified if you know.

All this really indicates is that the F-15 Eagle has had its share of combat while the MiG-29 and Su-27 (and derivatives) have seen little combat. While this speaks well for the Eagle, it also says something about avoiding conflict.

Of the two conditions, no war is better all the way around.

CAPILATUS

25th February 2004, 00:48

That's fine, Greg, sorry me! As my English you know not as good as yours, ha-ha! :D

I have some sources where mentioned about some downed F-15 by MiG-23MLD while arabian war. Pity they are in English only. Will let you know straight away as soon as I will find and translate them.

Thanks, Corsarius, good point. I thought as well 100 - too much.

You, know, gentlemen, all local conflicts are being studied with great interest by Russians. As soon as these researches come no more top secret - they get to normal people, like me. [8)]

ANd one more think. Su-27 was never used in combat.[B)]

Lightning

25th February 2004, 08:32

Hi CAPILATUS:

First of all, don't worry about your English; you do just fine.
I don't believe that any of the rest of us speak (much less write!) Russian. You have an advantage that I would love to have.

Perhaps this is "picky", and I don't mean to be, but the cyclic rate of fire of the guns you describe is in "rounds per minute" (r/min), not "rounds per second" (r/sec). The fastest-firing cannon I know of is the "Vulcan" with six rotating barrels. It fires 6,000 r/min! That's 100 r/sec.

I have to disagree with you that weight (actually mass) of fire is of absolute importance when evaluating a gun. Simon said it, and I completely agree with him, that reliability is the number one consideration. A gun that won't fire is worthless; one that only fires sometimes is even worse because it gives you a false sense of security. Nothing is worse than pulling the trigger at a crucial moment and hearing, "CLICK"!

Also, all the mass of fire in the world is of no use if the rounds don't reach and hit the target. Range and accuracy come into play here.

It is therefore a combination of all the stated factors that determines the effectiveness of a gun, but reliability has to be the most important. If a gun is not acceptably reliable, it should not even be considered, regardless of its other attributes.

CAPILATUS

25th February 2004, 10:06

Hi, Lightning,
Yeah, I did an automatic mistake (r/sec) sorry for that.

For you, dear Lightning will be quite useful to know the fastest cannon is GSH-6-23 (23mm)

Ai-ai-ai!!! How you could think that American artilerry is the best one?

9000-10000 r/min for your information, having mass only 76kg!

Installed in MiG-27, MiG-31, Su-24. I can say even more as I've seen them in action. Mmmmmmm-impressed...

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gsh623.html

Concerning reliable-unreliable, I do think desiners wouldn't installed the guns if they were not. I let myself think, as I know almost nothing about American once, M2 were not 100% reliable as well. As I'm an engineer (military one!) I don't know any "iron thing" that could work 100%.

So I'm afraid I'm staying with my opinion.

GregP

26th February 2004, 10:21

I have to chime in here guys. I, too, do not really consider the reliability question to be important.

Guns installed in fighters are ALL reliable, or they don't make it to production. If they DO and then they are found to be unreliable, they are changed for reliable guns in the field.

No major WWII fighter was fielded with unreliable guns. These issues were dealt with in the DESIGN phase, before the planes were issued to squadron service.

So, I'll say it one more time. Weight and rate of fire are the major characteristics needed, with a nod given to the Russian "Quality" score. It is a "figure of merit" based on weight of fire, rate of fire, the installed weight of the gun, and the weight of both projectile and any shell casings.

When Russian designers choose a gun for a fighter, it is already known to be reliable, and the Russian "Figure of Merit" has been considered as well. For U.S.A. guns, none have been installed that were unreliable since before WWII began.

Muzzle velocity and range might be important for fighter vs. fighter combat, but not much for shooting at bombers. Bombers don't take evasive action very well. Range is not really an issue. Fly toward the target until the gunsight says shoot, and you are automatically guaranteed to be in range.

C'mon guys, you are quoting characterictics that are important in the DESIGN pahse, not the DEPLOYMENT and COMBAT phases. The designers DO consider the available guns and engines and other items. Once deployed, the relaibility of the engines is usually much more imprtant to the pilot than the reliability of the guns ... the guns are usually well proven by the time they get bolted into an airframe!

simon

26th February 2004, 19:16

"No major WWII fighter was fielded with unreliable guns. These issues were dealt with in the DESIGN phase, before the planes were issued to squadron service."

Incorrect, as I already said the Spitfire MkIb of which over 100 were produced, with the early model Hispano Suiza MkII cannon in the wings had major reliability problems, so despite having a higher Weight of fire and muzzle energy was largely withdrawn until the problems could be resolved. These planes were in squadron service during the Battle of Britain and it was largely down to the disgust of the pilots that the cannon would fire in some cases as little as 6 rounds before there was a stoppage that the planes were withdrawn and in some cases retrofitted with the "A" armament. Whether you regard that as a significant fighter, to put it in the perspective of 1940 Fighter Command, which had a strength of around 600 front line fighters, it was very significant.

Also, and this frequently seems to get forgotten, the Luftwaffe's 30mm Mk108 had problems with reliability, to the point that one book I read described them as being prone to jamming. These weapons were fitted to the Bf109, Bf110, Me410, He219, Ju88, Do217, Me163, Me262 and Fw190. That's quite a few planes with weapons of questionable reliability.

Additionally, sources I've also read question the reliability of some of the Japanese 30mm cannon, the Type 2, Type 5 and Ho-155 were (I think) mentioned.

So no, the issue of a weapon's reliability was not always sorted out in the design stage. Yes the weapons used by the US were all reliable, but as these were the .30 Browning, .50 Browning, 20mm M-2 and a few 37mm M-4 all tried and tested designs, but there was not the plethora of designs that especially the Germans and Japanese had to contend with, nor was there the urgency to come up with these new designs.

Capitalus is correct of course, nothing is 100% reliable, but there has to be a balance between the capability to hit and damage a target and the ability to rely on your weapon to continue firing after that.

Rate of fire is also important, since with a very slow firing weapon (Such as the M-4) it is more difficult to hit a smaller more agile target, the M-4 however was designed as a bomber destroying gun, nto a dogfighting gun.

As Lightning also stated a gun's positioning is highly important, and he got the Galland quote in before me so I wont repeat it ;), but even then aircraft with identical armament could have different values as a weapons platform, the Hurricane MkI was a far superior gunnery platform than the Spitfire MkIA, despite each having 8 Machineguns in the wings.

Again as Lightning said the weapon's accuracy play a part, the Japanese 40mm Ho-301 cannon had a high projectile weight and high rate of fire, but was a very difficult weapon to use since the heavy, slow travelling shells tended to loop downwards. To a lesser extent the same was true of the 30mm Mk108, Type 2, Type 5 Ho-5 and 20mm MG-FF. Whilst this does not mean that they were "innaccurate" as such, they were far more difficult to aim.

So as I said earlier, weight of fire is a factor, and in certain areas it can be the deciding factor, however there are too many other considerations as to what makes a useful weapons combination that just "X"kg/second.

To a degree GregP you are correct of course, engine reliablility is far more important for an aircraft, however a fighting aircraft is supposed to do just that, fight, and to do so it needs the weapons to destroy the enemy, it's no good having an ultra reliable engine if your guns wont work at high altitude (Happened early in the war to the RAF) or your shells loop too much to be able to aim effectively!

Ricky

27th February 2004, 00:12

I think that the point here is that while designers etc might well try to put the best (most reliable etc) weapon they can in an aircraft, the most reliable weapon available at that time might not be any good at all in comparison to those available to other nations(see Simon's post for examples).

CAPILATUS

28th February 2004, 02:50

Oh yes! I understand Ricky, you are coming from, but if to talk about the reliablility look at N-37 (37mm) cannon with 400r/min that was designed and built in 1944. It was installed not only on the latest versions of Soviet WWII fighters but on well known MiG-15 and not only. Isn't it the best proof of the meaning "reliable" tonnes of downed Sabres?
What about the SHVAK 20mm cannon, which designers were awarded exactly for reliablility of this cannon and noone can forget it had better rate than American machine-guns.
I'm not talking about the English or American cannons, Simon, about Russians once as I nominate THEM.

simon

28th February 2004, 06:49

Capitalus, the point I was trying to make, and I seem to be repeating myself here is that weight of fire is not the sole deciding factor in what is and isn't a good gun, or what is and isn't a good weapons combination for any given aircraft. It can be used to form a view, but other factors must be taken into account.

What good is a gun which has an enormous weight of fire per second if the shells are too heavy to maintain a flat trajectory, it fires so slow that enemy aircraft can fly inbetween shells, it can only fire a handful of rounds before stopping, it can only carry enough ammunition of a few seconds of fire, and/or it is placed so far out in the wings that it is almost impossible to aim?

For various weapons and aircraft (not all by any means) throughout the war one or more of these issues was a problem.

You'll notice I hope that I do not denigrate any of the Soviet weapons, because these were all without exception first rate, the ShKAS machine guns had a rate of fire which I understand has never been beaten by any single barrel single breach weapon (To all, feel free to correct me if you know this to be otherwise, but 1,800rpm out of a single breach and barrel is incredible!), and were far and away superior to any rifle calibre machine gun available anywhere else in the world. Indeed without exception that I know of all Soviet weapons had at least a respectable rate of fire, muzzle velocity and none had reliability issues that I've read about.

The same cannot be said in particular of some of the weapons the Luftwaffe or Japanese fielded in their desperation to down Allied bombers and aircraft.

Lastly, don't ever apologise for your English, it's just fine and an awful lot better than a lot of English people's (if not most!). I can only speak a single language, and have the utmost respect for anyone capable of learning and communicating in more than one language.

Lightning

28th February 2004, 06:53

"Tonnes of downed Sabres"? The aerial competition between the Mig 15 and the F-86 was won easily by the Sabre. The Mig, like the Zero before it, had the edge in performance at the expense of avionics, pilot protection, and quality of construction. Pilot quality played a huge role in this one-sided victory, but that has nothing to do with the relative capabilities of the two fighters in question.

Re. Reliability of aerial cannons: It seems to me that I read that Russian pilots, although they loved the P-39, experienced reliablity problems with the 37mm nose gun. The 37mm cannon in the P-38 was found to be inferior to the 20mm gun which replaced it.

Re. Unimportance of range when attacking bombers: The farther you are away from a target (regardless of what it is) when you start scoring hits, the better off you are, especially if that target is shooting back! You can engage it longer or break away sooner. Although it was not that often, there were cases of nose, tail, waist, turret, and ball-turret gunners shooting down attacking fighters. I wonder how many of those downed pilots wished they hadn't gotten quite so close! Sure, it's "macho" to fly right up the tail of an opponent, but the main object of an interception is to stop the bombers while at the same time minimizing unnecessary losses. The closer you have to get, the more necessary those losses become.

Accuracy is accuracy; the less of it you have, the less hits you'll score, all other things being equal.

Come on guys, some things are so obviously true, that all the rationalizing and statistic-quoting in the world won't change them.
There is a good example of this: Years back there was a scientific study that proved beyond any doubt that the bumblebee can't fly. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

simon

28th February 2004, 07:05

"Re. Unimportance of range when attacking bombers"

I'm not sure how much of this is down to the relative sizes of the targets, a Bomber is much bigger, much slower and much less manouevrable (in the case of the latter two even more so when it is carrying it's bombload), so all other things being equal the fighter pilot already has a head start over the bomber pilot in the gunnery stakes.

The reason I mention this is that I often read about how Luftwaffe interceptors would hang back outside the range of the bomber formation's .50 cal Brownings and blast away with various types of cannon. The suggestion is usually that the Cannon had either a) longer range, b) were more accurate, or c) both.

I suggest that this may not be the case, simply that the bomber gunners found it very difficult to shoot at and hit a small, nimble fighter, however the fighter pilot found it much easier to hit the much larger and easier targets that were the bombers.

Lastly, I would like to mention the one over-riding factor that usually gets forgotten. The overall limitation of the range of weapons in WWII, wasn't the physical limitations of the guns themselves, it was the eyes of the gunner. ALL guns in WWII had a maximum range of about half a kilometer, anything over that and the odds are that you wont even be able to see your target let alone identify it, or even stand a realistic chance of aiming at it!

CAPILATUS

28th February 2004, 08:12

Mmmmmmmm!
Out off the disscusion.
Just read out one interesting thing borrowed from the Russian IL-2 forum:"Enemy fighting methods with different planes:

The I-153 Chaika is mainly used at low altitudes of 0-2,000 m. Quite difficult to shoot down because of its excellent manoeuvrability. If attacked from below and rear, tends to evade by pulling up and after that shoots back when we go up. Superior in dogfights. The best way to shoot it down is to approach fast from lower rear quarter, in which case you can pull up behind it after firing.
The I-16 and I-16bis are very nimble fighters used at lower altitudes. A formation of several planes (about 5-10) willingly form the so called "Spanish fly", that is, the planes fly round in circles on a horizontal plane [Lufberry circle], so when attacking against one of them you become target of the next plane. The best method against this kind of circle is to form a similar one above it. The circle goes around in the same direction, but you attack from above, and after firing, pull up. When flying alone the I-16 (as well as the Chaika) prefers to shoot head-on. In such a case you should try to evade either up or down depending on [original text illegible] using the rudder with force.
The LaGG-3 is not especially agile in dogfight. It usually tries an outflanking approach from up and behind, shoots and pulls up. Likes head-on shooting. The tail has a heavy armour. When attacked it tries to evade with a quick half aileron roll to either side. The most vulnerable points are the engine and the radiator below the aircraft.
The LA-5 is an extremely agile and fast fighter. Similar hooking tactics as LaGG-3 thanks to its good climb performance. The method of fighting: usually an attack in sections from above; the flight leader fires first and his wingman when the target is evading.
The YaK-1 is nowadays mainly used as a close escort for bombers. The ailerons are very effective. Tends to attack head on because of the small and thin airframe. Evades even at low altitudes with a half aileron roll down and pulls away. Not especially fast. YaK-7B and YaK-9 are noticeably faster and as manoeuvrable.
The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane.
In addition to aforementioned planes the enemy uses American types, such as the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, which are not as good as the LA-5. They are about on a par with LaGG-3 but more vulnerable.
There is nothing special to tell about bomber tactics. If a bomber (PE-2, Boston) flies alone it uses high altitudes (5,000-8,000 m.), in which case it is extremely difficult to shoot down. If the bombers appear in larger formations, they fly regularly at very low altitudes (below 2,000 m.), mostly at 200-300 meters. In such a case they rely on their combined firepower. If attacked, the bombers gather together into a tight formation, and all the rear-gunners fire whenever they have the slightest opportunity. The bombers don't make any evasive manoeuvres.
The IL-2 uses side slip in evading; they always fly at low altitudes in formations of several planes. If possible they try to use their forward-firing guns and rockets under their wings.

Credits Original document by Hans Wind, Finnish Air Force, 1943

CAPILATUS

28th February 2004, 08:39

Lightning! Dear comrade!
Be at least objective! What a disgusting thing you are saying!? It smells with propaganda.

The aerial competition between the Mig 15 and the F-86 was won easily by the Sabre

Everyone knows at least it was equal. Though in Russian sources it's said MiGs downed Sabres a bit more. Ask Sabre's pilots if it was easy!

GregP

29th February 2004, 05:41

So ... what sources is everyone using for these Korean victory claims?

UN Forces claimed about 900 aerial victories of which 792 were MiG-15s. 78 Sabres were lost in air-to-air combat with another 13 as "Missing in Action." That is a total of 91 Sabres lost in air-to-air combat.

Let's remember that the USAF does NOT count planes damaged beyond repair, but made it home. The Soviets claims those as victories.

OK, after the Korean war, the statisticians looked at Soviet racords and UN claims, and revised the total confirmed victores downward to 379 aircraft. The Russians admit to losing 345, so the totals are not far off.

OK, let's say the REAL number of MiG-15s lost is about the same as the ratio claimed. That is 792/900 times the MiG-15s lost. That means that if we take the "revised" losses of 379 into account, the number of MiG-15s in that figure was about 334. If we take the number the Soviets admitted to (345), then the number of MiG-15s lost was about 304.

We therefore have 91 Sabre losses that the USAF admits and either 304 or 334 MiG-15s lost. Also, the revised USAF numbers credit the Soviets with 52 Aces who shot down 428 aircraft among them. The Russians claim 50 Aces who shot down 409 aircraft among them, so we aren't really too far apart.

Either way, the Sabre has a pretty good kill ratio versus the MiG-15.

Now, we come to the crux of the argument that is brought forth by the Soviets. They wish to break out only the engagements fought between Soviet-flown MiGs versus American flown Sabres.

I can find NO numbers that would support any claims at all since we have only numbers from some unknown source in Russia that says the MiGs were better. Additionally, this so-called "source" admits to being too young to have flown in Korea.

We are therefore left with ... an opinion of the MiG versus the Sabre from a source who is not a pilot and who was not there in Korea.

I personally maintain that the Soviet pilots in Korea were very good and flew a good plane. The Sabre pilots in Korea ranged from WWII veterans to "green" kids just out of F-86 school. The great majority of MiGs shot down by American F-86s were shot down by pilots 28 years old and older. The "kids" didn't do so well. The Soviets sent only veterans jet pilots to Korea, so it is likely they were older and more mature than some of our green kids.

From this, I can deduce logically that the Soviet pilots in Korea had a good record against the Sabres, and the Sabres in Korea had a good record against MiGs. It might be a s much as 2 or 3 to 1 in favor of either group, but there are no records that can verify it either way that are "believable."

I say the two planes were closely matched, and the American and Soviet pilots were, too. The Americans were far and away better than the Chinese pilots they fought against, but were very close, man-to-man, with the Soviets.

Let anyone out there who has some NUMBERS from a RELIABLE source chime in here. My numbers came from:

1) Korean War Aces by Robert Dorr (1995)
2) The United States Air Force in Korea by Robert Futrell (1981)
3) The Air War Over Korea by Thompson (1997)
4) The nMaxwell Air Force Base web site.

CAPILATUS

29th February 2004, 07:14

OK, Greg, here are the sources

"...For 3 years in Korea pilots of 64th IAK (I think mentioned only Russian pilots -by CAPILATUS) had 1872 fights, downed 1106 planes, 650 Sabres among them. Combat MiG's losses 335 planes..."
Taken from official WWS site http://www.airforce.ru/

Book "Air Force as a decisive force in Korea". ...For 32 month period downed 802 Sabres and 56 MiGs...

General Pepelyaev (24 score) : "...Quite interesting method could be ran to score this way. For my regiment I can say 4:1. Totaly we lost 20 MiGs and 4 pilots..." He means written above.

Official data: Done 64000 sorties, in 1182 combats were downed 1106 planes. Losses 335 planes and 120 pilots. Koreans had 336 dogfights, downed 271 planes, lost 231 planes (MiGs I think, CAPILATUS) and 126 pilots.

According to Russian method to determine a victory, borrowed from WWII, all evidences had to be confirmed by ground troops, normaly it was a factory's label or any piece of a plane with the number. Victory was never scored if a plane was downed into the Sea.

May be it's not a correct translation as I've done it myself. Anyway you see I'm coming from.

CAPILATUS

29th February 2004, 07:18

Sorry for a mistake written above...

Book "Air Force as a decisive force in Korea". ...For 32 month period downed 802 Sabres and 56 MiGs...

Wright is here: Book "Air Force as a decisive force in Korea". ...For 32 month period downed 802 MiGs and 56 Sabres...

GregP

29th February 2004, 12:00

Hey Capilatus,

The USA didn't even SEND 802 Sabres to Korea!

We lost les sthan 100 in air-to-air and maybe half that number were write-offs after landing. Count on about 150 Sabres lost to air-to-air combat.

there were some other operational losses not related to combat and some lost to ground fire.

So, I see Soviet victory claims are just as inflated as anyone else's were ... no surprise there. Almost ALL air arms over-claimed. It was usually caused by sevceral things all put together, including:

1) More than one friendly plane shooting at the same target, and claiming it as HIS victory.
2) Seeing your target damaged and apparently going down, but the damaged plane simply heads for the deck and flies home.
3) Seeing your target damaged and going into cloud ... and losing him in the fray.
4) Wishful claims.

Most often, the claims are stated with honest intent. There are very few fighter pilot "liars" out there since most kills are seen by one's compatriots.

Interesting numbers.

CAPILATUS

1st March 2004, 00:52

Dear Greg!

According to Russian method to determine a victory, borrowed from WWII, all evidences had to be confirmed by ground troops, normaly it was a factory's label or any piece of a plane with the number. Victory was never scored if a plane was downed into the Sea

Go through it more attentively, please, and think than ask yourself a question why official Kozhedub's score 62 though it downed about 120 in real. No evidence on the ground - no scored plane.

Every military expert will tell you Russian score system is the most rough in the World. As a headquarter always correct the score to the less side as they have to evaluate the REAL force of an opponent.

Concerning "More than one friendly plane shooting at the same target, and claiming it as HIS victory". I think it's quite clear that among debris of any downed plane can be only ONE factory's label, so after that the poin is who to score with? Sure it's obvious to score downed plane to more tnan one pilot is stupid. ;)

robert

1st March 2004, 16:43

All fighter pilots, of every nation, in every war, overclaim. To quote 19-kill ace Evgeny Pepelyaev regarding the accuracy of both Soviet and American pilot claims during the Korean war, "Not everything that was scored was actually shot down! I personally think that not all the aircraft claimed to have been shot down by both the Americans and our side were really killed...I believe that enemy pilots scored more kills than we did."

There, that's right from the horse's mouth...

Source: MiG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History, by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant.

Corsarius

1st March 2004, 18:22

Was it on this thread that I gave my rule for determaining acutal kill numbers?

andyo2000

2nd March 2004, 00:43

Sorry Capilatus, but even verification of a kill by troops could and probably was flawed. Now, I'm assuming there was a reward for finding a plane correct, as this was communist Russia. So, and since you can find the identification of a plane in more than one place, maybe more than one soldier finds a piece, and maybe they don't lie, but they "just don't tell the truth" to get their reward. Maybe claim that five or more Sabres were downed in one battle, over an area, while really that could be the wrecakge of one airplane, distributed as that plane is crashing. Also, pieces of an airplane get shot off all the time and that airplane is still able to fly. If the factory printed it's label on the very tip of a wing, and that small tip is shot off, does that count as a kill? Certainly not, but if it was found by a ground troop, it might. You also must factor in corruption. Communism is about pleasing your bosses, and what a better way than by "inflating" a finding of a group of troop from one plane to two or three. This happened in Nazi Germany on a regular basis. So while I'm not offering any insight into which plane was superior - I don't know enough about it - you could certainly say that no system is perfect, including this one.

GregP

2nd March 2004, 04:18

At the risk of reepeating myself, Capilatus, I'll say it one more time. The U.S.A. didn't SEND 800 Sabres to Korea ... so we could not have lost that many.

Lightning

2nd March 2004, 07:36

I'll say it again: The Mig 15 was the "Zero" of the Korean war. It flew with the bare necessities in order to squeeze out a little more performance. The ability of the aircraft to absorb damage, and the protection of the pilot were of secondary importance. The all-weather, and night-flying capabilities of the Mig were so inferior to the Sabre as to be not worth considering. The gunsight was primative compared to that of the Sabre. The quality of construction of the Mig was nowhere near as good as that of the Sabre

All of these things just to be a little faster and to have a little higher ceiling than the Sabre. History records, and will continue to record, the Sabre's mastery of the Mig 15 in Korea, and that's not propaganda--its a fact!

robert

2nd March 2004, 07:50

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

I'll say it again: The Mig 15 was the "Zero" of the Korean war. It flew with the bare necessities in order to squeeze out a little more performance. The ability of the aircraft to absorb damage, and the protection of the pilot were of secondary importance.

"The MiG-15 was more survivable than the Sabre...The MiG's survivability was fantastic. We must thank Mikoyan designers for that."

- Evgeny Pepelyaev

"A positive factor for MiG-15 pilots was the MiG's high survivability when hit by .50cal bullets. Sometimes MiGs with up to 100 bullet holes were repaired to fight again."

- Gordon & Rigmant, MiG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History.

Corsarius

2nd March 2004, 09:08

And yet, Lightning, the MiG-15, and MiG-15UTI continue to serve various users (in dwindling numbers, true), especially in a training function but still occasionally in Africa in a front-line capacity.

The Sabre is no more after Bolivia retired their fleet of 3.

Now, MiG hasn't built those babies since... when? The early 60s at the latest? So construction must be reasonably good to expect a service life of 30-40 years and continue to operate regularly as a military platform. Secondly, it must be a good or survivable aircraft simply because air forces (yes, even cheap and cheerful African ones that seem to have a hodge-podge of aircraft from everywhere) would throw them out. Fighting is about efficiency. If the MiG was as much a dud as you allege, it wouldn't still be here.

So Lightning, not to get all heavy on you, or anything, but I think you've been hooked on cold war propaganda. Sure, Capitalus might be wrong with his numbers, but I'd say that there were probably less migs and more sabres shot down than were claimed by 'our history', making it a more even sort of ratio. Now I know that this is pinko reactionist thinking and damned un-american, but there you go (sorry, I just can't help it. It's so wonderfully cliched).

Also, are we considering other aircraft types (as this seems to have suddenly become a Korean War forum)? The Meteor flown by Australians certainly claimed MiGs, and I know a variety of other aircraft also did as well. To this, what other front-line fighters were those damned commies (for lightnings's benefit there :D) flying, and did THEY account for any sabres?

robert

2nd March 2004, 10:28

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius
The Meteor flown by Australians certainly claimed MiGs, and I know a variety of other aircraft also did as well.

Australian Meteors had four confimed MiG kills in Korea, and a Sea Fury of the FAA and F4U of the USMC had one each. F9Fs of the USN had five MiG kills. F3D Skynights had four.

USAF F-84s were credited with nine MiG kills, while F-80s claimed 31.

Am I missing any?

BuzzLightyear

2nd March 2004, 11:09

One of the things I hope to accomplish before I die is to figure out just what the F-86/MiG-15 kill/loss ratios were. I've come to the conclusion that I will die trying to figure it out. Nevertheless, in my line-by-line study of KORWALD and USAF (as well as USN/USMC)confirmed kill lists, I've come up with the following:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/kill_losses.jpg

The F-82 claims are interesting. These kills occurred over Kimpo airbase on the first days of the war. The kills are almost universally recognized as a Yak-7 and a couple of Yak-9s. However, the official USAF credit as as above.

GregP

2nd March 2004, 14:10

I have to chime in here since I helped assemble a MiG-15 UTI in Phoenix, Arizona.

The one we got was made in Russia. As a two-seater, it had one 23 mm cannon and the performance was similar to the single seater. Also, the owner of this particular MiG-15 UTI had two single seaters. Both were in the local area and one was in the Champlin Fighter Museum, right next to an F-86.

The MiG-15's quality of build was superb. The materials were more robust tyhan that used in the Sabre, and the workanship was excellent. The systems were more crude than the F-86, but the MiG was reliable and could tolerate rough handling and rough maintenance.

Whoever told Lightning that the MiG-15's quality was poor must have never seen one up close and personal.

The one I worked on came in 3 shipping crates from China in 1991, and we assembled it enough in 1 day to roll it into a hangar (fuselage, wings ... no fairings yet, and gear). Five years later of VERY part-time effort, we started it and taxied it under its own power. The main delays were translations of manuals and getting FAA-approved checklists and maintenance plans ... but we got it done. Had one spare engine, too, but the one taht came in it started up and ran just fine after sitting in a Chinese museum since 1954.

After seeing it, I say the MiG was built stronger than the Sabre. Not necessarily better, but stronger and simpler. They took battle damage very well and were no more prone to catch fire than was the Sabre.

Hit ANY centrifugal jet enine in the fuel lines or combustion chamber, and it turns into a blowtorch.

No, Lightning, the MiG-15s WERE not and ARE not aircraft of poor quality ... at least the Russian and Polish ones. I seem to recall that USAF people who saw the Chinese versions of the MiG-19 were impressed with its fit and finish, too. All polished aluminum and gleaming in the sun.

Corsarius

2nd March 2004, 16:43

I've sat in a MiG-17 cockpit several times and, rather uniquely, have fallen asleep in it's tailpipe while other people worked out how to unlock the cockpit manually in order to get another compatriot out who had indavertently locked himself in.

Hey, I was tired, it was a long day pushing aircraft out to the field and I'd had a long night the night before. It seemed perfectly feasable to me, especially as the bird was in non-flying condition and it was about the right length and shape, and that way people wouldn't find me instantly and try to wake me up. I got a good couple of hours in that thing.

CAPILATUS

2nd March 2004, 22:21

First of all I'd like to tell Taglia, admin, as I'm sorry as I first started to talk about post war planes, forgive me,please! [V] but all of you guy can't imagine how much I'm happy discussing with you all, gentlemen, and how much I have fun seeing different opinions and hot discussion here! It's real pleasure, I tell you now!

I can't imagine what reaction could be if I translated written above discussion (MiGs and Sabres) and sent it to any aviation Russian forum! Ha-ha!

The matter we all were grown under "cold war pressure" as said Corsarius, thanks for thouse words! It makes me think and have fun the same times. The thing gentlemen is - we will never get known the real figure as it seems all folders are still with "top secret" stamps. In my thoughts and if to think logically, losses (or wins as you wish ;)) have to be at least equal as you see almost same aircraft. From my opinion the preference has to be given to MiGs beause it could as said above absorb more damages and had much more powerful weapon. It's my own opinion and my figure, MiG's wins over sabres have to be 10-15% more under equal condition.

Question to Greg. Where have you taken the real number of Sabres in Korea from? How many of them were sent to?

And very personal question to everyone. But please, no "if" here, OK? What would you prefer in dogfight Mig-15 or Sabre? [B)]

simon

2nd March 2004, 22:32

Personally I'd take a Sabre because as Capitalus says they're performance wise roughly the same so I'm going for the good old fashion tie break, I just prefer the look of the Sabre!

What about yourself?

Ricky

2nd March 2004, 23:59

Me, I'd take the Mig.

Why?
I've read reports that say that the Sabre pilots were all in favour of throwing out their high-tech gunsight if the reduced weight meant that they could dogfight as well as a Mig-15.

The biggest drawback for the Mig really was that it had less pilot visibility than the sabre.

BuzzLightyear

3rd March 2004, 10:59

I think I'd prefer the Sabre, and most definately, the last F-86 in the Korean War, the F-86F-30NA Sabre, with the broad solid wing. Performance wise, the -30NA was superior to MiG-15bis in all categories but climb and ceiling - and then only slightly inferior.

All F-86 models (from A-5 to F-30) were faster than the MiG-15 up to 30,000 feet, and the F model was even faster beyond 30,000 feet up to its ceiling. It was slower in climb, but signficantly better in dive. Sabre rate of roll was signficantly better - upwards of 270 degrees per second. It could out-turn the MiG-15 at altitudes below 35,000 feet, and the F-30 model could out turn the MiG at all altitudes.

The F-86 had beautiful stall characteristics. The plane would slightly buffet at 6 knots over stall speed, and would immediately recover if speed increased. The MiG was known for unforgiving stall characterisitcs.

The F-86 had nearly perfect spin characterisitics. The plane had to be forcibly put into a spin, then would recover on its own if the pilot released the stick. The MiG was know for awful spin characterisitics. Many F-86 pilots reported seeing MiGs crash after spinning out and not recovering. Of course, pilot blackout due to lack of a G-suit is a possibility in many of those cases. Nevertheless, Chuck Yeager, who flew the MiG-15bis, said, "It's a quirky plane that will kill its pilot given the chance."

Neither plane had ideal armament for 1950-53 ata combat, but given a greater volume of fire, I'd say the 6 fifties were better. One hit from a .50 is better than a miss from a 23mm. And GUNVAL F-86s, armed with 4 Mauser 20mm cannons, were as close to ideally armed as they come. Too bad they weren't widely adopted. Additionally, the radar ranging gunsite in the F-86 was widely lauded.

Pilot environment was better in the F-86. Provisions were made for G-suit, which Korean War MiG-15s did not have. Both the F-86 and the MiG-15 canopy had a tendancy to ice up at high altitudes. The F-86 had a defroster. North Korean defector Lt. Ro Kum Suk said the Saber was a "Cadillac" compared to the MiG. A 1950's Cadillac, I quess.

And it would be a mistake to underestimate the ruggedness of the Sabre. That the MiG was tougher is probably a result of the heavier armament on the MiG. Hit a MiG-15 with a 37mm or a could of 23mms and it won't survive, either. Nevertheless, I've got pictures of F-86s with gaping holes from direct hits from MiG cannons - which still made it home. The F-86 was supremely well made - and tough.

But it really came down to pilot quality. In an interview, Soviet pilot Evgeny Pepelyaev said, "The average American pilot was at least as good as the best Soviet pilot." That says it all.

GregP

3rd March 2004, 15:29

Capilatus,

I quoted the Sabre figures from several websites. I did not write them down, but I will find them again and let you know. The disposition of Sabres that went to Korea, by tail number, is also in a recent book ... though I will have to check on the name and author.

It isn't too hard to find because I found it in one evening while browsing about "Sabre vs. MiG", with "Korea" thrown into the filter.

I have not seen the number of MiG-15s sent to Korea by the Soviet Union anywhere ... so, do YOU know it?

Last, all of the writings I have read from pilots, historians, and authors of the era state that there were only a few Sabres available at any one time, and that the losses were replaced on a loss-by-loss basis. In fact, the F-86 models with the "all-flying tail" were handed out one by one to the various units in order to not affect morale!

So ... give me a few days and I'll have some refreences for you.

FOF

3rd March 2004, 20:57

Just to get back to the topic at hand, I humbly submit the Spitfire as the greatest fighter of the war. Can there be any other choice? It was a match for the best until the end of the war, even though it was almost a different aircraft to theoriginal mk 1.

As for the best, well I don't know much about the russian planes yet, so I'll have to go for either the Spit mk XIV, P51-D Mustang or the FW190D.

Corsarius

3rd March 2004, 21:17

Hi FOF! Welcome aboard!

I think that (several) pages back we reached a sort-of consensus (grudgingly) that the FW-190d was POSSIBLY the best. It's all how you view 'the best'.

As for Capitalus' little competition.. hmmm

Can I take a CA-27 avon-sabre? Standard armament was 2x20mm cannon and 2x sidewinder missiles. And of course it had the lovely RR Avon engine as well, making it the 'hottest' sabre variant around.

Otherwise, hmmmm. For all the niceness of the sabre, I'll go with the Mig.

GregP

4th March 2004, 04:07

I see a lot of people voting for the Spitfire. Some even claim it was faster than the Mustang ... wrong, guys.

The service date for the Spitfire XIV was March 44. The service date for the P-51H was March 44. And the P-51H went 487 mph while the Spit XIV went 448 mph.

So, the Mustang of the same vintage was faster. Yes, the XIV was faster than the P-51D, but the D model of the Mustang has a service date of Jan 44. What a difference two months make, huh?

Which one a fighter pilot would take depends on the fighter pilot.

I certainly like the Spitfire, particularly the XIV and beyond, but there's nothing wrong with a P-51H, either. With its speed advantage, the H-model Mustang could initiate or break off contact with the Spit XIV, so I'd take the P-51H thanks.

But, and I must emphasize this to a high degree, both planes were and are very competent. The "better" plane would probably depend on who was flying it. If the same pilot were in both, then the fight could never take place to start with ... so we are left to ask what might happen if a pilot in a Spitfire XIV , who was familiar with the XIV and its idiosynchrocies, came up against a pilot in a P-51H who was familiar with the H.

I'd say it might depend on who had the better starting position, or the element of surprise. If they started from the same altitude, head on, and the fight started when they passed, it would be a toss-up.

Including the Fw 190 D-9 and a pilot of similar talent ... and it would ALSO be a toss-up. Perhaps a slight nod in one of three directions depending on who you are.

If the choice were between the Spit XIV and the P-51D, I'd choose the Spit, but I reserve the right to use a P-51H since the service dates were the same month and year.

robert

4th March 2004, 04:36

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I see a lot of people voting for the Spitfire. Some even claim it was faster than the Mustang ... wrong, guys.

The service date for the Spitfire XIV was March 44. The service date for the P-51H was March 44. And the P-51H went 487 mph while the Spit XIV went 448 mph.

So, the Mustang of the same vintage was faster. Yes, the XIV was faster than the P-51D, but the D model of the Mustang has a service date of Jan 44. What a difference two months make, huh?

Which one a fighter pilot would take depends on the fighter pilot.

I certainly like the Spitfire, particularly the XIV and beyond, but there's nothing wrong with a P-51H, either. With its speed advantage, the H-model Mustang could initiate or break off contact with the Spit XIV, so I'd take the P-51H thanks.

But, and I must emphasize this to a high degree, both planes were and are very competent. The "better" plane would probably depend on who was flying it. If the same pilot were in both, then the fight could never take place to start with ... so we are left to ask what might happen if a pilot in a Spitfire XIV , who was familiar with the XIV and its idiosynchrocies, came up against a pilot in a P-51H who was familiar with the H.

I'd say it might depend on who had the better starting position, or the element of surprise. If they started from the same altitude, head on, and the fight started when they passed, it would be a toss-up.

Including the Fw 190 D-9 and a pilot of similar talent ... and it would ALSO be a toss-up. Perhaps a slight nod in one of three directions depending on who you are.

If the choice were between the Spit XIV and the P-51D, I'd choose the Spit, but I reserve the right to use a P-51H since the service dates were the same month and year.

Nothing personal, but this is simply and plainly wrong, in regard to both the Mustang and Spitfire. The first P-51H did not even fly until February 3, 1945, and although 370 had been delivered, and some were sent to units in the Pacific before V-E day, they were still working up in the Philippines when the war ended, and did not see any action. The P-51H wasn't even ordered until April 26, 1944. Sources that give the correct first flight date: Mustang, A Documentary History, by Jeffrey Ethell; War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, by William Green; United States Military Aircraft Since 1909 by Swanborough and Bowers; American Combat Planes, by Ray Wagner.

As for the P-51D, the first XP-51D flew on November 17, 1943, and the first few P-51Ds reached the squadrons in Europe in March 1944.

The first production Spitfire Mk.XIVs to be delivered, RB142 & RB143, were accepted by 39MU in October, 1943. The first eight operational Spitfire Mk.XIVs were delivered to No. 610 Squadron at Exeter on January 6, 1944. Source: Supermarine Spitfire (Griffons) Mks. XIV & XVIII, by Len Bachelor.

Lightning

4th March 2004, 05:06

Re: Propaganda: I guess I must defer to the Soviet Union's greater experience in aircraft design and construction. After all, the airplane was, as we all know, invented by the Russians.

Re: Aircraft being better simply because their around longer: The Bf 109 was around long after the war ended; it was even put back in production in Spain. Why? I suspect there were political,practical,and economic reasons. It surely was not because it was better than any of its contemporaries. Also, if longevity determines greatness,then the F-80/T-33 is the greatest fighter/trainer of all time.

Re: quality of manufacture: It is common knowledge that captured (as a result of pilot defection) Mig 21s were of poor quality of constuction. They had non-flush rivets; their skins were not smooth; fit-and-finish left a lot to be desired. Their avionics utilized vacuum tubes long after solid state electronics had become the standard. Why would latter-day Migs suddenly be of such poorer quality than their ancestors of the Korean War? Some may say it is because the Soviet block had become drained by the arms race by the time the Mig 21 appeared; I don't buy this. How much more drained could it (or any of the other participants of that war) be than by WWII? The Mig 15 was designed and built immediately ater that war.

CAPILATUS

4th March 2004, 13:57

Yes, yes, yes... In some things Sabre was better mainly just over the ground, upper MiG was superior, gunsight was more perfect, yes, Soviet's pilots could only dream about g-suits, but... I thing survivability and armament could say for themselves, having no g-suit you could be good trained either having not best gunsight. I know nothing about escape system of Sabres and rate of killed/escaped pilots/downed planes, but as far as I know pilot flying MiGs were more then greatful with that as most of them could return home.

I'd prefer MiG-15

To Greg: thanks in advance, but I shovel turned lot of but still cannot find how many MiGs were sent to Korea totally.

I was reading a book for 2 days about P-39 (as I do like this plane a lot) and it's development and was surprised how "much" I know about. And surprise as P-63 was the most manuver aircraft ever built in USA. It wasn't liked by "US generals" just because of small range. Just later on I will put some P-63's characteristics here.

GregP

4th March 2004, 14:45

Hey robert,

I've got one source that says the P-51H was put into production in 1944, with first flight 3 Feb 1944.

However, I just checked again and two other sources say 3 Feb 1945. Since one of the 1945 sources is "The Great Book of Fighters" by William Green, I'll choose to believe him above the 1944 source ... I respect Green and his research as one of the best in the business.

So, OK, I stand corrected ... again. So, the Mustang to use in comparison must be the D, and the Spit XIV is 11 mph faster at critical altitude. Not much of a difference, but it IS a difference. Just to give the Spitfire its due, it also climbs better at Military power. I think they are close to each other in WEP, but that's another story entirely. I have already said in earlier posts that WEP is for emergencies only, and should not be used in quoting performance figures.

OK, you got me there, apparently. I think that some dates in this source, and possibly more than one, may well be wrong. When you find ONE, it begs the question about what ELSE is wrong in that volume. Actually, I'll check ALL my sources for some corroboration on the service date entry of the P-51H, but it would appear to be probably 1945. [:I]

Damn! Thought I had something there for a few hours ... but, the Spitfire guys win yet another round.

I think I need some booze with this bleach.

Corsarius

4th March 2004, 18:38

Just to add to the argument: Wasn't Gagarin killed in a MiG-15?

And Lightning: These are friendly boards. Sarcasm doesn't suit your character. You post great things elsewhere, post them here, too!

But my reasoning for the longevity of the MiG is in relation to it's quality, not it's greatness. After all, if they were of such poor quality in original manufacture, it is unlikely that they would still be around today. I can say from personal experience that the MiG-15s, -17s, and -21s that I have been close-up to as a photographer and volunteer ground handler are extremely well finished, equal to the vampires and hunters I have seen.

And I, too, love the mighty T-bird.

CAPILATUS

4th March 2004, 19:15

Corsarius, dear comrade, could you tell me if you have some sources about downed Australian Meteors and MiGs downed by them. And what do they say? Australian sources, please ;) (sure if you have)

Corsarius

4th March 2004, 22:00

You ask, you get, comrade!

http://www.kmike.com/oz/77/MK8OPS.htm

http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/ausinkorea/raaf/raaf2.htm

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/aerospace/history/History%20Post%20War%20Conflicts.htm

Have fun. Sorry if the info is a little vague, but you did ask for Australian sites, The first one seems to be a 'personal' site, the second is the official Australian War Memorial, and the last one is from the official defence force website.

CAPILATUS

5th March 2004, 00:01

Hmmmm... According to official score, 64th Air Army based in Korea downed 28 Meteors, reseacher and historican Fedorov says 35 as minimum!
Here Fedorov says Australians don't claim about downed Meteors by MiGs, but claim about 32 killed pilots, 3 MiGs downed confirmed and 3 unconfirmed.

andyo2000

5th March 2004, 00:37

I know this is a little delayed, but I'll ask anyway...

Lightning: How in the heck was the airplane invented by the Russians? The helicopter, if you exclude the Fiesler (spelled correctly?) helicopter series of the Nazis, was invented by a Russian-American, true. But the airplane?

The actual airplane was finally perfected by the Wright Bros., who were not Russian. Samuel Langley, who was a major contributor to airplane developement. Octave Chanute, Otto Lilienthal, and ALexander Bell; these were all not Russian. The first two were Western European, actually. So how was the airplane invented by the Russians.

I do concede that the Russians made many important achievements. They were the nation to recieve the first multi-engined airplane, in (1914?), the Il'ya Muromets. But the airplane was not by any stretch of imagination invented there.

Ricky

5th March 2004, 00:47

Andy - I think Lightning was being a touch sarcastic after claims that he was overtly influenced by American Cold War propaganda.
Have you read 1984? ;)

simon

5th March 2004, 01:39

Sorry to split hairs somewhat, but aren't the Wright Brothers more correctly credited with being the first to achieve a POWERED aeroplane flight? I thought successful experiments had been made with unpowered gliders beforehand, but can't remember where I read that or even the reliability of the source!

Ricky

5th March 2004, 01:48

True - gliders go back to the Middle Ages.
Mind you, reliable gliders (where the pilot remains largely undamaged) did not start to appear until, oh, 19th century?

As with many of my posts, my info is quite vague, as I'm at work and have no access to my sources...

Mind you, have a browse of this:

http://wings.avkids.com/Book/History/instructor/gliders-01.html

andyo2000

5th March 2004, 05:05

Oops. Should've looked at the between-the-lines lingo. My apologies.

By the way, if you want a good book on the start of [u]powered</u> flight (sorry simon [:I]), then read "To Conquer the Air" by James Tobin. very informative and interesting.

robert

5th March 2004, 05:33

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

The helicopter, if you exclude the Fiesler (spelled correctly?) helicopter series of the Nazis, was invented by a Russian-American, true.

Actually, although exactly who made the first successful helicopter is a matter that can be debated, my vote goes to the French, with the Breguet-Dorand of 1935.

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/breguet-dorand-r.html

robert

5th March 2004, 05:39

quote:Originally posted by simon

Sorry to split hairs somewhat, but aren't the Wright Brothers more correctly credited with being the first to achieve a POWERED aeroplane flight? I thought successful experiments had been made with unpowered gliders beforehand, but can't remember where I read that or even the reliability of the source!

The first unpowered glider to carry a human being was Sir George Cayley's 1849 glider, which carried the ten-year-old son of a servant on a short flight. Unfortunately, since he was "only" a servant, the name of the first person to fly in a heavier-than-air glider was not recorded.

Cayley was an incredibly important figure in the history of aviation.

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/private/cayley/info/info.htm

andyo2000

5th March 2004, 07:37

Once again, I am not fully up-to-date...but hey, you learn something new every day.

In fact, I think i'll start a new thread...being that helicopters are a fairly important and interesting part of military aviation...

Corsarius

5th March 2004, 12:21

I can't believe no-one mentioned Hargreaves or Lilienthal!

CAPILATUS

5th March 2004, 12:36

Ai-ai-ai! You ought to be ashamed, guys!
Stop push Ligthning as he is absolutely right!

Lets recall: Right bros started from gliders than they equipped it with piston engine and flew. It was in 1902, 1903.

But no one can forget the first POWERED plane was built and flown in 1885! It was rear admiral of Russian NAVY Alexander Mozhaysky. First in 1876 he built a glider and made some flights. The glider was towing by 3 horses. In June 1880 he patented his invention. In 1883 he bought in England two steam engines 7,46 and 14,9 KW. In summer 1882 he started to build his invention, an as a result in July of 1885 his dream came true.

Here we are gentlemen!

robert

5th March 2004, 16:38

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS

Ai-ai-ai! You ought to be ashamed, guys!
Stop push Ligthning as he is absolutely right!

Lets recall: Right bros started from gliders than they equipped it with piston engine and flew. It was in 1902, 1903.

But no one can forget the first POWERED plane was built and flown in 1885! It was rear admiral of Russian NAVY Alexander Mozhaysky. First in 1876 he built a glider and made some flights. The glider was towing by 3 horses. In June 1880 he patented his invention. In 1883 he bought in England two steam engines 7,46 and 14,9 KW. In summer 1882 he started to build his invention, an as a result in July of 1885 his dream came true.

Here we are gentlemen!

Controlled flight - um, no. Mozhaiskii's aircraft had no means of lateral control. To quote Bill Gunston's Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft, the aircraft "flew for a second or two but banked and hit lower wing on the ground."

An uncontrolled flight lasting no more than a second or two does not count as powered, controlled flight.

CAPILATUS

5th March 2004, 19:21

[/quote]

Controlled flight - um, no. Mozhaiskii's aircraft had no means of lateral control. To quote Bill Gunston's Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft, the aircraft "flew for a second or two but banked and hit lower wing on the ground."

An uncontrolled flight lasting no more than a second or two does not count as powered, controlled flight.
[/quote]

Roberto! Comrade! [:p]

andyo2000

5th March 2004, 21:07

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

I can't believe no-one mentioned Hargreaves or Lilienthal!

Now wait just a minute; I mentioned Otto on Page 23. Although he wasn't around for the beginning of powered (controlled) flight, he did contribute lots of flight data. He ran tests for years, but sadly died in a glider crash in the late 1800s.

Oh, and Capilatus: The Wrights didn't power their plane until 1904. In 1902 and 03 theyt were just at Kitty Hawk, gliding and recording flight test data, like wing lift and curvature.

CAPILATUS

6th March 2004, 21:04

Couldn't back to Korean discuss without anything to argue with... as I'd like to find an English source and I did.

Here I found:

From: Ulrich Eckel (uli@kaiwan.com)

My statistics here came from an article in the Sept-Oct 1994 issue of Command magazine and the TV series "Wings of the Red Star". The 64th Fighter Aviation Corps was sent to fight in Korea in Nov 1950. They performed very well, shooting down over 1,300 UN aircraft of all types while losing only 345 of their own. 16 Soviet pilots made ace, with the top scorer being Evgeni Pepelyaev with 23 kills. This info comes from the magazine article, and the author got his info from various US and Russian publications. The 2:1 MiG-15 vs. F-86 statistic is from the "Red Star" series. It should be mentioned that American and Soviet info do not contradict each other with regards to kill tallies. Only if an American plane is brought down over the combat area was it counted as a "loss". U.S. Air Force does not count planes damaged beyond repair or forced to land on the way home. The Soviets do, so their figures are naturally higher with regards to kills.

This makes sense because MiG-15 is considered the better plane. Its just that Chinese and North Korean pilots were SO bad that the US could score a 13:1 kill ratio against them. Many US and Soviet pilots were veterans of World War II. Most of the Soviet pilots sent to Korea were veterans and aces, including Ivan Kozhedub, 3-time Hero of the Soviet Union with 62 German kills to his credit. So pilot quality was even (since USSR sent almost exclusively elite pilots, you could even say that man-for-man they were superior). In addition to their good scores against enemy fighters, the Soviet pilots were the primary reason the US stopped using B-29 bombers (US first switched from day to night bombing and, after 1951, hardly used them at all).

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html#Mikhailov

One more thing, I made a small reseach and counted total score of Sabre's pilot: 276 total, please correct me if I'm wrong. The matter here in the table of total score not just ACes.

Joseph McConnell 16 Korea United States
James Jabara 15(16.5 WWII) Korea United States
Manuel J. Fernandez 14.5 Korea United States
George Davis Jr. 14(21 WWII) Korea United States
Royal N. Baker 13(16.5 WWII) Korea United States
Fredrick Blesse 10 Korea United States
Harold E. Fischer 10 Korea United States
Vermont Garrison 10(17.3 WWII) Korea United States
James Johnson 10(11 WWII) Korea United States
Lonnie R. Moore 10 Korea United States
Ralph S. Parr Jr. 10 Korea United States
Cecil G. Foster 9 Korea United States
James F. Low 9 Korea United States
Robinson Wisner 8 Korea United States
George L. Ruddell 8 Korea United States
Clifford D. Jolley 7 Korea United States
Francis Gabreski 6.5(34.5 WWII)Korea United States
Donald E. Adams 6.5 Korea United States
Geroge L. Jones 6.5 Korea United States
Winton W. Marshall 6.5 Korea United States
James H. Kasler 6 Korea United States
Robert P. Baldwin 5 Korea United States
Richard S. Becker 5 Korea United States
Stephen L. Bettinger 5 Korea United States
John F. Bolt 5(12) Korea United States
Guy P. Bordelon 5 Korea United States
Clyde A. Curtin 5 Korea United States
Ralph D. Gibson 5 Korea United States
Ivan C. Kinchloe 5 Korea United States
Robert T. Latshaw 5 Korea United States
Robert H. Moore 5 Korea United States
Dolphin D. Overton, III 5 Korea United States
William H. Wescott 5 Korea United States
Walker M. Mahurin 3.5(23.5 WWII) Korea United States
Philip C. DeLong 2(13.2 WWII) Korea United States
Dewey F. Durnford 2(6.8 WWII) Korea United States
John W. Andre 1(5 WWII) Korea United States
Robert Wade 0.5(8 WWII) Korea United States

This figure (276 total) verifies my guess about both side losses.
As we all can see there is a question: Where are 792 downed MiG's? [:0] [?]

If you go to WEB I've written above and count, you will get about 500-figure, it seems to be close to the truth if to estimate with almost equal planes Russian pilots were more experienced.

robert

7th March 2004, 04:15

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS
One more thing, I made a small reseach and counted total score of Sabre's pilot: 276 total, please correct me if I'm wrong. The matter here in the table of total score not just ACes.

Joseph McConnell 16 Korea United States
James Jabara 15(16.5 WWII) Korea United States
Manuel J. Fernandez 14.5 Korea United States
George Davis Jr. 14(21 WWII) Korea United States
Royal N. Baker 13(16.5 WWII) Korea United States
Fredrick Blesse 10 Korea United States
Harold E. Fischer 10 Korea United States
Vermont Garrison 10(17.3 WWII) Korea United States
James Johnson 10(11 WWII) Korea United States
Lonnie R. Moore 10 Korea United States
Ralph S. Parr Jr. 10 Korea United States
Cecil G. Foster 9 Korea United States
James F. Low 9 Korea United States
Robinson Wisner 8 Korea United States
George L. Ruddell 8 Korea United States
Clifford D. Jolley 7 Korea United States
Francis Gabreski 6.5(34.5 WWII)Korea United States
Donald E. Adams 6.5 Korea United States
Geroge L. Jones 6.5 Korea United States
Winton W. Marshall 6.5 Korea United States
James H. Kasler 6 Korea United States
Robert P. Baldwin 5 Korea United States
Richard S. Becker 5 Korea United States
Stephen L. Bettinger 5 Korea United States
John F. Bolt 5(12) Korea United States
Guy P. Bordelon 5 Korea United States
Clyde A. Curtin 5 Korea United States
Ralph D. Gibson 5 Korea United States
Ivan C. Kinchloe 5 Korea United States
Robert T. Latshaw 5 Korea United States
Robert H. Moore 5 Korea United States
Dolphin D. Overton, III 5 Korea United States
William H. Wescott 5 Korea United States
Walker M. Mahurin 3.5(23.5 WWII) Korea United States
Philip C. DeLong 2(13.2 WWII) Korea United States
Dewey F. Durnford 2(6.8 WWII) Korea United States
John W. Andre 1(5 WWII) Korea United States
Robert Wade 0.5(8 WWII) Korea United States

This figure (276 total) verifies my guess about both side losses.
As we all can see there is a question: Where are 792 downed MiG's? [:0] [?]

The list is nowhere near complete. Your list only gives the figures for aces (pilots who had five kills solely in Korea, or ones who were aces by combining their WW2 and Korean scores). It doesn't include pilots who had 1-4 kills who weren't aces. There were 154 UN pilots credited with two or more kills in Korea, and many more credited with one kill.

GregP

7th March 2004, 11:25

My research indicates the following:

Last Name Given Name Air Force Victories Victories Shared Total Kills Comments Country Conflict
Gogerly Bruce RAAF 1 -- 1 77Sq; claimed 1 Mig-15 on 1/Dec/1951 while flying Meteor F.8 A77-15 Australia Korean War
Simmonds William H. RAAF 1 -- 1 77Sq; claimed 1 Mig-15 while flying Meteor F.8 A77-385 on 8/May/1952 Australia Korean War
Glover Ernest Arthur USAF 3 -- 3 334FIS/4FIW; 1 Mig-15 claimed on 8/Sep/1952, 9/Sep/1952 & 16/Sep/1952 Canada Korean War
Lindsay James Douglas USAF 2 -- 2 39FIS/51FIW; 1 Mig-15 on 11/Oct/1952 and 26/Nov/1952 Canada Korean War
LaFrance J. Claude A. USAF 1 -- 1 39FIS/51FIW; 1 Mig-15 claimed 5/Aug/1952 Canada Korean War
Levesque Joseph Auguste Omer USAF 1 -- 1 334FIS/4FIW; 1 Mig-15 claimed on 31/Mar/1951 Canada Korean War
MacKay John USAF 1 -- 1 39FIS/51FIW; 1 Mig-15 shot down on 30/Jun/1953 Canada Korean War
Spurr Lawrence E. USAF 1 -- 1 25FIS/51FIW; 1 MIG-15 shot down on 14/Jul/1952 Canada Korean War
Hulse Graham S. USAF 3 -- 3 336FIS/4FIW; commisioned in the RAF Great Britain Korean War
Carmichael Peter FAA 1 -- 1 802Sq. on HMS Ocean; flying Sea Fury FB Mk.11 coded 114 serial number WJ232 Great Britain Korean War
Dickinson R.T.F. USAF 1 -- 1 25FIS/51FIW; commisioned in the RAF Great Britain Korean War
Granville-White John H. USAF 1 -- 1 39FIS/51FIW; commisioned in the RAF Great Britain Korean War
Lovell J.H. USAF 1 -- 1 25FIS/51FIW; commisioned in the RAF Great Britain Korean War
Kim Kee-Ok NKAF 9 -- 9 N. Korea Korean War
Li Dong Czu NKAF 9 -- 9 N. Korea Korean War
Kang Jung-Duk NKAF 8 -- 8 N. Korea Korean War
Kim Di San NKAF 6 -- 6 N. Korea Korean War
Dun Ven NKAF 10 -- 10 PRC Korean War
Choa Bao-tun NKAF 9 -- 9 1st victory an F-84, claimed several F-86s and B-29s PRC Korean War
Noak Van Khaya NKAF 9 -- 9 PRC Korean War
Wang Hai NKAF 9 -- 9 Komeska (Communist) Sq. PRC Korean War
Fan Wan Chou NKAF 8 -- 8 1st victory an F-84, wingman to Chao Bao-tun PRC Korean War
Li Han NKAF 8 -- 8 PRC Korean War
Lu Minh NKAF 8 -- 8 PRC Korean War
Cun Chen Ky NKAF 6 -- 6 PRC Korean War
Han Decai NKAF 5 -- 5 PRC Korean War
Chang Chi-Wei NKAF 4 -- 4 credited with shooting down the F-86 of Maj. George Davis on 10/Feb/1952 PRC Korean War
McConnell Joseph Jr. USAF 16 -- 16 51FIW USA Korean War
Jabara James USAF 15 -- 15 4FIW USA Korean War
Fernandez Manuel John USAF 14.5 -- 15 4FIW USA Korean War
Davis George Andrew Jr. USAF 14 -- 14 4FIW; MIA 10/Feb/1952 USA Korean War
Baker Royal Newman USAF 13 -- 13 4FIW USA Korean War
Blesse Frederick Corbin USAF 10 -- 10 4FIW USA Korean War
Fischer Harold Edward USAF 10 -- 10 51FIW; POW 7/Apr/1953 USA Korean War
Garrison Vermont USAF 10 -- 10 4FIW USA Korean War
Johnson James Kenneth USAF 10 -- 10 4FIW USA Korean War
Moore Lonnie Raymond USAF 10 -- 10 4FIW USA Korean War
Parr Ralph Sherman Jr. USAF 10 -- 10 4FIW USA Korean War
Foster Cecil Glenn USAF 9 -- 9 51FIW USA Korean War
Low James Frederick USAF 9 -- 9 4FIW; (POW 16/Dec/1967, 8TFW, Vietnam War) USA Korean War
Hagerstrom James Philo USAF 8.5 -- 9 4FIW, 18FBW USA Korean War
Risner Robinson USAF 8 -- 8 4FIW; (POW 16/Sep/1965, 67TFS, Vietnam War) USA Korean War
Ruddell George Inkerman USAF 8 -- 8 51FIW USA Korean War
Buttelmann Henry USAF 7 -- 7 51FIW USA Korean War
Jolley Clifford Dale USAF 7 -- 7 4FIW USA Korean War
Lilley Leonard William USAF 7 -- 7 4FIW USA Korean War
Adams Donald Earl USAF 6.5 -- 7 51FIW USA Korean War
Gabreski Francis Stanley USAF 6.5 -- 7 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
Jones George Lamar USAF 6.5 -- 7 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
Marshall Winton Whittier USAF 6.5 -- 7 4FIW USA Korean War
Bolt John Franklin Jr. USAF 6 -- 6 51FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Kasler James Helms USAF 6 -- 6 4FIW; POW 8/Aug/1966 (Vietnam War, 355TFW) USA Korean War
Love Robert John USAF 6 -- 6 4FIW USA Korean War
Whisner William Thomas USAF 5.5 -- 6 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
Baldwin Robert Percy USAF 5 -- 5 51FIW USA Korean War
Becker Richard Samuel USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Bettinger Stephen Lambert USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW; POW 20/Jul/1953 USA Korean War
Bordelon Guy Pierre USN 5 -- 5 VC-3 USA Korean War
Creighton Richard Daniel USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Curtin Clyde Alfred USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Gibson Ralph Duane USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Kincheloe Iven Carl Jr. USAF 5 -- 5 51FIW USA Korean War
Latshaw Robert Thomas Jr. USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Moore Robert Harold USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
Overton Dolphin Dunnaha III USAF 5 -- 5 49FBG, 51FIW USA Korean War
Thyng Harrison Reed USAF 5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Wescott William Henry USAF 5 -- 5 51FIW USA Korean War
Smith Foster L. USAF 4.5 -- 5 4FIW USA Korean War
Asla Felix USN 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Banks Ralph E. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Cleveland Charles G. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Colman Philip Eddy USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Dobbs Billy B. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Fellman Walter W. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Green Louis A. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Liles Brookes Jonathan USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Mass Jack E. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Mattson Conrad Emanuel USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Mitchell John William USAF 4 -- 4 51FIW USA Korean War
Nelson Milton E. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Preston Benjamin S. USAAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Winslow Murray A. USAF 4 -- 4 4FIW USA Korean War
Heller Edwin Lewis USAF 3.5 -- 4 51FIW USA Korean War
Mahurin Walker Melville USAF 3.5 -- 4 51FIW; POW 13/May/1952 USA Korean War
Amell Zane S. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Box Norman USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Chandler Van Edgar USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Cosby William G. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Dittmer Carl K. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Fisher Franklin L. USAAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Frederick Peter J. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Gillis Alex J. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Glenn John Jr. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Harris Elmer W. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Humphreys Francis A. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Kratt Jacob Jr. USAF 3 -- 3 523FES; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Kulengosky Anthony USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
McCulley James A. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Porter Ira M. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Raebel James B. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW, 51FIW USA Korean War
Ricker Merton E. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Sands Robert L. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Schoenemann Richard H. USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Shaeffer William Floyd USAF 3 -- 3 51FIW USA Korean War
Smiley Albert B. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Tuel Houston N. USAF 3 -- 3 4FIW USA Korean War
Aldrin Edwin E. USAF 2 -- 2 51FIW USA Korean War
Brueland Lowell Kermit USAF 2 -- 2 51FIW USA Korean War
DeLong Philip Cunliffe USMC 2 -- 2 VMF-312; claimed 2 Yak-9 on 21/Apr/1951 flying F4U-4 (BuNo 97380) USA Korean War
Fox Orrin R. USAF 2 -- 2 8FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Hinton Bruce H. USAF 2 -- 2 4FIW USA Korean War
Meyer John Charles USAF 2 -- 2 4FIW USA Korean War
Owens Charles D. USAF 2 -- 2 4FIW USA Korean War
Pugh Paul E. USAF 2 -- 2 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Sellers Thomas M. USAF 2 -- 2 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Wayne Robert E. USAF 2 -- 2 35FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Wurster Charles A. USAF 2 -- 2 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Price Howard I. USAF 1.5 -- 2 67FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Amen W.T. USN 1 -- 1 VF-111; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Andre John William USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513 USA Korean War
Bertram William E. USAF 1 -- 1 27FEG; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Brown E.W. USN 1 -- 1 VF-51; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Brown Russell J. USAF 1 -- 1 flying F-80 with the 16FBS; 1 MIG-15 USA Korean War
Burns Richard J. USAF 1 -- 1 35FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Clark Francis USAF 1 -- 1 35FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Conley Robert USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Cooley Kenneth C. USAF 1 -- 1 111FBS; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Corvi Joseph USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Daigh H. USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F4U-5N USA Korean War
Davis Oliver USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Dewald Robert H. USAF 1 -- 1 35FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Dunn Elswin USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Eagleston Glenn Todd USAF 1 -- 1 4FIW USA Korean War
Ebersole Howard USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; flying F-86 USA Korean War
Emmert Benjamin Harrison Jr. USAF 1 -- 1 4FIW USA Korean War
Evans Simpson Jr. USN 1 -- 1 4FIW USA Korean War
Fenton Donald USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F4U-5N USA Korean War
Fithian Benjamin L. USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW; 1 victory while flying F-94B; radar operator Lt. Sam Lyons USA Korean War
Folmar Jesse USN 1 -- 1 VMA-312; flying Corsair FG-1D USA Korean War
Forbes Donald R. USAF 1 -- 1 12FBS; flying F-86 USA Korean War
Fortner Farrie D. USAF 1 -- 1 154FBS; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Glessner James L. USAF 1 -- 1 12FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Goodnough David H. USAF 1 -- 1 35FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Guss William F. USAF 1 -- 1 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Harrison James B. USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Hockery John Joseph USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW USA Korean War
Hovde William Johnston USAF 1 -- 1 4FIW USA Korean War
Hudson William G. USAF 1 -- 1 68FS (AW); claimed Yak-9 on 27/Jun/1950 while flying F-82 USA Korean War
Jensen H. USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Keys Elwood A. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Lamb William Emerson USN 1 -- 1 VF-52; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Landry Howard J. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Lee Robert L. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Linnemeier George USN 1 -- 1 VMC-1; flying AD4 USA Korean War
Little James Walter USAF 1 -- 1 339FS; claimed 1 LA-7 on 27/Jun/1950 while flying F-82 USA Korean War
Long E.B. USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F7F-3N USA Korean War
Marsh Roy W. USAF 1 -- 1 8FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Martin Maurice L. USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; flying F-86 USA Korean War
Marzelo Vincent USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
McAllister William W. USAF 1 -- 1 16FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
McHale Robert V. USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW USA Korean War
McKee Robert D. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Metten John L. USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; flying F-86 USA Korean War
Middleton John D. USN 1 -- 1 VF-781; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Mitchell Paul C. USAF 1 -- 1 158FBS; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Moran Charles USAF 1 -- 1 1vLa-7, NKAF, June 27, 1950 while flying F-82 (#FQ-357) of 68 F.S. USA Korean War
Mullins Arnold USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; claimed 1 Yak on 5/Feb/1950 while flying F-51D USA Korean War
Parker R.E. USN 1 -- 1 VF-111; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Payne J.S. USAF 1 -- 1 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Phillips John R. USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW USA Korean War
Plog Leonard USN 1 -- 1 VF-51; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Sandlin Harry T. USAF 1 -- 1 8FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Schilleref Raymond E. USAF 1 -- 1 35FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Schirra W.M. USN 1 -- 1 flying F-84 on 23/Oct/1951 USA Korean War
Skeen Kenneth L. USAF 1 -- 1 9FBS; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Slaughter William W. USAF 1 -- 1 522FES; flying F-84 USA Korean War
Smith Robert E. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Stratton William USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Thomas John B. USAF 1 -- 1 36FBS; flying F-80 USA Korean War
Thresher Robert D. USAF 1 -- 1 67FBS; flying F-51 USA Korean War
Van Grundy Eugene USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F7F-3N USA Korean War
Visscher Herman William USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW USA Korean War
Wade Robert USAF 1 -- 1 51FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Weaver J. USMC 1 -- 1 VMF(N)-513; flying F3D USA Korean War
Weber F.C. USN 1 -- 1 VF-111; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Wilcox Stanton G. USAF 1 -- 1 319FIS; KIA 3/May/1953 after colliding wih a Po-2 biplane while flying F-94 USA Korean War
Williams Elmer Royce USN 1 -- 1 VF-781; flying F9F-2 USA Korean War
Durnford Dewey Foster Jr. USAF 0.5 -- 1 4FIW; commissioned in USMC USA Korean War
Sutyagin Nikolai Vasilyevich NKAF 21 2 23 17 & 523 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Pepelyaev Yevgenii Georgiyevich NKAF 20 -- 20 196 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Shchukin Lev Kirillovich NKAF 15 -- 15 18 GvIAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Kramarenko Sergei Makarovich NKAF 13 -- 13 176 GvIAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Sheberstov Konstantin N. NKAF 12 -- 12 176 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Smorchkov Alexandr Pavlovich NKAF 12 -- 12 523 IAP (VVS); total victory count may be 15 USSR Korean War
Bakhaev Stepan Antonovich NKAF 11 -- 11 523 IAP(VVS); total victory count may be 12 USSR Korean War
Dokashenko Nikolai Grigoryevich NKAF 11 -- 11 17 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Okhai Grigorii Ulyanovich NKAF 11 -- 11 523 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Oskin Dmitrii Pavlovich NKAF 11 -- 11 523 IAP (VVS); total victory count may be 15 USSR Korean War
Pomaz unknown NKAF 11 -- 11 494 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Ponomarev Mikhail Sergeyevich NKAF 11 -- 11 total victory count may be 14 USSR Korean War
Ges Grigorii Ivanovich NKAF 10 -- 10 176 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Gulyaev unknown NKAF 10 -- 10 USSR Korean War
Milaushkin Pavel S. NKAF 10 -- 10 176 GvIAP (VVS); total victory count may be 11 USSR Korean War
Samoilov Dmitrii Alexandrovich NKAF 10 -- 10 523 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Suchkov Ivan V. NKAF 10 -- 10 176 GvIAP (VVS); total victory count may be 12 USSR Korean War
Mikhin Mikhail Ivanovich NKAF 9 -- 9 518 IAP(VVS); total victory count may be 11 USSR Korean War
Subbotin Serafim Pavlovich NKAF 9 -- 9 176 GvIAP (VVS); total victory count may be 12 to 15 USSR Korean War
Pulov Grigorii Ivanovich NKAF 8 -- 8 17 IAP (VVS); total victroy count may be 10 USSR Korean War
Zabelin Boris N. NKAF 8 -- 8 256 & 821 IAP (VVS); total victroy count may be 9 USSR Korean War
Alfeyev V.I. NKAF 7 -- 7 196 IAP (VVS); total victory count may be 8 USSR Korean War
Babonin N.N. NKAF 7 -- 7 18 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Bokach Boris V. NKAF 7 -- 7 196 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Fedorets Semen Alexeyevich NKAF 7 -- 7 913 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Ivanov Lev M. NKAF 7 -- 7 196 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Obraztsov Boris Alexandrovich NKAF 7 -- 7 176 GvIAP (VVS); KIA; total victory count may be 8 USSR Korean War
Zaplavnev Ivan M. NKAF 7 -- 7 USSR Korean War
Boitsov Arkadii Sergeyevich NKAF 6 -- 6 16 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Karelin Anatolii Mikhailovich NKAF 6 -- 6 351 IAP, 303 IAD (VVS); all victories at night USSR Korean War
Khvostontsev V.M. NKAF 6 -- 6 17 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Kumanichkin Alexandr Sergeyevich NKAF 6 -- 6 victory total may be higher USSR Korean War
Naumenko Stepan Ivanovich NKAF 6 -- 6 29 GvIAP (VVS); total victory count may be 6+5 USSR Korean War
Nikolayev A.P. NKAF 6 -- 6 17 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Nikulin P.F. NKAF 6 -- 6 176 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Shebanov Fiodor Akimovich NKAF 6 -- 6 196 IAP (VVS); KIA 29/Oct/1951 USSR Korean War
Vishniakov Sergei F. NKAF 6 -- 6 176 GvIAP (VVS); total victory count may be 7 USSR Korean War
Zameskin Nikolai M. NKAF 6 -- 6 878 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Abakumov Boris Stepanovich NKAF 5 -- 5 196 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Bashman A.T. NKAF 5 -- 5 148 GvIAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Belousov V.I. NKAF 5 -- 5 324 or 303 IAD (VVS) USSR Korean War
Berelidze Grigorii N. NKAF 5 -- 5 224 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Bogdanov G.I. NKAF 5 -- 5 USSR Korean War
Danilov S.D. NKAF 5 -- 5 total victory count may be higher USSR Korean War
Dmitriyuk Grigorii Fedoseyevich NKAF 5 -- 5 821 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Gerasimenko N.I. NKAF 5 -- 5 18 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Kochegarov A.M. NKAF 5 -- 5 196 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Korniyenko N.A. NKAF 5 -- 5 USSR Korean War
Lepikov V.P. NKAF 5 -- 5 415 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Mitusov A.I. NKAF 5 -- 5 196 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Muraviev unknown NKAF 5 -- 5 196 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Olenitsa S. NKAF 5 -- 5 821 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Plitkin A.F. NKAF 5 -- 5 USSR Korean War
Popov V.P. NKAF 5 -- 5 177 IAP USSR Korean War
Prudnikov A.R. NKAF 5 -- 5 821 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Shatalov German Timofeyevich NKAF 5 -- 5 523 IAP (VVS); KIA 28/Nov/1951 USSR Korean War
Shelamanov N.K. NKAF 5 -- 5 196 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Shkodin Nicolai I. NKAF 5 -- 5 147 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Siskov B.N. NKAF 5 -- 5 224 IAP(VVS) USSR Korean War
Stepanov V.I. NKAF 5 -- 5 18 GvIAP (VVS); KIA 6/Jan/1952 USSR Korean War
Lobov Georgii Ageyevich NKAF 4 -- 4 115 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Ivanov Nikolai Ivanovich NKAF 3 -- 3 726 IAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Karasev Alexandr Nikitovich NKAF 3 -- 3 total victory count may be 7 USSR Korean War
Popkov Vitalii Ivanovich NKAF 3 -- 3 324 IAD (VVS) USSR Korean War
Vasko Alexandr Fedorovich NKAF 3 -- 3 176 GvIAP (VVS) USSR Korean War
Gorbunov Ivan Mikhailovich NKAF 2 -- 2 676 IAP (VVS); KIA 29/Jun/1953 USSR Korean War
Yermakov Dmitrii Vasilyevich NKAF 2 -- 2 USSR Korean War

GregP

7th March 2004, 11:31

That format is from Excel, and leaves a lot to be desired. The totals are as follows:

Last Name FAA NKAF RAAF USAAF USAF USMC USN Grand Total
Grand Total 1 590 2 7 511 13 21 1,145

As you can see, the "official" records don't even SHOW Russian victory claims, but they probably count in NKAF claims. Maybe Capilatus could say.

In total, the US forces claimed about 800 MiG-15s and later scrutiny showed there were 379 victories that stood the test. The Russian admit to losing 345, so they aren't all that far apart.

This is an interesting subject because "official" Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army air victory records are NOT easy to obtain, aI have never even SEEN a supposed "Official" record from the Russian Air Forces. The wsebsitres vary tremendously, so we are left to ponder victory counts that differ wildly from place to place.

Truly, I belive the Military Forces of the World don't WANT us to know the real story, or they would have taken pains to clear it up.

So, we are left with a bunch of personal opinions, and most of the really VOCAL "experts" weren't fighter pilots and really don't know.

What I CAN say for sure is that the best two fighters of the Korean War were the North AMerican F-86 Sabre and the Mikoyan-Gurievich MiG-15, in no particular order. If anyone choose to nominate another aircraft, I can't imagine what it would be. Surely not the F-80 or the F-84, and the P-51 isn't even in the ballpark. Ditto the Yak-9.

The claims on both sides are inflated by about a factor of 3 or so, as are ALL battle claims of aerial victory, but the US Air Forces had a very good and significant edge in victories. Whether or not they were Russians is a matter for some debate, but the Russians did not mark their aircraft with Russian stars, so the pilots at the time could only guess against whom they were flying.

Once in a while, a US pilot and an MKAF pilot would pass close to each other and the US pilot could see the face of the enemy as a white man or an Asian. We assumed the white people were Russians and assumed the Asians were NKAF pilots.

The vast majority of fighter combats happened in such a way that the two pilots never got close enough to each other to differentiate the race of the pilot, so we are left with Russian claims, for which we have no answer except that we can document the planes that fought there and which ones got back to the U.S.A., so we know we didn't lose anywhere NEAR as many as the Russians claim.

Likewise, the Russians didn't lose anywhere NEAR the amount WE claimed.

Our victory tally went from about 800 MiGs shot down to about 379, slightly less than half. I can't SAY what the Russian tally went to, but we didn't lose more than about 150 Sabres in air-to-air combat in Korea. So, whatever the Russians claim, we can account for the rest of the Sabres. Of course, more were lost to ground fire, fuel exhaustion, and mechanical gremlins, but no Russian fighter pilot caused those losses ... maybe a Russian AAA gunner.

Wish we could get this straight. :D

CAPILATUS

8th March 2004, 07:07

Hi, Greg,

So, whatever the Russians claim, we can account for the rest of the Sabres

If you noticed, Greg, I borrowed the figures from Italian WEB than just calculated it and thought logically. And I do think you have to pay more attantion to other WEBs than US's, may be they could tell you more truth. Like how many planes were sent to Korea. I'm afraid my dear friend, you will never know the truth. Sure, it's a matter of US government even more, US community has to be greatful as the government told people just something. It's sad that friends in past (WWII) two countries were forced to fight each other, it's sad Russian guys real heros of past war died in uncertainty if they even couldn't tell their families where they were going, just "business trip" which from some never came back.

I'm not trying to diminish something, kill to kill ratio or whatever, just have been trying to get to the truth.

ickysdad

9th March 2004, 12:22

GregP,
On the WEP vs. Military Power issue,in Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" it states that WEP was used quite a bit in excess of the 5 minute limit without damaging the engine though it goes onto say that the engine was almost always inspected after using it in excess of 5 minutes. In the P-51 the USAAF planes normally drew 61" on MP and 67" on WEP,however once better fuel was obtained they were modified in the field to draw 77" in WEP,RAF models drew 81". A stock P-51 hit 380 MPH at SL,however the modified ones hit 405 MPH(USAAF) and 410 MPH(RAF). THis info was gotten from P-51 pilots themselves over on the mustangmustang.com board. I understand the US radial engines held up well in excess of 10 minutes using WEP ,info from the same board. It seems those P & W's , Allison's, and merlin's/packard's were immensely tough.

Pete57

15th March 2004, 05:59

Howdy folks.

I've found these two sources especially useful in determining the numbers of F-86, and identifying some of the MiG-15s sent to the Korean front.

-MiG Alley - Sabres vs. Migs Over Korea, by Warren E. Thompson and David R. McLaren. Specialty Press, North Branch, MN, U.S.A.

-Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 - The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter, by Yefim Gordon. Midland Publishing, Hinckley, U.K.

'MiG Alley' pages 165 thru 170 list the serial number of every single Sabre sent to Korea, with a code to show - whenever applicable - the cause for its loss.
Pages 171 thru 174 list every single F-86 lost detailing date of loss, reason, pilot's name and cause of loss.
Pages 175 thru 182 list all the Sabres' confirmed kill.

'Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15' has a similar list, albeit not as detailed (lack of "Glasnos"?) of the aircraft known to have operated (all in NKPAF markings)in Korea with the Soviet Air Force, pages 107-108, ChiCom Air Force, page 84, and North Korean Air Force, pages 96-97.

One word of caution about the Italian web-site, from someone who has lived most of his life in Italy.

Unfortunately, there are still a few in this Country who expose aviation related facts based on motivations that are nothing near the plain quest for the truth.

Years ago, one - then well known - aviation historian forged documents to prove the statement he had made in his book that the Italian Aviazione Nazionale Repubblicana had operated the 'K' version of the Messerschmitt Bf.109 was indeed correct.

Later on, genuine documentation surfaced that proved the ANR had indeed operated a few Bf.109Ks, but the historian's credibility had sunk to an abysmal low in anybody's opinion who was seriously researching this little known side of the Italian Air Forces after the 1943 armistice.

On the other hand, there are, in this same Country, serious researchers who have described the ANR's brief life with serious researching into Allied as well as German and Italian archives and have written a book about it.

Not un-expectedly, it has met critics and often open hostility from those veterans who had served then and had believed all along their claims and deeds to be genuine.
These same veterans had, conversely, warmly welcome the forger's book that, albeit by means of un-supported myths (when not plain forger), had corroborated the truth they had desperately wanted to believe.

The veterans however can be understood, when one consider the political enviroment they lived and operated in, day-in day-out, the pressure of combat against an opponent that far outnumbered them, the known (but never openly manifested) prospect of defeat.
Even after the end of the regime, these same veterans had no reasons to believe their statements - their own little truth - was actually distorted by the political (and combat) conditions, and this applies to everybody who has fought under an oppresive regime call it Fascism, Nazism or Comunism: they all were made to believe they were fighting for the right cause and they all were made to believe they were winning.(Expressing dissense was a ticket to an immediate death sentence).

Therefore, nobody can say the Soviet or (to a lesser extent due to their more free political environment) American pilots' claims are over-inflated: in the heat of combat a badly smoking aircraft can genuinely be believed as 'doomed'. It was then up to the military system to 'revise the figures' to better suit its fund allocation and/or propaganda needs.

As to which was better, the Sabre or the Mig-15, my humble opinion is that both designs had their pros and cons, with the MiG being the more rugged and more easily field-maintained of the two, and the Sabre being the more sofisticated and stable platform.

One edge the Sabre had, that has been left out of this discussion, is its trans-sonic performance that U.S. pilots exploited to get rid of a MiG-15 that had fastened to their tail.
It stemmed from a design flaw of the MiG (insufficient wing sweep, I believe) that gave it a very un-predictable and dangerous behavior once the speed of sound was approached. It forced its designer to design automatic speed brakes that popped open around Mach .98.

This flaw was corrected with the MiG-17 that, in a way, was a 'stretched MiG-15 with a new, more swept wing'.

I believe the MiG-17 was the interceptor A. Mikoyan and M. Gurevich had in mind when they started to work on the MiG-15, which, for an interm figher, proved extremely successful and long lived.

One question for Capilatus: do you have any reliable information/detail on the 22 Lavochkin La-15 Fantail that are supposed to have briefly served in Korea?

Lightning

19th March 2004, 07:42

My respected colleagues:

I just returned from a trip to Germany; that's why I haven't been around for a while. I'm planning to move there soon, so my time with you will probably be interupted for a considerable length of time. I still have several weeks before I check out of the net.

Corsarius, you are, of course, absolutely right-- these are friendly pages. My sarcastic response to my friend CAPILATUS was a bit uncalled for. I must have hit an "air pocket."

I want you all to know how very much I've enjoyed being among you. The collective aviation knowledge you all display is nothing short of amazing.

At this time I'd like to state for the record that my favorite aircraft of all time is the Lockheed Lightning P-38. I'll not argue the point; I just love that airplane, and I always have.

I'll try to get in a few more posts before I leave. If so, you'll hear from me again; if not I wish you all "Happy Landings."

simon

19th March 2004, 08:58

Enjoy your trip, Germany's a fantastic place to live, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Hope you're able to get online again as personally I feel your input will be missed, if not, well in any case really, all the best.

Simon.

Ricky

1st April 2004, 20:35

And there's a fair few good aircraft museums over in Germany...
[8D]

simon

2nd April 2004, 10:31

Don't no whether you scuba-dive at all, but according to local myth about 10 years ago there is a Lancaster (Not one of the Dambusting ones I hasten to add) in the Mohnesee, if you do dive and your in the area it may be worth a look. Can't be any more specific I'm afraid, and I appreciate that the whole lake is a big place to go hunting for something that may not even exist!

Lightning

7th April 2004, 05:56

Hi Guys;

Twenty days to go. I'm as busy as a P-38 pilot with an engine failure on takeoff!

Yes,simon,I do scuba dive. I usually don't go much below 30-50 feet,however. It would be a kick to see that Lancaster. Who knows?

I'll get back to you all as soon as I possibly can. I'm hooked on this site as are probably most of you. You are all a fine bunch, and I value your oppinions one and all (Capillatus take note!)

simon

7th April 2004, 23:40

I don't think you'd have to go all that deep. According to the locals when I lived there it had been a very warm summer and they woke up one morning to see the tailplane sticking out of the water. Apparently the wreck was surveyed by divers from both a nearby British Army Royal Signals unit and a local diving club, but I don't know what if anything else happened to it.

Good luck with your move.

Notta Brit

9th April 2004, 21:48

Are we doing a different subject?

OHIOMAN

12th April 2004, 22:28

Hi everyone, being new, I'm a bit subdued, but I l feel that I should take this opportunity to pick the expert brains here about a subject that has bugged me for quite some time. Being Maltese, and having had a really tough war over here -which I just missed, thank God!- I read anything connected with the air fighting over the Islands. Allied fighter supremacy took a long, long time to become established in our skies, and for many reasons. One thing that has always struck me in the available literature is the frustrating mention of almost predictable cannon-stoppage during engagements. Beaufighters, Spitfires and Hurricanes often missed sitting ducks because of this, and sometimes were shot down because they were rendered defenceless. In other instances, the guns on one side would fire, those on the other would not, and this could, at times, de-stabilize the aeroplane. I have read -somewhere- that the ammo was U.S.-produced, and that a machining-error was discovered. Is this true? I do not wish to propose a conspiracy forum, but I know from first-hand evidence that Czech slave-labourers sabotaged German bombs at the production stage. Could it be that Allied cannon-ammunition was suffering something like this? I believe the same problem was met with during the Battle of Britain. Besides, why do we find no records of German cannon-stoppages?

andyo2000

13th April 2004, 00:48

I have never heard anyone mention Allied machining errors before. As far as I can tell, there would be no reason for sabotage. Unlike the Germans, the US did not capture people to make our weapons for us. All of the workers were paid adequately, and it was even their choice to make the stuff. Maybe the draftees had a reason to grumble, but I can't see a good reason for the workers too. Plus, there are many reasons gun problems could have arisen. The Meditteranean is extremely humid and cool as far as I understand it. Any kind of different environment has a drastic effect on how weapons work, as evidenced by both Allied and Axis efforts in northern Africa.

just a side note: Germans forced Jews and other prisoners of war to make ammunition and weapns. When making bullets, the prisoners would sometimes make dummy rounds, including only anote that thanked the allies for their effrts.

OHIOMAN

13th April 2004, 03:25

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

I have never heard anyone mention Allied machining errors before. As far as I can tell, there would be no reason for sabotage. Unlike the Germans, the US did not capture people to make our weapons for us. All of the workers were paid adequately, and it was even their choice to make the stuff. Maybe the draftees had a reason to grumble, but I can't see a good reason for the workers too. Plus, there are many reasons gun problems could have arisen. The Meditteranean is extremely humid and cool as far as I understand it. Any kind of different environment has a drastic effect on how weapons work, as evidenced by both Allied and Axis efforts in northern Africa.

just a side note: Germans forced Jews and other prisoners of war to make ammunition and weapns. When making bullets, the prisoners would sometimes make dummy rounds, including only anote that thanked the allies for their effrts.

Thanks, Andy2000, I'll try and find where I read about the machining errors, but read it I did. The same problems, I insist, cropped up in the Battle of Britain, to the extent that when the cannon trials were over, pilots were glad to return to the eight .303 configuration. So temperature and humidity factors do not seem to apply (the Med. is hot and humid, not so cool, by the way. Anyway, I didn't want to open any can of worms by mentioning U.S. manufacture, but I am still perplexed by the fact that the guns were O.K., but the ammo, somehow, wasn't.
With regard to sabotaged German ordnance, I wonder if people have heard of the Mosta Church 'miracle'? It's a classic example from the Malta air war, and I'll tell more if I'm asked.

[u]

simon

13th April 2004, 22:34

The unreliability of early RAF Hispano Cannon were nothing to do with the ammunition. The Hispano 20mm cannon that saw service during the Battle of Britain were more or less direct copies of the French Hispano 404. Designed to be used mounted around the engine block, the Hispanos did not react too well to being mounted in the far more flexible position of the wing and reliability suffered as a result.

These same cannon were used in the Beaufighter NF MkI and Whirlwind where they were mounted in the nose of the aircraft where they did not apparently exhibit any major reliability issues and these do appear to have been largely resolved by the time of the introduction of the Spitfire MkIIb, which was in service by early 1941.

I am aware that there was some issues with the reliability of all British made ammunition in both the Mediterranean and the Far East, this again was nothing to do with the manufacturing of the ammunition but the propellant (Which I believe was cordite) was temperamental to say the least under hot humid conditions leading to frequent mis-fires. The Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe used different propellants which were less temperamental under such conditions, and the British Air Arms did change to more suitable ammunition, but obviously not immediately.

As Andyo2000 says, saboutage in the Allied armed forces and factories was not widespread, if it happened at all. Think about it, the ammunition you fiddle with could be very bullet or shell that's put in your brother/father/son/husband/fiance's gun which leads to the stoppage which causes their death. Now if you're a Czech, Polish, French, Jewish, etc slave labourer and by deliberately mis-manufacturing a shell you're saving an Allied plane or tank crew...

Yes the pressures of wartime production may have caused standards to slip (In fact in many cartridge cases of this period you can see swirling patterns in the metal where the copper and bronze were inconsistently mixed during manufacture), but these would only extremely rarely have been deliberate.

simon

15th April 2004, 17:38

Oh as a follow up, and not wishing to restart the guns & cannon debate again, German weapons did suffer from Stoppages as well. Just to recap what had already been said, but the MK108 30mm cannon (Which largely would not have been used in the fighting over Malta) was fitted to the Me262 and was described in one book as being prone to jamming.

Largely though the German cannon, mainly it would have been either Mg151/15 or Mg151/20 (15mm and 20mm respectively) or 20mm MG-FF, were all largely tried and tested designs and the shells themselves using a far more stable propellant than the Cordite used by RAF and Fleet Air Arm aircraft. I'll have a look and see if I can find the name of the Luftwaffe propellant.

zephyr

16th April 2004, 23:19

Hello everyone, new here.

And as to say which fighter I believe was the best in WWII, I can't say for sure - I've never actually flown one to know.

But from reading everything I have, I have to say my favorite fighter was the F4U Corsair - I don't think anything could rival it as a Naval fighter. The Hellcat was good and all, but the Corsair was much faster (over 400 mph) and overall much better in my oppinion.

amigojeff

23rd April 2004, 14:36

I'd like to be in the open cockpit of a MC200 of 22nd Gruppo,chasing and shooting down those fast SB-2s in the bitingly cold Ukrainian sky.:DEven if it was not a competitive fighter by 1940,I always like the cool look of this beauty!

Corsarius

23rd April 2004, 23:23

Welcome to the board, jeff! If that's your wish, so be it! I agree that the MC.200 Saetta has some seriously classic beauty about it.

But at the same time I hope you packed some thermal underwear.

B-24WillowRun

1st May 2004, 05:27

Well hello to the new people! It would seem that the F4U dose have some fans and I would agree that the coarsair was a great aircraft. But have to be partial to the P-38L or the P-61 "BlackWidow". also the Zero was just dandy and could take out any P-40 for a little while.

Again welcome and I hope you all like a good conversation.

ickysdad

16th May 2004, 04:46

Earlier in this thread someone said a test was done that showed that the Spitfire XIV was faster at all alt's,outclimbed the P-51 at all alt's, outurned it, and out-rolled it. I have rewsearched this quite a bit and would like to share some interesting and somewhat contradictory info....I'm breaking it down according to what reference I' m using. The sources I'm using are...
Francis Dean's "Amrica's 100,000"
An article by Squdron Leader T.S. Wade, P.F.C., A.F.C., R.A.F.V.R.
Captain Erich Brown's "Duels in the Sky"
The website...http://fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
the website...http://www.netaces.org
I don't know just how reliable the last site is I might add.
Francis Dean's book lists the P-51D as wieghing in at 9611 lbs. in one mode.At this wieght it carries 1080 lbs. of fuel & 564 lbs. of ammo.However in his graphs & text(relating to speed & climb) the plane wieghs in at 10,208 lbs. carrying 1590 lbs. of fuel,the same ammo(564 lbs.),the addition of a 55 lb. fuselage fuel tank,and 32 lb. bombracks.Even at this 10,208 lb. figure it climbs at 3400' per minute and gets to 10,000' in 3 minutes according to Dean.For comparisons sake a Spitfire XIV wieghs in at 8488 lbs. and carries 806 lbs. of fuel & 150 lbs. of ammo according to the Spitfire performance testing website.
Wade's is article based on tests done at Boscombe Down's in WW2 involving tests done with Spitfire (IX's,XIV's, XXI'), Tempest's, Meteor's, Thunderbolt II's, Mustang III's, FW 190's,and ME 109's. It was stated earlier that the XIV was faster at all alt's however in the text of this report it states that the Tempest V was fastest up to 18,000' among the piston engined fighters ,but then the Mustang took over at 18,000'. The Spitfire XIV was almost 30 MPH slower than the Mustang at SL, but at 30,000' it was about 10 MPH faster. In rolling rates the Spitfire XIV was ahead under 300 MPH ,but above that the Mustang was better. In these tests zoom climb was virtually ignored though it can be a very important part of an a/c's performance. It should also be noted that in these tests that the Spitfire XIV's were pulling 18 lbs. in boost while the Mustang III was only allowed to pull 15 lbs.. Both planes proved later capable of pulling 25 lbs. of boost as long as 150 octane fuel was used.
Captain Brown states in his book that the P-51D & Spitfire XIV were supremely equal aircraft. The Spitfire was slightly faster above 20,000' and the Mustang slightly faster under this altitude. The Spitfire was a far better sustained climber,but the Mustang had far better "zoom" climb. The Mustang was far superior in initial dive acceleration and in utmost dive speed. He states the Mustang was by far the better roller especially at high speeds though the Spitfire was the far better turner. He says the speed advantages each have are basically a wash.
On the Spitfire Performance testing website the Spitfire XIV was listed at achieving(at 18 lbs. boost) 359 MPH @ SL & 381 @ 4,000. With 150 octane gas & 25 lbs. boost the XIV hit 389 MPH @ SL & 408 MPH @ 4,000'. In the section comparing 25 lb. boost in the Mustang III, Spitfire XIV, and Tempest the Mustang is faster up to 4,000' and Spitfrie than catches it. There is a graph that shows a Spitfire XIV faster at all alt's against a Mustang III(along with a Sea Hornet & Meteor) ,however in the fine print the Mustang III is limited to 15lbs. boost while the XIV is using 18 lbs.
On the netAces website it has some very useful info,if it's accurate.It has graphs that list the P-51B,P-51D, Spitfire IX,and Spitfire XIV in both Military Power & WEP.Now according to these graphs both P-51 models are superior to both Spitfire models at Military Power up to 28,000' when the XIV is faster than the "D" but not the "B" model. Remember that WEP can only be used for about 5 minutes ,Military Power can be used for around 15 minutes. Using WEP the MK. IX is inferior to both P-51's at all alt's. The MK. XIV is inferior to the "D" at SL,overtakes it at 4000',the "D" takes over again at 10,500', than at 22,500' the XIV gains the upper hand and at 30,000' the 2 are even. The P-51B is inferior to the XIV up to 10,500' than it gains the upper hand up to 18,000' ,the XIV is ahead than up to 27,000' when the "B" is ahead. The climb rate graphs for these 4 aircraft on this website are very interesting also.As I've said before I just don't about this website's accuracy.......

I have basically come with the following at standard settings ,nothing special.....Spitfire XIV 363 @ SL, 391 @ 5k, 387 @ 10K, and 423 @ 20K, 446 @ 25K , and
443 @ 30K.. Now the Mustang has as follows...
The P-51C hits 380 @ SL, 395 @ 5K, 417 @ 10K, and 426 @ 20K. 439 @ 25K &
435 @ 30K.

The P-51B hits 378 @ SL, 388 @ 5K, 406 @ 10K, 426 @ 20K,430 @ 25K, and 440
@ 30K.

The P-51D hits 380 @ SL, 395 @ 5K, 416 @ 10K, 424 @ 20K, and 437 @ 25K.
So as follows The various P-51 models have a 15-17 MPH advantage at SL ,
At 5K the P-51B is 3 MPH slower, the C & D 4 MPH faster, At 10 K the
P-51's have 20-30 MPH advantage, At 20K they have around a 3 MPH
advantage. So at 20K or below the P-51's basically as fast except at SL or
10K where they seem to have a slight advantage. Now at 25K the Mk. XIV has
from 7-15 MPH advantage and at 30K a 5-8 MPH advantage

GregP

16th May 2004, 12:10

Hi guys,

I'm back after having moved, but I am standing in the middle of a bunch of boxes that aren't labeled (the movers repacked everything and didn't label the boxes). So, it will take me a few weeks to unpack my library. It has been in storage for over a year and a half.

The tale of the Mustang and the Spirfire is never ending.

I have seen comparisons where the Spit was Manifold Pressure limited and the Mustang was allowed to use full boost, and vice versa. In these comparisons, the winner was always the plane that was allowed to use the most engine boost.

I have personally seen at least 25 Mustangs and at least 15 Spitfires.

None were wartime stock, or were loaded with ammunition or ferry tanks or other ordnance. Also, and this is the killer, none of the owners were willing to find out the ultimate performance by running the engine to its operational limits ... obviously they had to pay for the maintenance.

None of the planes I have seen at Reno, Nevada, U.S.A. racing were stock either.

So, we are left to decide with historical performance figures.

I will say THIS, no Spitfire has ever won at Reno, and Reno is the place where the fastest piston fighters on Earth are flown against each other once a year.

Where does this leave us?

The P-51 has a very good record. Ditto the F8F Bearcat and the Hawker Sea Fury. The Spitfire has never been even second place, and is conspicuously absent. That does NOT mean it is slower than the Reno racers. It means it never showed up.

So, in the fastest sport on Earth, where are the Spirfires?

Absent.

I challenge anyone with a Spitfire to bring it to Reno to race the perennial winners of Reno, Nevada, U.S.A.

Show us how fast the Spirfire is. Win a race or stop saying how it was or could have been. To date, the Mustangs and Bearcats have ruled over everything except the occasional and impressive Sea Furies. The Sea Furies that won were ALL equipped with Pratt and Whittney R-4360 engines, not Bristols, so don't even go there.

Do it and we will take notice.

Otherwise, we are left with 60-year old performance evalutaions where the players were limited in almost every test. Not to say which one was better, just historical opinions, mostly by people who flew one or the other. Not usually both.

I am left with an impression of a Spitfire with EXCELLENT performance but a Mustang which was a close "second" only due to the test conditions. Most Mustang drivers I have asked say the P-51 was superior. Most Spitfire drivers say the same thing about the Spit.

Logically, using aeronautical knowledge, the Spitfire seems like a slightly better fighter. I emphasize "slightly." The P-51 was an EXCELLENT piston aircraft, and equitted itself quite well in wartime.

So, you Spitfire owners, come win a race at Reno or give it up forever to the Mustang in the speed department.

Don't blast me about it, just WIN and we will take notice, at least until NEXT year ....

ickysdad

16th May 2004, 15:09

GregP,
Love the CD you sent me! Actually haven't had as much time as I want to view it since I can view only on My Gateway 310XL, my old Gateway GP6-466 won't run the excell program for some reason and the kids always want the new computer for homework or surfing the net.
Actually I was trying to show that when you look at stats READ THE FINE PRINT. Also look for trends in info you gather not necessarily something carved in rock.

ickysdad

17th May 2004, 01:15

Also Greg I want to add that Erich Brown has flown both rather substantially so his word does carry some wieght. To be fair to the Spitfire he does state that if he had to choose a plane to fight to the death in it would be the Spitfire XIV, but he also states he is more familiar with it. He also compares the Corsair & FW190 and basically says the '190 is superior all around. The USN has a different story in tests it conducted in eary '44 and FAA pilots flying it on the Murmansk Run say it was superior to the '190. Brown also compares the F6F to the '109 & '190 he figures the F6F as superior to the '109G6 and equal to the '190. The Corsair he says is superior to the '109G at higher altitudes ,but inferior at lower altitudes. He seems to be saying the F6F is superior to the F4U, but most people that flew both say the F4U is superior ,but maybe the main point is that F4U does have superiority over the F6F however it's a far harder aircraft to get that superiority out of. The F6F is a gem to fly & handle as I understand like the Spitfire,the Corsair can be very challenging.

The website for comparing the USN vs. the '190 & '109 is...
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm
I couldn't get it to work on this website,but if you use MSN it should come up.

GregP

17th May 2004, 12:43

Hi Ickysdad!

Glad you liked the CD. My database is pretty good and fairly complete, but there are probably a few inaccuracies due to my unfamiliarity with international piston engine power units.

I believe I probably mistook metric HP for HP in several cases, but I am amazed that getting complete data on an aircraft is so difficult. Even something as basic as the wing area is hidden pretty well.

Anyway, I respect Eric Brown as a fair and inpartial pilot and expert, and I am looking for his book. To date, no luck.

One good point made repeatedly in this forum is that as fighters developed, they got significantly better. So, comparing a Spitfire Mk V to a late model Ta 152H is as fraught with difficulty as comparing a Spitfire XIV to an A6M2 Zero. They were different generations of their respective families.

This is a very good forum.

ickysdad

17th May 2004, 13:34

Have you tried e-bay or amazon for his books? I got "Duels in the Sky"(just looked you can get it on Amazon for $7.99 used!) & "Wings of the Luftwaffe"(can get it on Amazon for $12.00 used!) from Amazon. I also just ordered "The Dam Busters" about #617 RAF squdron today. Also obtained "Wings of the Navy"(Amazon has it for $24.00 used) by Brown from e-bay.

JoeB

18th May 2004, 02:52

He also compares the Corsair & FW190 and basically says the '190 is superior all around. The USN has a different story in tests it conducted in eary '44 and FAA pilots flying it on the Murmansk Run say it was superior to the '190.

On former that's a great link. Those reports are given as evidence in other books ("Carrier Fighter" by *David* Brown) that the F4U was arguably (I wouldn't argue it, I believe "best", independent of pilots and situation is usually impossible to meaningfully determine) the best all around fighter in the world at its introduction around start of '43.

On latter FAA pilots might have thought so, but AFAIK FAA Corsairs never met German fighters. I think FAA Hellcats did just once, May 8, 1944, where 800 Sdn. claimed an FW-190 and 2 Bf-109's from a mixed formation of opponents in return for 2 Hellcats lost. JG5 records do show a loss of 3 fighters in the combat but say all 3 were Bf-109G's; though they had a mixture of FW's and Bf's so FW's could easily have been present.

Joe

PMN1

18th May 2004, 06:49

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

I also just ordered "The Dam Busters" about #617 RAF squdron today.

I wonder if they've noticed a surge in intrest in this book:D

robert

19th May 2004, 06:42

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Anyway, I respect Eric Brown as a fair and inpartial pilot and expert, and I am looking for his book. To date, no luck.

Hi Greg:

Do you have a Sno-King library card? The King County Library System and the Sno-King Library System have a reciprocal agreement where members of one system can get a card for the other at no charge (at least they did a couple of years ago, when I got my Sno-King card.)

The Bothell branch of the KCLS has Brown's book:

http://ipac.kcls.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=108ES1260039R.16398&profile=dial--1--1--1&uri=link=1100002@!589395@!1100001@!1100002&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&ri=1&source=198.104.63.131@!dial--1--1--1&term=Duels+in+the+sky+3A+World+War+II+naval+aircra ft+in+combat+%2F&index=TL#focus

Might be worth a try!

GregP

19th May 2004, 11:47

Thanks!

I moved to Boise, Idaho ... and so don't have access to it currently. But, I'll try E-Bay.

azrael

19th December 2004, 04:33

Hi there, I am new to the board guys but have been reading this particular threat with a lot of interest.
I personally think the Spitfire deserves the title as best all-around fighter of World War II, although I am not very knowledgeable concerning the Soviet planes of the time, so of them might superior.
Here are my reasons in the form of arguments for the Spitfire and against the other planes.
1) The Spitfire was a massive contributor to the war effort of the Brits, basically from day one on. Throughout its operational history it was right up there with the very best planes of any given period of the war. That is what I call an ingenious design. A fighter that went into production in 1938 and had such potential that its updated later versions are still frontrunners for best fighter in 1944! None of the other aircraft that have been discussed on here can make a similar claim.
2) Flight performance: The Spitfire could climb and maneuvre extremely well, even late war models where most nations had sacrificed meaneuvrability to speed and high altitude performance. Admittedly, that was one weakness of the Spit, it was maybe not as good at high altitude as a FW190D-9 or P-51D, but it was heavily superior to the FW190D-9 at low and medium altitude, where that sterling fighter was at its weakest. A remark on that: All late war German fighters had to be designed to intercept heavy bombers at high altitude. This requirement caused their medium and low altitude performance to suffer. As a result I would disqualify the FW190D-9, the Me262 and the Ta152 from the best fighter race as they were superb interceptors but not all-around fighters. Not their fault, it was not what they were intended to do, but still. Early models FW190 had the exact opposite problem with their high altitude performance being mediocre at best. The best of the US fighters are still close to the Spitfire at this point of my argument with their flight performance similar in quality, but I will get to them next.
3) Armament: The US fighters lacked a real punch with their .50 Browning M2 machine guns as their sole armament. Before you guys jump on me for saying this consider the following. Yes, the M2 was sufficient to take down enemy fighters and the fragile bombers fielded by the axis airpowers. But could a Mustang have taken down a Lancaster, a B17 or a B29? I think not. Cannons as mounted by the Spitfire might have a lower rate of fire and a lower overall throw-weight, but made up for it with their higher effectivity, based on their high-explosive qualities. This is an interesting article concerning aircraft armament in WWII fighters, it might clear a lot of questions concerning the "throw-weight" discussion I have read on here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm
Just like the late-war axis fighters were designed to kill heavy bombers, the US fighters were designed to kill enemy fighters and fragile bombers. Their weaponry was sufficient to do that but would have been puny for the role of bomber-interceptor. Again, not their fault, they did what they were designed to do. But, as some articles above discussed, that makes them "great" fighters, but not the best.

The above arguments make me choose the Spitfire as the best overall fighter of WWII. Not the best dogfighter maybe, not the best high altitude bomber-escort, not the best bomber-interceptor. But it could do all of the above better than most and it was probably better in all other categories than the best in any one given category.

As a finishing remark I would like to submit the Ki84 Hayate for your consideration as another candidate of best fighter of the war (leaving aside their bad quality problems caused by the attempt to minimize the use of strategic materials in their production).

GregP

19th December 2004, 05:02

Hi Azrael,

I must take exception to your contention about the Mustang not being able to shoot down a Lancaster. Mustangs, Corsairs, Hellcats, Wildcats, P-40s, P-38s .... they all shot down everything they encountered at one time or another, even the Me-262s.

I daresay that stating any WWII fighter could not shoot down any WWII bomber is a bit like making a statement that can never be proven true or false. Some Mustangs were pressed into Swiss Service, and they had no difficulty shooting down B-17s and/or Lancasters. Nevertheless, I maintain that any WWII fighter fielded by any of the combatants was capable of shooting down any bomber fielded by any WWII power.

One excpetion might be the Boeing B-29, which flew at altitudes and speeds that most Japanese fighters could not match. However, if they could have caught the B-29s, they could have shot them down.

Another such exception might be the Arado Ar-234. It flew at speeds that most Allied fighters could not match, so they were shot down in the landing pattern.

azrael

19th December 2004, 05:27

Hi there Greg.
I have to disagree. While every plane might be ABLE to shoot down every other plane some are better at it than others. And the M2 machine gun would definitely not be your weapon of choice for taking down well armoured, well defended, rugged multi-engine heavy bombers. In turn, that makes all American fighters less than ideally suited to the role of bomber-interceptors. Sure, they never had to do that, but that was not the topic of the thread "Best fighter for its asigned role", the topic was "best fighter" and intercepting bombers is one of the main roles a fighter has to fill. I interpret that as "if you had to choose one fighter to sit in without knowing what you will have to face and having to perform any mission fighters were chosen for, which would it be?". And I sincerely doubt that looking at the role of bomber-interceptor you would choose a Mustang or a Corsair or a Thunderbolt.
As to American fighters being able to shoot down heavy bombers, we will never know as neither of the axis powers really fielded such aircraft. But the armament chosen by the axis powers for their fighters might be a hint, assuming they were not just too dumb to equip their fighters with the "actually" superior 12.7 or 13 or 15 mm machine guns available to them. Axis fighters DID have to face heavy bombers and they chose cannons to do so, 20mm and larger. I am sure they were aware of the fact that those cannons were less well suited to shoot down the escorting fighters but they still chose them as their main armament. I think that it is fair to deduce from this fact that cannons were more versatile overall (less effective against fighters, better against bombers and chosen as the best compromise to fight both types of targets).
Finally, Swiss fighter planes shooting down b17s? Where did that happen? When? Is there an armed conflict that the Swiss were engaged in that I am unaware of? I always thought the Swiss have not fired on troops of another nation in anger since the 17th century?

simon

19th December 2004, 05:32

"I daresay that stating any WWII fighter could not shoot down any WWII bomber is a bit like making a statement that can never be proven true or false. Some Mustangs were pressed into Swiss Service, and they had no difficulty shooting down B-17s and/or Lancasters. Nevertheless, I maintain that any WWII fighter fielded by any of the combatants was capable of shooting down any bomber fielded by any WWII power."

It's rare for me to say this, if only because I enjoy sparring against you Greg, but I agree entirely, I'd go even as far to say that any aircraft mounting an automatic weapon was capable of shooting down any other aircraft, the effectiveness of that is entirely another matter, but certainly any bomber I can think of (Except as you say the B-29 against Japanese fighters that struggled to intercept and catch the Superforts) proved extremely vulnerable to fighters.

Even the Me262 was vulnerable if the Allied pilot had about a 5,000ft altitude advantage and saw the Schwalbe first!

GregP

19th December 2004, 12:11

Well Mr. Azrael (I assume the Mr. part ...),

The Swiss WERE engaged in an armed conflict. It was called WWII and encompassed most of Europe and Asia and Africa.

When either Allied or Axis aircraft flew into Swiss territory, they attempted to force them to land and the crew were interred. If said enemy aircraft would not land they were shot down if possible.

In many cases, it proved possible. In other cases, the aircraft managed to escape. Many of the Swiss fighters were derivatives of the Morane-Saulnier MS-406. They proved good fighters.

If I were choosing a single fighter to fly in all missions over land, it would be a Spitfire, a Mustang, or and Fw-190 ... in no particular order. If I were flying over water, no matter what the mission, I'd choose a Hellcat or a Corsair.

Of these aircraft, only the Spitfire and the Fw-190 had cannons, and I state here and now that no cannon-armed fighter of WWII proved itself superior to any MG-armed fighter in any meaningful category.

In the Pacific, the Hellcat was handicapped by having six 12.7 mm MG, but it managed to shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other plane. The P-47 flew in both theaters and was a very effective fighter-bomber. It had eight 12.7 mm MG.

Sorry, the combat record of the American fighters was excellent in all mission asked of them all over the worksd against all opponents. More so later in the war. We were pretty desperate in 1942 but, by 1943, the American fighters were excellent.

You are correct that I'd choose a cannon-armed fighter to do nothing but shoot at bombers, but incorrect in stating that the 12.7 mm MG-armed fighters were at a disadvantage in bomber intercept.

Were they as good as cannon armed fighters at pure bomber intercept, probably not. Were they ineffective, NO, in spades; they were not.

They shot down Ju-88s, He-177s, Bettys, He-111s, and every other type bomber that they encountered in every theater including Germany, Italy, Japan, and the CBI theater.

In mass numbers, and played an big part in winning the war.

Your statements don't hold up against the facts of WWII. Go look at Bill Gunston's website and check out the aces list.

In WWII, a very good percentage of the aces flew 12.7 mmm MG-armed fighters and did QUITE well against all targets.

GregP

19th December 2004, 12:21

Hi Simon,

Glad we agree on at least SOME issues.

I enjoy your posts and believe we really agree on most points, despite our obvious fondness for friendly argument. Sometimes I just stir the pot to see what floats to the top. It often turns up interesting and sometimes obscure planes and facts.

I gather that you do that at times, too. Keeps things interesting.

All the best and Merry Christmas to you, your family, and everyone in the TGPlanes community.

Paolo, thanks for starting such a great website! Hope software engineering is going well for you.

simon

19th December 2004, 20:06

Thankyou Greg, all the best to you and yuor family as well.

I think we agree too, it's just too much fun and is too tempting to debate or argue a point most times!

All the best,

Simon.

azrael

20th December 2004, 18:15

Hi there Greg, again I have to disagree.
Let us deal with the issue of the Swiss Air Forces involvement in WWII first. According to one source I found http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/about/history/krieg.html
they a total of 244 foreign aircraft were forced to land or shot down over Swiss territory during the war. Now, I am not certain of the rules concerning military equipment interned by a neutral nation but I doubt that they used many American-made fighters in their own airwings. Where would the supplies and equipment needed to keep them operating come from?

Next back to my original point concerning the use of cannons in fighter aircraft. I found an interesting website comparing fighter armament that might interest you guys: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
As a Physicist myself I found their chain of argument and calculations convincing. Yes, they were not all that precise in their application of theory, but close enough to make the results valid points.

First off, when the Brits first had to face large numbers of (though not very effeciently) escorted bombers during the BoB the Brits had to rely on fighters armed with machine guns only, albeit rifle-calibre ones. And guess what, they found them lacking and started mounting cannons instead. When the axis powers had to face the vast swarms of allied heavy bombers, they started to mount more and more heavier and heavier cannons on their fighter crafts as well. Why did they do that? A safe bet would be that they considered the cannon to be a superior weapon to shoot down an enemy bomber, superior to heavy machineguns, which all beligerents had in their arsenals as well and did use as secondary armament at least. I assume that the main advantage of cannons lay in the relatively large damage per hit. An interceptor could zoom past the escorting fighters, take a few potshots at a bomber, do loads of damage and zoom off without ever having to engange in anything remotely related to a dog fight. Imagine a Me262 having to maneuver and circle a B17 to place enough hits with a hypothetical all heavy machine gun armament. I have a feeling that it would have increased the Me262 kills by escort fighters dramatically.
The USAAF on the other hand entered the war considerably later, at a time when the European axis nations had lost most of their (always dubious) capacity for strategic bombing. As a result, they did not have to face swarms of robust, well armed and heavily escorted bombers that they had to shoot down by the scores. USAAF fighters had to establish air superiority and escort bombers, missions they fullfilled admirably. Since their main opposition were other fighters, heavy machineguns were sufficient for the task.

Second, American fighters shooting down scores of bombers does not make them great bomber interceptors, at least not on par with a FW190 or a Spitfire or a Ki84 or Ki100. Come on, are you seriously comparing the difficulty of shooting down a Betty escorted by Zeroes to that of killing a B17 escorted by Mustangs? How many He111 were still around and flying bombing missions by the time the US got heavily involved in Europe? And the He177, hell, all you had to do is wait for them to catch fire and crash to the ground by themselves. Axis bombers were almost exclusively medium tactical bombers, not too sturdy, not well armed, rather fragile machines really. They were not multi-engined, well-armed, well armoured beasts that deserved the name "Flying Fortress". Even the Ju88, probably the best of the German bombers would deserve a comparison in sturdiness with the B17 or the Lancaster.

I again repeat my claim that USAAF fighters like the Thunderbolt and the Mustang would not have excelled at intercepting heavy bombers with a decent escort because of their comparatively weak, all machine gun armament. Yes, they could should down axis medium bombers when they had to. Does that make them good bomber interceptors? I do not think so. And when it comes to the question of what weapon to choose when facing a heavy bomber, I rather go with the choice of those that had to do it, not those that never did but possibly could have done the job as well. BTW why did the USAAF keep using heavy machinguns as their (basically) sole armament for fighters? Well, because they were smart, too. The machine gun did get the jobs they asked of it done. It was widely available and used by all services. It was rugged and reliable. In short, it was a great weapon from a logistical point of view. And that is what really counts in a war. The fanciest and best weapon system is useless if you cannot produce enough of them or if you cannot keep them running for a decent period of time. THAT is something that the US Armed Forces realized early in the war and stuck to. They preferred good enough and easy to produce to outstanding but impossible to deploy. There are many examples of this in World War II: the M4 Sherman, the P-40 Warhawk, and yes, the M2 machine gun as fighter armament. It might not have resulted in the best fighter of the war but it was the strategy that won the war (as a remark, the Soviets were working under much the same principles and with similar success in their results).

So, all things considered, the Spitfire gets my vote as best overall fighter of the war. It was on par with, possibly even held an edge against, the Thunderbolt and Mustang as a dogfighter, late models had enough range to even fly escort and they were better suited to the role of bomber interceptor. They were only decent fighter bombers, but so was the Mustang. Overall, the Spitfire comes out on top in my book.

The Mustang and Thunderbolts fullfilled the missions they were assigned to admirably. That makes them great and efficient fighters. Does it make them the best? No.

When it comes to carrier aircraft I agree with the choice of the Hellcat. One hell of a good fighter aircraft, even though the kill-ratio is blown way out of proportion in its importance as it was scored against badly trained opposition flying obsolete aircraft (in comparison, what was the kill ratio for zeroes until May 1942? Or for BF109s before the BoB?). Nonetheless, its performance was next to flawless and impressive, making it the best carrier-based fighter of the war. Yes its armament was restricted to machinguns as well, but in its case that was enough despite its important role as a bomber interceptor. The bombers that the Hellcat had to intercept were mostly single-engined carrier-based aircraft that were nowhere near as resilient as even the axis medium bombers.

PS: I found the claim that allied fighters could effectively handle the Me262 since they found out that they could shoot them down in their landing or take-off pattern amusing. Following that logic, I nominate the B17 as the best fighter since it could handle ANY axis aircraft, including the Ta152, Ki84 and Me262 by bombing their factories before they could be delivered.

simon

20th December 2004, 23:17

Oh good, another armament debate...

First off I would like to say welcome to Azrael, it's always good to have another contributor on the boards, especially one who's able to argue his or her points so well.

I would also agree with you, as I have stated in the past that the best general air-to-air weapons of the war were light cannon, between about 15-25mm in calibre (Typically 20mm but other weapons like the Soviet VYa23 deserve mentioning as well), smaller weapons tend to be less effective because of their lower explosive charges, larger weapons sacrifice ease of aiming and rate of fire for destructive power, an important trade off for bomber-destroyers, not so good against smaller more agile aircraft like fighters.

There is no doubt however that the Heavy Machine Gun was also a highly effective weapon, the comparison between the RAF experiences during the Battle of Britain where the 8x.303 armament showed its weaknesses and the 6 or 8 .50 cal armament of the Mustang and Thunderbolt is not particularly valid though I'm afraid.

The weakness of the rifle calibre machine gun in air to air combat really became apparent against contemporary aircraft where the vital parts (Including the pilot where possible) became increasingly armoured to protect them from damage. Rifle calibre bullets proved unable to penetrate much of this armour, the .50 calibre machine guns of the Mustang and Thunderbolt had a far greater impact energy and were far more capable of penetrating the armour and damaging the components beneath.

As it is many people use the RAF's experience with the 8 gun armament to show that the rifle calibre machine gun was ineffective, or even useless (Yes I have seen the latter claimed, although I do not believe that you are claiming this to be the case here). This simply is not true. If that were the case the RAF would have lost the Battle of Britain, although the relative fragility of aircraft designs is a matter for debate the Luftwaffe bombers were actually pretty tough, protected by armour and self-sealing fuel tanks.

As for the value or not of defensive weapons, that equally remains highly debatable. I will simply state what I usually do regarding this:

The B-17 could not fly by day without fighter escort, the Lancaster could not fly by day without fighter escort. When escorted the B-17 could fly by day without suffering prohibitive losses, when escorted the Lancaster could fly by day without suffering prohibitive losses, so for all its extra guns was the B-17 really any better off than the Lancaster? (Note, you could replace Lancaster with practically any WWII Medium or Heavy here and the argument would remain equally valid).

I don't think a Mustang or Thunderbolt would have had a great deal of difficulty downing a B-17 or Lancaster to be honest, the .50 cal M-2 would have been more than capable of doing enough damage to the vital systems of either to shoot one down. Yes, it would be easier with heavy cannon, but that does not mean that the Mustang or Thunderbolt would have been incapable of downing one.

As a parting shot on this one, Roumanian pilots in their IAR-80s (4 rifle calibre Mgs) shot down US Liberators, if they could manage to down a four engined heavy with this relatively weak armament it doesn't seem surprising to me to suggest that a Mustang or Thunderbolt could do the same?

As to the vulnerability of the Me262, it wasn't just in the landing pattern, they proved vulnerable to practically any ETO Allied fighter with a reasonable height advantage, part of the reason for this is down to the armament of the Me262, it's cannon were good against bombers but they like the Schwalbe as a whole were poor in fighter vs fighter combat.

And finally from me, regarding the Swiss I'd ask Corsarius to post the information he has on Swiss air combats as although a Neutral they certainly were not above firing their guns in anger to protect their Neutrality!

Lightning

21st December 2004, 01:24

Hi all,

As a fighter-to fighter aircraft, the Spitfire is among, if not THE best of the war. As an OVERALL fighter, it is much further down on the list.

To claim the title of "best fighter" an aircraft has to be more than just a fighter; it has to be a total "warplane." If a single fighter type had to be relied upon to fight WWII, it would have had to be a fine interceptor, air-to-air fighter, long-range fighter escort, and fighter bomber.

It would have to be able to carry an array of ordnance (rockets/bombs) of considerable weight to be really effective. This would have to be in addition to having enough firepower to destroy ground targets as well as heavy bombers.

It would have to be rugged. That means it would have to be able to absorb considerable damage and keep flying; it would be able to operate out of rough, front-line airfields without requiring an inordinate amount of maintenance.

In other words, it would have to be very versatile, and perform very well the tasks encompassed by that versatility.

There were several fighter types that fit this description during WWII. The Spitfire was not one of them.

Regards,
Lightning.

GregP

21st December 2004, 14:17

Hello Mr. Azrael,

You present some very good agruments; I am almost tempted to agree with you .... until I look at the facts.

Most of your facts are true. The cannon DOES more damage per hit (the old weight of fire argument). However, there is no evidence from WWII kill records that the Mustang, P-47, or P-38 were lacking in any way.

They shot down everything they ever encountered as an enemy in substantial numbers.

I agree the Spitfire was superb. I think it was the best at air-to-air combat ... not necessarily the best of the war overall, as was pointed out just above. Air-to-air is important, but it isn't everything. There ARE other missions for a fighter.

Philosophically, you may well be right. In practice, there is no evidence that the Browning 12.7 mm MG had any defficiencies. The kill record simply blots out the argument, at least in my eyes. Since I am me, that's enough for me.

By 1950, I'd agree. So did the USAF. They went from six 50s in early Korea to four 20 mm cannons in the F-86.

However, this is a WWII forum and, in WWII, the Allied fighter armed with six 12.7 mm MGs did not display ANY armament-related weaknesses when trying to shoot down Axis bombers of any nationality or design or armor. Philosophy aside, I still say the Mustang was not at any disadvantage relative to a cannon-armed fighter DURING WWII, before VE or VJ day.

Soon thereafter, say, Korea, I am forced to agree with you.

You do, certainly, present a good argument, and that makes it FUN! Don't stop arguing with me ... it is GOOD to have to THINK.

I bet we mostly agree with each other on WWII aircraft subjects ...

Merry Christmas to you.

jimjim

21st December 2004, 15:05

Didn't the P-38 have a cannon?

simon

21st December 2004, 17:25

Yes, the P-38 was armed at various points with either a 37mm cannon or more commonly a 20mm cannon in addition to its 4 Browning .50s.

simon

21st December 2004, 17:29

"Next back to my original point concerning the use of cannons in fighter aircraft. I found an interesting website comparing fighter armament that might interest you guys: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
As a Physicist myself I found their chain of argument and calculations convincing. Yes, they were not all that precise in their application of theory, but close enough to make the results valid points. "

Actually the author of that article has posted on this forum, I'm hoping he might comment on this thread as well...

azrael

22nd December 2004, 02:48

Thank you all for the welcome. This is a fun website and yes, it is enjoyable to form an opinion and argue it with other people interested in the field, especially in a qualified and polite manner as is exercised by the users of this forum (particularly compared to some otherwise excellent newsgroups). Btw, you guys assumed correctly, I am of the male persuasion, was unaware of the fact that the nick would cause confusion on that point.

Having said that let's dive back into our discussion, the best fighter of World War II. The more I think about your arguments and my own concerning the advantage and disadvantages of heavy machine guns compared to cannons, the more I tend toward the cannon as the superior armament. Let me try a systematic approach of comparing the two weapon systems.

What makes a good weapon? Well several factors I would say:
1) Reliability: This is not dependent on the TYPE of weapon but on the actual weapon itself. The M2 machinegun was very reliable but so were many of the 20mm cannons. I think we can agree that reliability is no factor in our discussion.
2) Range: Again, not much of a factor in World War II fighter armament, since the range of an engagement was dictated by the ability of the pilots to see their opponents and be able to visually aim the guns at him rather than the range of the weapon per se. Both cannons and heavy machine guns could easily hit targets at the typical 1500 feet max range of WWII engagements. So again, it is not much of a factor in our discussion.
3) Muzzle Energy of the bullet: Determines the damage from the kinetic impact of the bullet against the target, i.e. can the bullet penetrate the armour and punch a hole in the target (it could be argued that impulse would be a better measure, but given the similar muzzle velocities of the weapons in question it would not change the result)?
Kinetic energy (E) is determined by the velocity (v)of the bullet and its mass (m) as in the formula
E=1/2 mv^2
The M2 heavy machine gun had a muzzle velocity of 890 m/s and the bullet had a weight of 43g resulting in E=34KJ. The HS 404 20mm cannon used in the Spitfires had v=860m/s and m=130g for E=96KJ. The HS cannon has almost THREE times the muzzle velocity of the M2. This round goes clearly to the cannon.
4) Muzzle velocity: In addition to increasing the muzzle energy, the muzzle velocity determines the accuracy of the shooting. The faster the bullet, the easier it is to hit something with it as deflection and ballistic flight of the bullet becomes less of an issue. However, both weapons have a very similar muzzle velocity so we will call this a draw as well.
5) Explosive force of the bullet. Both weapons shot high-explosive bullets that detonated shortly after impact. In short, the kinetic energy allowed the bullet to penetrate the armour of the target while the HE charge did the actual damage inside (simplified, I know, but I think it suffices for sake of argument). For simplicity's sake (and because I have no data concerning the quality of the explosive used) we will assume that the explosives were similar in quality. In that case, damage would be determined by the cubic root of the ammount of explosive. The 12.7/99 bullet of the M2 packed a total of 0.9g of HE, while the HS had 10g of the good stuff. Comparing the cubic roots of these values gives the HS an advantage of 2.3:1. Another clear winner for the cannon.
6) Rate of fire: Now that we know what defenses the bullet can punch through and how much damage it does (both in a rather abstract sense, naturally), we need to know how many bullets we can send to be harms way for the target. The M2 could fire 13 rounds/s while the HS fired 10 r/s. A slight edge going to the M2 here. But, if we consider the damage on target for both weapons we get a ratio of 1.8:1 in favour of the HS.
7) Accuracy: No clue whatsoever how well the two guns compared in that respect (leaving aside the muzzle velocity argument above). So I will drop this point from the argumentation as well.

Well, so far it looks as though the cannon comes out way ahead. It can punch through thicker armour and does almost two times the damage per time intervall of the machine gun. Now, one could argue, so what, we mount two machine guns for each cannon and we are even! Sounds good and the weights of the two weapons would allow for this as well (29kg for the M2 and 50kg for the HS). Here we have to leave the realm of pure physics and go to a more quality than quantity based argument. First off, the machine gun has a distinctively lower muzzle energy, so it can penetrate thinner armour only or penetrate less deeply into the systems of a plane. If an armour plate stops one bullet, it will stop two of them as well, so two guns on half the muzzle energy are not as good as one of the full. Second, two small holes are not as damaging as one big one. Again, the ACTUAL damage as in systems knocked out, crew members killed etc is even higher in comparison for the cannon than for the M2 than the pure numbers above would indicate.

Does this mean that the M2 had no advantage whatsoever compared to the HS cannon? No, of course not, or we would have to assume that any designer mounting it was an idiot! It had many advantages. First off and probably most importantly was logistical aspects. All branches of the US armed forces used the M2, meaning that both the weapon itself, spare parts and ammo would always be in plentiful supply whereever American troops were working. This sounds like a boring and nit-picking argument, but wars, especially WWII, are also won on the economic battlefield. Second, the advantage or disadvantage in kinetic energy is mostly irrelevant if both rounds can penetrate the target's armour or both rounds fail to pentrate. Against fighter aircraft or less sturdy bombers, especially ones lacking decent armour (most medium bombers, especially those used by the axis) and self-sealing fuel tanks (most Japanese fighter and bombers), both weapons would achieve penetration and especially against targets without self-sealing fuel tanks the destructive force of the HE content of the bullet was less relevant as well. If you can get the fuel to burn, who cares about the size of the hole your bullets punched, right? So, given the sort of air-to-air missions US fighters had to fly (mostly air-superiority and long-range escort, or interception of rather fragile and not well escorted medium bombers) the M2 performed well enough. When it came to air-to-ground fire, both weapons were too weak to fight the better armoured late-war tanks, but were good enough against soft and lightly armed targets. So, again, the M2 did well enough on the missions performed by US fighters to justify their exclusive use in most US fighter aircraft.

At this point it would appear as though I just defeated my own argument for the cannon. Bear with me, despite the very lengthy post til I come back to that point.

Now, we should define what we mean by "best fighter", so we can see the relevance of any other argument for or against a given airplane. I interpret the term "best fighter" as meaning "what fighter would you choose to sit in, not knowing what mission you have to fly, just that it is one a fighter can be asked to perform?". So it boils down to what does a fighter have to do on the missions it has to fly and how do the different aircraft hold up in terms of those performances. I personally want to restrict those missions to air-to-air with ground support thrown in as a tie-breaker maybe. Lightning, you were right to include ground-support in your list, but first of all, that makes it a question for "best fighter-bomber" not fighter, and second, it was sort of excluded in the original criteria posted in the thread. In consequence I would only rate it as a tie-breaker.

So, what air-to-air missions are we looking at? Well, Lightning already outlined them in his post: interceptor, air-superiority, long-range escort. Next, let's list the performance criteria for those missions.
1) Interceptor:
a) rate-of-climb: you want to be up there where the bombers are and you might not have much time to get there. As far as I can tell, the Siptfire Mk XIV could climb better than the P51 or the P47, far better, so the winner is easy here.
b) Speed: you want to catch up and you want to zoom past the escorts as fast as possible. The Spitfire was a tad faster than the P-51D and a good 30 kph than the P-47D. Again, yay for the Brits!
c) Punch: Since you want to kill the bombers, not their escorts, those are "secondary targets", you want to zoom past as quickly as possible and do as much damage in that little time you have as you can. HERE is where the cannon comes in. Your target could very well be a heavy bomber escorted by many fighters (hypothetical scenario: you have to intercept B17 with Mustangs flying escorts). The bombers are well-armoured, so kinetic energy is an issue and they are sturdy constructions, so explosive damage is an issue too. The escorts want to kill you, so you do not have much time to do the damage. As a result, you need penetration AND maximum damage per hole. Now we are talking cannon, not machine gun as the weapon of choice as the cannon provides far better penetration AND explosive damage. The Spitfire is our girl, not the Mustang or Thunderbolt!
d) Protection: You want to survive the hits scored on you by those pesky defensive armaments of the bombers and by the guns of the escorts. Here the Thunderbolt would be at an advantage, especially with that rugged radial engine with the Spit and the Mustang coming in nose to nose with each other in second place.
e) Ceiling and performance at high altitude: Late-war bombers were flying way up there, so we need to be able to operate at that alitude as well. Not so sure about this, but from what I know, the Spit XIV dropped off in performance at higher altitude, so this one goes to the Mustang.

2) Air-Superiority: Sweeping opposing fighters away to make the skies a brighter and safer place for everybody on your side. Opponents are fighters, so we are talking dog-fighting. Important characteristics would be (only listing the ones not covered or differing in result from the ones above)
a) Speed: I will not recount the arguments why as they have been stated often enough, but this is the most important one. Winner: Spit (s.a.)
b) Punch: your target refuses to stay in your gun-sights for very long, so you have to make every shot count. Here, as I argued before, heavy machine guns and cannons are about even (if you mount two machine guns for each cannon). Our contestants are about even, with the Thunderbolt holding a slight edge possibly. Spit (with two cannons and 4 .303 machine guns) and Mustang P-51D are about even.
c) Manouvreability: the tie-breaker at even speed. Spitfire was more agile than Mustang, so this goes to the Spit as well.

3) Long-Range Escort:
a) Range (duh): This goes to the Mustang with no contest, although the Spit XIV had improved range compared to the earlier model Spits. Drop tanks would help the Spit a bit though (yes, they were dropped as soon as any fighters showed up, but that is not THAT bad as the fuel was drawn from them first meaning they would be mostly empty by the time they had to be dropped).
b) Ceiling: Mustang over Spit (s.a.)

And the results before the final round: The Spitfire is the better interceptor and air-superiority fighter, the Mustang the better long-range escort. The Thunderbolt drops to a solid third-place, as it does not win any category (again, I am leaving aside the air-to-ground role).

If we want consider ground-support, we have to hand that one to the Thunderbolt with BOTH the Mustang and the Spit beaten far back. But, as I said, that would be a tie-breaker and since none of our two final contestants (Mustang and Spitfire) gains much of an edge over the other here, I will not even consider its result.

Soooooo, the final winner is (drum roll): The Spitfire!!! (at least in my opinion). If we want to increase the importance of long-range escorts (an argument that could be made, since the idea was, that we needed bombing to win the war and interceptors only helped in not loosing it) I would enter the Tempest with its better range into the contest and maybe hand the trophy to it, not sure yet, would have to think a bit about it.

Lightning, you claimed that by your definition of best fighter the Spit would not even be a final contestant. I am curious, which fighter would be your winner? A P-38? Sorry, do not see that, as it was slower and less maneureable than all three, Spitfire XIV, P-51D and P-47D. Yes, it had an admirable career in the Pacific but was far less spectacular in the European theater. Being rugged and a good ground support fighter is one thing, but that makes for a good fighter-bomber mostly. Ground-support was a secondary role, one at which fighters were less effective than dedicated aircraft. If you want ground-support, go for a A20 Havok or a Typhoon or an IL-2 or a HS-129. No plane can be great in ALL roles and the more roles you add to its duties during the design phase, the worse it becomes at any given one of them. Even the most flexible aircraft of the war, the true multi-role planes like the Ju-88, the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, all had specialized version optimized for one single role. Fighter-bombers were somewhat of bastards really, since most of them were former fighters that just outclassed by newer designs at their original intended fighter mission or that never could cut it as fighters in the first place (the Typhoon or BF110 come to mind in the second category).

ickysdad

22nd December 2004, 10:24

Very debatable on Spitfire XIV being faster than the P-51D. The P-47 & P-51 are far better zoom climbers than the Spit XIV plus have the edge in high speed rolling and in diving. The P-51D is probably far tougher than the Spitfire. The speed issue is very contenetouous with the P-51 & Spitfire XIV since most tests have one or the other with more boost.The highest speed with boost for the "XIV" I've ever seen is around 445-450 MPH using around 25lbs. boost and 150 octane fuel ,a P-51 typically hit 435-440 MPH(380 MPH at sea level) while pulling 67" on WEP & 100 octane fuel .Now the RAF and USAAF also modifed thier P-51's to pull 77"(USAAF) & 81"(RAF) while running on 150 octane fuel which resulted in thier going 405 & 410 MPH at sea level respectively .I'm sure the P-47 probably benefitted from using higher grade fuel to from it's typically un-modifed top speed of around 420-425 MPH.

GregP

22nd December 2004, 12:09

The Spitfire was definitely a better sustained climber, but as long as you want to compare the Spitfire against the Mustang, why not use the very late-war models, actually deployed during WWII?

The P-51H went 487 mph. A Spitfire never went that fast unless it was in a dive.

Could a Spitfire have gone faster? I think so. Wartime expediency and the fact that the war was winding down and Britian was very nearly bankrupt probably prevented the British from breaking the 500 mph in level flight barrier with the Spitfire.

The P-47H made it there and was the only one to do so in a variant not produced in quantity.

Azrael, you present good arguments and I can agree, at least in part, with most of them. I have ALWAYS liked the Spitfire, but I happen to know over 20 people who flew Mustangs in WWII and they all state categorically that the Mustang was better in most categories in practice. The Mustang rate of climb, for instance, was simple to increase ... just up the boost ... and they DID. If the fuselage tank was empty, the Mustang was a great performer. If it was full, the plane was a handfull since it was at or just aft of the aft CG limit and wanted to wind up and spin at the slightest provocation.

However, if you wanted to get to berlin and back, you needed the fuel. So, whatcha' gonna' do?

Someone before me said, "The Mustang wouldn't do what a Spitfire woudl do, but it did it over Berlin."

Personally, that makes all the difference to me since "doing it over Berlin" is what defeated Germany. Doing what the Spitfire did over England saved England, and that is every bit as laudable, at least to me most British people everywhere.

I call them a close tie, with a grateful nod to the Spitfire as the best "partner" a Mustang ever had, other than a fuel truck and an armorer's cart and a good crew chief ...

There is no chance I'll ever get to wring out a Mustang or a Spitfire, and the available comparisons leave me cold since one mount or another was always handicapped by the conditions of the test, particularly by fuel grade and allowable boost.

So, I rate them even in most respects, armament aside. If we take armament into account, the Mustang had no disadvantage in fighter vs fighter combat, but was at a slight disadvantage in fighter vs. bomber combat. That being said, the Mustang shot down a LOT of bombers.

Spitfires were WONDERFUL planes to fly, but were mostly on the ground within an hour or so of having taken off. Range was never their strong suit.

I still love Spits! Hey, I like the Ki-100, too, so what do I know?

If I HAD to fight in a prop-driven plane against an opponent that was to be picked AFTER I cose my mount, I'd probably choose an F6F-5 Hellcat with drop tanks or a Hawker Sea Fury.

Mostly, the Sea Fury wins that duel.

ickysdad

22nd December 2004, 12:21

Greg,
Also look at the P-47J ,it had stupendous climb rate but it was an interceptor version of the P-47 and the USAAF needed longer range planes not interceptors besides the Allies,as opposed to just the term US, already had a supreme interceptor the Spitfire.So why should your airforce build something your allie in the war can provide? When you talk about reaching 500 MPH in a P-47 in level flight don't you mean the P-47M not P-47H? Also people ignore the P-38 if all the mod's done on the late "J" & "L" models were done earlier it would have a far different reputation plus if the US would have shut down the production lines for just a couple of weeks in early '43 you could have had the P-38K enter service and it had excellent performance.
The P-51's climb rate could be as high as well over 4000' per minute if the right boost,fuel mixture was used.

curmudgeon

22nd December 2004, 13:04

A problem with comparing fighters is that the goalposts were always shifting and that the specifications of machines being assembled were aimed to meet current (or the previous) problem. Machines in service were likely 6mo to a year or more behind the play.

Father of a schoolfriend of mine flew Spitfires in sweeps over France from 1941 on. When the FW190s appeared a mechanic from Rolls Royce visited their airfield, applied a screwdriver to a single screw on the engine and suddenly they could all fly 30mph faster! Most 'planes for most of the time were being flown in a downgraded mode ...

The Spitfire of 1940 was a far superior fighter aircraft to the Mustang or Thunderbolt of 1940 (yes I know! - but we have to take those sort of things into account). Mustangs were never built to be air defence interceptors. The RAF had Spitfires for that. They were ground support/army support and low level reconnaisance aircraft until fitted with Merlins ... then they could do things no other allied aircraft could do, and as pointed out do it over Berlin.

I am surprised the Tempest V hasn't featured more in this debate, it was around from mid-late 1944 and seemed to have a technical edge over opponents and friends - Pierre Closterman's 'The Big Show' has lots of nice things to say about them. But of course there weren't all that many of them, and somewhat surprisingly a very high proportion of those there were were flown by New Zealanders ...

From the other side the FW190A-D were very impressive aircraft at their time both as fighters and as fighter bombers. (I recollect a photograph of an FW190 strapped on top of either a 1000 or 2000 kg bomb. Bomb with bottom fin removed so the aircraft could hold it above the ground.) But FW190 nuisance night raiders were regularly shot down by Mosquitos.

I suspect 'the best fighter' is an intransitive problem

A > B > C > D > E > A

jimjim

22nd December 2004, 16:08

It would probably be best to first agree about what is meant by the word "fighter". For example, the Hurricane was considered a fighter yet was used to attack German bombers while the Spitfires were keeping the Me 109's at bay. Defensive fighter versus Offensive fighter versus high altitude fighter versus low altitude fighter, what year of the war?

Then operating in which theater of war is also important as all had their difficulties (extreme cold in the USSR, extreme dust in North Africa, extreme humidity in the Tropics, ability to land on aircraft carriers, and so on).
The P-38 was a flop in Europe yet successful in the Pacific Theater. The first few meetings between Spitfires and Zeroes was a shock to the Spitfire pilots. Without being specific as to where and when and doing what, it is difficult to be objective.

azrael

22nd December 2004, 17:28

Greg, I think you cannot really include the P-51H in this comparison as it never saw action. Then we might just as well include the Fury as well.

Of course it is hard to compare fighters without specifying time and theatre, although I do not think that theater is THAT important a factor as many planes performed admirably in both theaters. If one did not, well that means it was not as hot as it looked at first and disqualifies it from the list of top fihgters (point in case, the Lightning, good enough, but not the best).

When it comes to the "doing it over Berlin" part, well the discussion is still on concerning the actual impact of strategic bombing, especially in the European theater. There is not much evidence supporting the claims that strategic bombing did much more than boost the allied morale while there is quite a bit of evidence as to its failure as a concept in WWII. Tactical and precision bombing, no doubt about that, but that was not performed at high level and extreme range, and not by B17 and B24 or Lancasters. High altitude bombbing, especially nightbombing had problems hitting the correct city, let alone specific targets of military or economic value. Yes, if you were to ask "Bomber" Harris, he would still tell you that his Bomber Command won the war single-handedly (and so do some people in WWII newsgroups). But fact is that strategic bombing probably had very little or even no effect whatsoever. High altitude bombers could not hit trainyards or airfields or factories or bridges with any decent degree of precision (leaving aside a few rare instances). Anyways, I think we can agree that the impact of strategic bombing is still very much up for discussion, which is one of the reasons why I find long-range escorts overrated, at least for the European theatre.

Ricky

22nd December 2004, 18:35

In defense of the Strategic Bombing campaign -
Leaving aside the results when the USAAF started seriously targetting oil, there is the fact that it completely occupied, and then broke, the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe. Something like 3/4 of all German fighter planes were pulled out from other theatres (like the USSR, where they were rather needed) to counter the American day bombers.
The swarms of escort fighters then came into play, generally walloping the German aircraft, especially as they were increasingly modified as bomber destroyers, with all kinds of big guns, rockets etc slung under their wings.
For that alone, it was not a wasted effort.
If you simply tried the same thing with fighter sweeps, it does not work as well, as the German fighters are concentrating on shooting down your fighters. In reality, they were concentrated on shooting down the bombers, which left them vulnerable to the escort fighters.

But anyway, this is starting to get a little off topic.;)

MikeD

22nd December 2004, 22:41

I'm British but not biased to any one country's aircraft. My favourite pure fighter for sheer beauty, firepower, speed etc. was the German Me 262, although I can list some favourites from other countries which were operational in WWII. Russian gave us the Yak 3, Japan the Ki84 Hayate (Frank), America would be the P-51D, France the D.520, England the Spitfire XIV, Italy the Macchi Mc205V and it could go on.

azrael

22nd December 2004, 23:35

Hi there, Ricky.
You are right of course that the strategic bombing campaign caused the German to invest vast ammount of resources to counter it (ineffectively at that), in that sense it was not a complete failure. But the issue of oil in particular shows its ineffectiveness against the intended targets. Yes, Germany was running out of oil at the end of the WWII, but not so much because of the bombing of refineries, rather from the loss of oil fields to the advancing red army! In fact, fuel production, especially of synthetic fuel from coal was constantly rising despite the best efforts of the bombing campaign.
But you are right, this is an off-topic point and one that would lead to an endless discussion (as a matter of fact, a discussion that tends to bog down EVERY aircraft related thread on most WWII news groups)!

Ricky

23rd December 2004, 00:20

Hi Azreal - welcome to the forum!
It is true that strategic bombing can bog down a discussion, so let us skip over it!;)
Best fighter - I'd probably agree that an all-mg armament was becoming a little light for a true 'fighter' (which includes interceptor etc). However, would an all-cannon armament (like the Tempest) or a cannon/mg mix (like the Spitfire) be preferred?
Personally, I would choose the mixture, for the greater versatility it offered. Which again would point back to the Spitfire!
Although the Fw190, Bf109, Ki-87, etc etc all had mixed armaments.

However Azrael's point that the Spitfire was among the best in 1939, and still among the best in 1945, is a good one. How many other fighters can boast that?
Potentially, only the Bf109...

GregP

23rd December 2004, 09:55

As for being around at the start of the war and the end, and still being competitive, we have only the Spitfire and the Bf-109 as suggested above.

I completely disagree that strategic bombing had little effect. By mid-1944, the average German lived in a netherworld of bombed out buildings with little food and little thought of doing anything but surviving until the bombs stopped.

Bombing, not all of it strategic, and straffing by unopposed fighters on the way home crushed Germany over a 2 1/2 year period and enabled the ground advance. When the ground troops advance, then artillery follows. They feed off one another.

Enough about bombing ... I see you and I can agree to disagree on this subject.

My own criteria do NOT include the notion that the best fighter needed to have been around at the start and the end. I like Spits, as I stated above, but do not consider them to be the best overall fighter. I DO consider them to be the best air-to-air fighters in general use throughout the war, but there are reconaissance, ground support, long range escort, straffing, and assault support to consider, not to mention the purely defensive act of repelling bombers.

Oh well, who says we have to agree?

Certainly not me.

ickysdad

23rd December 2004, 12:50

and don't forget air transport which came of age as far as helping in a war during WW2.

GregP

23rd December 2004, 13:40

Hi ickysdad!

I wouldn't forget air transport, but I probably would ignore it in a "best fighter thread" ... unless you are talking about an armed C-47 fighter, that is. Never know, might be one around when you need it badly.

Merry Christmas to you.

Ricky

23rd December 2004, 18:32

Well, the 'Pink' Spits did well in the PR role...;)

The only 2 areas where the Spit really loses out are:

Ground attack: It was a bit fragile for this, though they did do ok. But then, only the P-47, Fw190, Hurricane & Tempest really made that transition effectively.

Long-range escort: Spits did not have long legs. They could have - there were various tests done in which Spits were given greater internal fuel capacity. In one test I think they flew across the Altantic (possibly stopping at Iceland?). However, actual Spits in combat did not have this feature. I *think* that this is *probably* because until the Mustang arrived, the Brits thought it was impossible. After the Mustang arrived, why bother with a long-range Spit, as we have the Mustang!

azrael

23rd December 2004, 19:33

Ricky, concerning the long range escort, another factor was that for a while heavily armed bombers were considered to be able to get through on their own. When the Brits were dissuaded of that misconception they switched to night time bombing where escorts were not needed either. So, at first noone really saw the need for a long range escort and later there was a good one available, the Mustang. Add the dropping quantity and quality of Luftwaffe opposition and there was simply no need to develop another escort.

BTW, was there ever a night-fighter escort? Just asking out of interest.

Ricky

23rd December 2004, 22:09

I think the RAF dallied for a while with adding Mossies into the bomber stream, but I'm not 100% sure.

Lightning

24th December 2004, 01:42

Hi Azrael,

First of all, Merry Chritmas & Happy New Year!

I don't have time for a full response now, but, after the Battle of Britain, what did the Spitfire really accomplish that the other first-line fighters did not do as well or better?

I contend that the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, Hellcat, and Corsair carried the war to the enemy and hit him harder, longer, and over greater distances than the Spitfire ever did. They did it under harsher conditions and kept it up while taking damage that the Spitfire just could not sustain.

As I said before, the Spitfire was a wonderful air-to-air fighter, but it was not the consumate "war plane" it takes to be in the running for the title of "Best Fighter".

Regards,
Lightning

andyo2000

24th December 2004, 03:50

If a multi-role airplane takes the cake for Best Fighter, then I nominate the de Havilland Mosquito. It operated in high-speed reconaissance, and could carry better cameras farther and faster than the Spitfire. As a bomber, it could join the big bomber streams and add a few more tons or strike out on a smaller mission. The Mosquito excelled in the night fighter role, and was quite able in day fighting as well. Lastly, it also was ideal in anti-shipping, claiming 10 U-boat kills during the war, and in marking the spots for bombers to avoid confusion. A well-known plan for the Mosquito was the Highball operation, which involved skimming bombs along the surface of the water and blowing holes in the bottom of ships.

Yes, Mossies did accompany bombers, not only in escorting but also in adding to the bomb load and marking a target.

Well now Lightning, did the Corsair and Hellcat ever compete in equal terms with the Spitfire? A ground-based airplane against land-based German planes is quite different than a ship-based naval airplane against an island- or ship-based Japanese airplane.

ickysdad

24th December 2004, 06:12

gregp,
well we got talking about bombers and everything else in this "best fighter" thread and thought I'd just mention air transport.
You have a very Merry X-Mas to!!!!!!!!!!!! We're certainly going to have a White X-Mas here in S. Indiana for I have anywhere from 19-24" of snow in my yard!

ickysdad

24th December 2004, 06:17

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

If a multi-role airplane takes the cake for Best Fighter, then I nominate the de Havilland Mosquito. It operated in high-speed reconaissance, and could carry better cameras farther and faster than the Spitfire. As a bomber, it could join the big bomber streams and add a few more tons or strike out on a smaller mission. The Mosquito excelled in the night fighter role, and was quite able in day fighting as well. Lastly, it also was ideal in anti-shipping, claiming 10 U-boat kills during the war, and in marking the spots for bombers to avoid confusion. A well-known plan for the Mosquito was the Highball operation, which involved skimming bombs along the surface of the water and blowing holes in the bottom of ships.

Yes, Mossies did accompany bombers, not only in escorting but also in adding to the bomb load and marking a target.

quote:Well now Lightning, did the Corsair and Hellcat ever compete in equal terms with the Spitfire? A ground-based airplane against land-based German planes is quite different than a ship-based naval airplane against an island- or ship-based Japanese airplane.
quote:
Well Captain Erich Brown has stated that the F4U was certainly a match for the '109 though he did say that '190 was superior even though FAA pilots on the Murmansk run say the Corsair was every bit as good as the '190. Also a USN test concluded that both were very much equal to the '190. Mr. Brown also says the F6F as being superior to the '109 and the only thing determining the out come between an F6F and a '190 is the pilot.

azrael

24th December 2004, 09:52

andyo,
merry xmas to you.
Hmm the Moscito as the best fighter of the war, novel concept, since there was no fighter version of it that I am aware of (not counting night-fighter, a role it actually excelled at but that was very different from the duties of actual fighters).

azrael

24th December 2004, 10:39

Hi Lightning and a very merry xmas to you as well!

Concerning your post, what did the Spitfire accomplish after the BoB that other fighter, especially the ones you mentioned did not do as well or better. Tough question but I will attempt to answer it, countering your detailed and excessive arguments as well as I can.

1) It was in service from 1940 (the BoB) til the end of 1942 for starters, more than can be said for any of the aircraft you listed.
2) Of course the Brits were sitting around doing nothing during those 2 years, waiting for the US to bail them out. But it appears that some of their generals got bored and performed such minor things as fighting the Axis in North Africa and the Balkan and defended the island of Malta to keep the lines of communication open with North Africa, respectively to cut off Rommel from his supplies.
3) They flew across the Channel to France and engaged the Luftwaffe in fighter sweeps.
4) They intercepted axis bombers, escorting fighters and fighter-bombers almost everywhere the British were enganged in combat.
5) They flew photo-reconnaisance and did rather well at that, too.

None of the fighers you mentioned did anything during that period I am afraid, they were not in service yet (excuse the slight sarcasm in my reply so far, but I believe that the form of your question somewhat warranted it). Ok, so what did the Spit do AFTER the end of 1942 when the planes you mentioned came into service?

Well as you yourself conceeded, the Spit was possibly the best air-ti-air fighter of the war. So there is your answer, it shot down enemy airplanes, very well, even at the end of its career. Yes, it was not as long ranged as the US fighters. Does that make the Spit worse at all air-to-air role? No, only as a long range escort. You still needed something to get off your airfields and intercept enemy bombers and fighter bombers coming in. You needed an interceptor and the Spit was one of the very best. You wanted to fly cover over your advancing troops. The Spit did that very well too. You wanted to fly sweeps to down some enemy fighters without having to watch out for your own bombers. The Spit did that throughout her career with great success. Certainly the Spit was a better interceptor and air-superiority fighter than the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and probably even the Mustang. Hellcat and Corsair were not deployed in mentionable numbers in the European theatre, so the Mustang shot down German and Italian planes better than they did! The Lightning was also not having an overly successful career over Europe, so I do not really see how it performed better than the Spit in any role besides long-ranged escort or fighter bomber.

A general remark concerning the abilities of a figher as fighter-bomber. I do not see how that is a vital characteristic of a figher as precision bombing or ground support could be done by attack craft or light bombers or dedicated ground attack craft as well and better than the fighter-bombers could do it. But could an IL-2 fly classical fighter missions? Or a HS-129? Not really? Would you say that it made them less effective ground attack crafts? Probably not. The western allies did not really build a dedicated ground attack aircraft and had to rely on light and medium bombers or fighters (in that role called fighter-bombers) to fulfill the role. But it is interesting that they chose mostly outclassed or failed fighters for the role of fighter-bombers (see Typhoon, Hurricane, P-40, and yes even Thunderbolts when the Mustang came along). Let the fighter-bombers do what they do best while the Spitfire does what it does best, shoot down aircraft. Does the best fighter have to be the best at everything? No, or your choices would be disqualified from the start as you admitted that the Spit was the best air-to-air fighter. Unless air-to-air combat is NOT a vital mission for a fighter while ground-support is. BTW, your stress on ground attack disqualifies two of your choices as well, as neither the Mustang not the Hellcat were all that great as a fighter-bomber either.
Harder hitting, interesting as my original point was that the cannon was the more powerful weapon compared to the heavy maching gun. Yes, the heavy machine gun was sufficient, good enough for many purposes. But harder hitting than the cannon, no way, sorry.
Longer ranged, sure thing, that I hand to you. The Spit had short legs compared to your choices. But that only makes her less qualified as a bomber escort, no more, no less.
Your planes did it under worse conditions than the Spit, you claim. Also not true. The Spit did fight in the Pacific, both defending Australia and in Burma. And it did fight in the Mediteranean and North Africa. Might be intereting to see how the Hellcat or Corsairs would have performed in the dessert with all that sand and dust around. Anyways, the Spit DID fight everywhere in the world and in all climates (with the possible exception of arctic temps, not sure there).

In conclusion, there seems to be a few things it did better than most, maybe any other front-line fighter of the war. Not everything, but then again, that is not required for greatness. It is sufficient to be better on average across all missions of a fighter to be the best.

jimjim

24th December 2004, 11:28

Hi Azrael,
When the Spitfires first arrived in the Pacific Theater, why did they do poorly fighting the Mitsubishi Zero?

GregP

24th December 2004, 12:48

Spitfires are pretty awful at flying past their range. They don't do very well in ground attack. They don't do very well at strategic reconaissance, but are OK at tactical reconsissance.

Same for many, perhaps all other fighters of WWII.

However, the P-51 WAS very good at air-to-air combat. It WAS very good at long range escort. It was better than the Spitfire at gound attack if only by virtue of doing it more often. It was as fast as the Spitfire, within a very few mph that were normally within the variation between aircraft. The P-51 flew as high as the Spitfire, as fast, further, and with a better proportion of targets destroyed while flying back to base than the Spitfire since it had the range and opportunity to do so. The Spitfire didn't, though it DID defend England, and very well at that.

The P-47 was MUCH better than the Spitfire at diving, ground attack, bombing, and straffing while being many hundreds of miles from home, on the way back from Berlin. It didn't do too badly at shooting down enemy fighters and bombers, either.

The P-38 was a very effective escort, penetration fighter, and attack plane.

The Corsair was faster than the Spitfire, longer ranged, rolled faster, and turned very nearly as well if not better.

Air to air, the Spitfire is a very good fighter.

So were the P-51, P-47, P-38, and F4U.

Add the F6F.

The best from the USA was probably the F8F Bearcat, but it came too late for combat.

The Spitfire was in good company.

Was it better for having been around longer? NO! Neither was the Bf-109, though it was ALSO very good.

Was it better for having been lighter? Maybe. Rate of climb is important, but not the ultimate in combat.

Did it roll faster than the competition? No.

Did it turn better? Yes.

Is that enough to be called best? No. No way.

The Spitfire was among the top air-to-air fighters in the world during WWII. The Yak-3, Yak-9, La-5, and La-7 were ALSO among the best at air-to-air combat. Ditto the Fw-190 and Ta-152 series of planes. Ditto the P-51, P-47, the J model P-38, the F6F-5, the F4U-4 and F4U-5. Add several Japanese fighters and some other American and British fighters.

Your proposed "best" is in very good company.

I say you are incorrect, but close.

I can't say what was the best, but best at air-to-air combat alone just doesn't do it for me.

The best must be an all-rounder.

The Spitfire was NOT an all-round fighter, but it WAS a very GOOD one.

The best was a multi-role aircraft, and I decline to say which was the best since I haven't flown any of them. I simply disagree that air-to-air combat alone means the Spit was the best.

You, of course, are free to disagree, and you HAVE with great vigor.

Your arguements are good, but MOST of us disagree, unless we are British. I have 20+ years experience as a general aviation pilot, 20+ as a radio control pilot, and 50+ as an aviation buff. The Spirfire is wonderful, I agree.

The best fighter in WWII? Close, but I doubt it. The best, to me, depends on the mission and the theater.

1) Would I choose a Spitfire for a close air support mission in the Alaskan Islands? No way.

2) Would YOU choose a Spitfire for an offensive sweep on the River Platte where there are no airfields? If so, you are wrong.

3) Would you choose a Spitfire to escort and formation of B-24s from England to Berlin and back? No.

4) Would you choose the SPitfire to defend England against a German medium bomber attack? I would.

1 out of 4 ain't bad, but there are better choices, and my selection of missions is FAR from complete, as you no doubt agree.

I'd take the Fw-190 before the Spirfire for MOST missions except air-to-air combat, and the 190 just ain't all that far behind the Spitfire in even that category. The pilot would make the difference, and please remember, the Germans had VERY MANY MORE aces than the Allies ever did in the 40+ kills category.

We excelled at quantity and they excelled at quality.

Give the rest of the fighers their due in their own right. The Spits were GREAT, but not alone in that category.

Near the best? Yes, and that SHOULD be good enough, even for a Spitfire buff.

The best? I think it is an individual call.

Mine is no, but it IS a close call, so I cannot say categorically that you are wrong since Spitfires were and are very GREAT airplanes. I simply state that fighters must be very good in more areas than air-to-air to make my list of "the best," and more WWII fighters than the Spitfire ARE.

Don't neglect the Soviet Yaks and Lavochkins. They were and ARE formidable.

P-51s that pulled more than the "allowed" manifld pressure were also very good. Most did when necessary. Some pulled more than the allowed G-force limits and still got home.

The P-47 destroyed a LOT of German property with a very good resistance to battle damage.

My words are probably falling on deaf ears, but I gotta' say it, you appear to be focused on the Spitfire rather than the facts.

Try looking at the actual performance numbers and kills / victories. You might find that the plane with the best air-to-air kill ratio in history until the F-15 Eagle was the Grumman F6F Hellcat at 19:1. The second place airplane was near 13:1, and it was an American plane in second.

So, the Grumman F6F Hellcat, with a supposed slow top speed (mostly due to ASI differences between it and the Corsair) and ugly esthetic looks was one-fifth better at air-to-air combat than all the other "thoroughbreds." Go figure.

Hellcats rule. What was the air-to-air kill ratio for the Spitfire? Huh?

Numbers, man, numbers. Show me the kills. If the Spitfire fought longer with fewer kills, how does than make it better?

Style? Bah ..., Looks? Bah ..., Speed? Bah ..., Production numbers? Bah ...

Kill ratio? I'll buy that.

Come back? Talk to me about kill ratio ... or perhaps my own favirote statistic that no one else seems to track, "enenies shot down divided by time period in combat" in "kills per engaged combat day."

The F6F Hellcat simply oblierates the competition in effectiveness per aircraft or kills per mission or kills per combat month. Calculate and get back to me on the Spitfire.

Don't go into gallons of fuel consumed or missions flown or anything else but a statstic per mission or a statistic per aircraft basis.

19:1 kills per loss for the F6F Hellcat ain't bad! Is it?

jimjim

24th December 2004, 13:52

There was a famous air battle in the Pacific Theater called the "Marianna's Turkey Shoot". It was similar to shooting fish in a barrel.

Is it possible that engagements such as this led to the Hellcat's gigantic kill numbers? Is it possible, even probable, that the Spitfires (or even the Curtis Helldivers) would have done as well?

ickysdad

24th December 2004, 14:33

greg,
good point on the P-51's G-force & such restrictions ,the USAAF had the manufactorers put "stops" on the control surfaces to keep the plane from making too violent manuvers but in the field alot of them had those "stops" removed so they could manuver better. I got that info out of Dean's "America's 100,000" and also in the P-38 section some pilots that flew both Spitfires & P-38's said the Spitfire was the best turner in the ETO but that the P-38 with manuver flaps & airelon boost was very,very close in that regard. IN the PTO pilots stated that the Zero was the best turner but that the P-38L(with manuver flaps & airelon boost) was extremely close.
Are you sure that the F4U was almost as good a turner as the Spitfire?

GregP

24th December 2004, 15:07

Hi icksdad,

I am NOT sure the garden-variety F4U-1 could turn with a Spitfire.

I am sure an F4U-4 might and the F4U-5 might at air-to-air combat weights, not air-to-ground weights. The point there being that the F4U-4 and F4U-5 were able to fly air-to-air at light weights and air-to-ground at heavier weights with a large bomb load. The Spifire could not CARRY a large bomb load.

The F4U-5 went 470 mph; the Spirfire was slower. Might have cannons and a flamboyant appearance, but was slower.

The Corsair was still fighting with teeth in 1954 in Korea, and it was still going 470 mph when necessary. Oh yeah, the P-51 was ALSO still fighting in 1954 in Korea, and was still pulling excess manifold pressure, speed and g's; and was still shooting down enemies. Oh yeah, so was the A-26 Invader and the A4 Skyraider.

Where was the Spitfire in Korea?

It was probably in Egypt around the Suez, being flown by neophite Egyptian and Israeli pilots. Not a bad assignment. There is also no "shame" in being the new mount of an Arabian Air Force. There is honor there instead. New Air Forces invariably choose "winners." In the case of the Spitfire, they did, in spades.

Anyway, the F4U-5 was a consumate air superiority fighter. Show me statistics that indicate otherwise.

My perennial favorite, the Hawker Sea Fury, was 10 mph slower on the stock British Bristol Hercules sleeve-valve engine.

With a Pratt & Whittney R-4360, the story was VERY different, but that came 50+ years later. Still later, the P-51 went even faster, and the Spitfire never competed at Reno, Nevada in the U.S.A. National Air Races. So, it never has had a chance to defend the title as "fastest" which, since post-WWII, has been the sole perview of the Mustang and the Bearcat and the Sea Fury.

No Spitfires.

Do I digress? Yes. Send a Spitrfire to compete in the Reno, Nevada U.S.A. Air Races. Win and we'll take notice. 'till then, you are slower, if graceful. Enjoy gentelemanly flypasts, but don't talk to us about speed; we're WAY past WWII in that area.

A Mustang and a Bearcat this year went over 500 mph on a closed-course circular lap! Try that in your Spitfire! To date, no one who has tried it has made it, but WE have.

C'mon, race! Show us all how fast you are!

Smart alec comments aside, the Spitfire is among the best in the world, and I love Spits.

If I could choose to fly only one WWII fighter, it would be a Spitfire XIV without any hesitation, unless a Sea Fury was available ...

Ricky

24th December 2004, 23:04

quote:Hellcats rule. What was the air-to-air kill ratio for the Spitfire? Huh?

Numbers, man, numbers. Show me the kills. If the Spitfire fought longer with fewer kills, how does than make it better?

I thought we'd got past this one? Spitfires spent the first 3 years of the war fighting off the cream of the Luftwaffe - including pilots with previous battle experiance and using superior 'finger four' tactics.
Hellcats spent 2 years (in overwhelming numbers) knocking down older & poorly manufactured planes with insufficiently trained pilots...
Ok, so this is a slight oversimplification for the Hellcat, but hey. We really have discussed the 19:1 ratio very often.;)

quote:Where was the Spitfire in Korea?
Well, we'd moved on to the Sea Fury! But hey, the Spit was there in Malaya...

As to length of service, the point there is that any fighter that can stay in the top rank for the 6 years of WW2, with all the developments made, has gotta be good! The P-40 couldn't. The Zero couldn't. The Wildcat couldn't. The MiG1/3 couldn't.

quote:When the Spitfires first arrived in the Pacific Theater, why did they do poorly fighting the Mitsubishi Zero?
Because they tried to dogfight, as they were used to Bf109s. Zeros need 'boom & zoom', whether you are a Bearcat or a P-47 or a Spit.

azrael

26th December 2004, 05:29

Merry Xmas to you, Greg, and to everyone, hope it was enjoyable for you guys.
Greg, comparing the speed of a F4U5, a plane that first flew in 1946 to the Spitfire of World War II is not exactly fair, is it?

Otherwise, while we are comparing the speed of the fighters in question, here is what I found:
Spitfire XIV: 721 kph (January 44)
Hellcat F6F3: 605 kph
Hellcat F6F5: 620 kph
P-51D Mustang: 703 kph
Corsair F4U1: 685 kph
Corsair F4U4: 718 kph (October 44)

So where exactly does the claim come from that the Corsair was faster than the Spitfire? And frankly, the Hellcat is SLOW compared to the other fighters mentioned here. Not too good for our discussion, considering that we all agreed on speed being THE main characteristic for successful air-to-air combat....

When it comes to kill-ratios, I have to admit that I do not know any besides the ones for the Hellcats and Corsairs. Kill ratios however are highly deceptive I would say. IF you wanted those as a objective criteria the following aspects have to be accounted for as well:

1) Same opponents (both in regard to their mounts and their quality of pilots)
2) Same pilot for the mount we are judging (at least in quality)

If you compare anything else you can just as well forget about the results. Trust me, I might not be a pilot as you are, but I am a physicist and know how to set up an experiment correctly and how to interpret the data. Problem is that your two fave (Corsair and Hellcat) fought almost exclusively in the Pacific (where their Spitfire contemporaries were not deployed) and in the hands of the navy and Marine Corps (Mustangs and Thunderbolts for the Army). The second distinction appear to be picky but keep in mind that Army (SW Pacific) and Navy (SE and Central Pacific) fought in basically different theaters as well. As the old saying goes in the scientific community:"Never trust a statistic that you have not faked yourself".

BTW while looking for kill-ratios I saw one of 26:1!!! Better than the Hellcat and better than the Corsair. So, since you consider kill-ratios the main criteria, I present as the best fighter of the second World War the ..... (drumroll) Brewster Buffalo!!
The Brewster F2A Buffalo Model 239, flown by Finnish Air Force during WWII, had a kill ratio of 26:1! By your own standards, that makes it the best fighter of World War II, Greg!

Another little addendum to your post... DO we consider length of service or not? It seems that we do not apply longevity to the Spit (and that would be service DURING WWII) but you choose to apply it to the Corsair (BEYOND WWII). We should really define our criteria again before we determine a winner.

azrael

26th December 2004, 05:38

Greg,
one more question, in the list of your possible mission, there was "offensive sweep at the River Platte".. I am confused, what river are we talking about here? The one in Missouri and Nebraska (obviously not, why would anyone want to fly offensive sweeps there during wwII)?
And when it comes to offensive fighter sweeps, yes I would probably choose the Spitfire for those, depending of course, where you would let them take place. The Brits did it with Spits ever since Germany occupied France and did so quite successfully, really. That makes it 1.5 out of 4 in your list of missions. As to the rest, long-range escort would be a Mustang and ground support would be a Thunderbolt, but as I said before, I consider ground attack to be less important as there were dedicated and very effective planes for that role that could do it better than any of the fighters we are discussing here.

ickysdad

26th December 2004, 08:10

azrael,
Where did you get those speed figures? I've done research also and it seems that in every case the "XIV" is using more boost than the P-51D. To get a fair judge of speed you have to find figures where a plane is using the same grade fuel and pulling the same manifold pressure unlesss a certain plane's engine wasn't capable of pulling said pressure. I've seen a "XIV" being credited with upwards of 446 MPH WITH 25lbs. of boost and running on 150 octane fuel ,I've also seen evidnece of a P-51 B,C, or D hitting around 435 MPH with 16 lbs. boost and 100 octane fuel though of course the various models of the P-51 could take 25 lbs. of boost and run on 150 octane fuel as the "XIV" figures I've shown. The best(or rather most reliable) figures for USAAF & USN planes I've seen are in Francis Dean's " America's 100,000" but his figures are with the planes running on 100 octane fuel and no extra boost as against what was sometimes was done in the field. Speeds published in books and on the net can be very deceptive so you have to look at the fine print ,in one test a P-51 was tested against a Spitfire XIV and differences in boost and fuel grade that I posted before now was this fair ? Actually the naswer is yes & no because "yes it was fair" the boost used for the P-51 at the time was the max recommended by the manufactorer & the USAAF however "no the test wasn't fair" it was found out later that the Packard made Merlin in the Mustang could handle the extra boost.

jimjim

26th December 2004, 09:40

The top speed of one F4U was not necessarily the top speed of all identically made F4U's. Ditto for other makes of planes. The finish of the paint job, the flushness of the rivets, the hours on the engine, the weight of the pilot, and so on, all contributed to the variations in performance.

Azrael made a good point about how misleading the kill ratios could be. The kill ratios of the P-36 and the Dewoitine 520 were much better than the Me 262's kill ratio. Does that make them a better fighter? It doesn't sound like a valid argument to me.

Most of the books I've read reflect that the late WW2 German and Japanese fighters were much more technically advanced than the American fighters. Some mentioned are the Dornier 335, Me 262, Kyushu J7W1 Shinden, Mitsubishi Ki-83.

Perhaps easier questions to answer would be what was the best operational fighter of the Americans, the Soviets, the Romanians, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, et cetera and then do it by year?

Fortunately it was quantity, not quality, that won WW2.

ickysdad

26th December 2004, 11:19

I don't know about late war axis fighters being more advanced the P-80 according to some reports was every bit as good as the Me. 262. The Allies certainly could have pushed through certain designs like the P-72 which could have been ready for production by mid-44 further certain restrictions were placed on Allied aircraft like having to have long range ,the P-47J would have been an extremely good interceptor version of that plane but the USAAF didn't need interceptors it needed long range fighters and/or fighter bombers. What good does it do to make a few technological advanced prototypes when you can't or don't have the tech base to put them into production? The Allies took 1930's technology(except for the A-bomb) and pushed it to the limit while the Axis(mainly Germany) tried to develop 1950's technology in the middle of the war. Alot of people state that if Hitler hadn't interfered the Me. 262 would have been ready by mid-43 however it's engines weren't ready till may of '44 because while PROTOTYPE engines were ready much earlier the PRODUCTION type engines weren't ready till mid-44. The reason for this last statement is that the prototype engines needed chromium & nickel for thier production two materials in critical supply and needed for more important things like gun barrels. This caused a delay till a suitable way to make an engine that didn't need these very vital ,very rare materials. I have serious doubts about Japanese industry especially being able to produce jet engines in quantity or rocket engines for that matter.
IMHO the Allies certainly could have produced alot more prototype weapons to rival the Axis ones ,in fact the A-bomb was nothing but a prototype weapon that would have taken a while longer to get into production type mode. Another good example is German nerve gases tabun was developed in 1938 bit it took till mid-43 to get into quantity production and even then was very,very difficult to produce and an adequate delivery system was way down the road and the celbrated sarin gas never even got into production . The Allies themselves used gases in the nerve gas line(DDT) but not for the same role as the Germans tried to. Off subject I know but just as examples.
What's so inspiring about the Ki-83? Just going into production at war's end it did hit 438 MPH at 32,000' and 416 MPH @ 16,400' ,climbed to 30,000' in 10' 30" performance about that of the P-38J of 2 years before. THe J7W1 Shinden also entering production at war's end now it could hit 460 MPH at 8,000 meters and took 10' 40" to get to 25,000' but how do those numbers compare to even a P-51D(which entered production in late '43) when it used higher grade fuel and much higher manifold pressure? Furthermore those numbers don't really compare that well with those of the P-47N, P-47M,F8 Bearcat,P-80 Shooting Star,F4U/5,Spitfire XXI or P-51H(especially in the speed cateergory to these 3 USAAF fighters) also the P-51L would probably have entered production just after these Japanese fighters start into squdron service.

azrael

26th December 2004, 23:16

Ickysdad,
I found those on some websites on the internet, unfortunately without more detail given as to the measurement process. You are right, that makes them rather unreliable in a quantitative sense, but I do think that they show a certain qualitative trend. Leaving aside a 10 kph margin of error I think it is fair to conclude that the following:
Mustang P-51D and Spitfire XIV were the fastest of the planes in the group in a close tie, the Corsair was a bit slower (about 20kph) and the Hellcat was way slower. Do you agree that this is a fair qualitative analysis?

When it comes to comparing the Me262 and the P80, well they were about even probably, but the P80 did not see fire while the Me262 was ready for action in 44. Anyways, I consider both of them irrelevant for the title of best fighter of WWII as the Me262 was too unreliable while the P-80 simply did not fight. There is of course a certain technological romanticism attached to those planes. They were advanced, they looked fancy, something we all love and that makes them look better than they actually were DURING WWII. Look at the Schwalbe/Sturmvogel and the BF109 in comparison, which plane makes your heart beat faster? I think it is fair to assume that it would be the Me262 despite its problems. But that did not make it the better fighter. It might have become if the war had continued for a while longer, who knows? All from the realm of speculation and damn hard to prove either way.

There is one other thing I would like to state. A lot of points have been argued against the Spit and pro Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, Corsair and Hellcat. But most of these belonged into the category of "the Mustang could fly faster than the Spit", "the Thunderbolt and Lightning were better fighter-bombers", "The Corsair was more rugged", "The Hellcat was a better carrier-based fighter and had a better kill ratio". While these arguments are all very true and I agree with them, I am missing a conclusion. If not the Spit, which of these planes would it be? We are supposed to choose ONE best fighter, not five of them that together, each flying in its best role, would make up the best. The Mustang was not the ground-support plane the Thunderbolt was, nor was the Corsair the long-range escort the Mustang was. I never claimed that the Spit was the best fighter in EVERY category, just the best overall (leaving aside ground-support, mostly because the closest competitor in my opinion, the Mustang, did not excel at it either). I would like to see a SINGLE choice of plane that is better than the Spit so we can go on discussing this. A MuCoLiThuHe (hybrid of Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and Corsair, with all their singular advantages and none of their drawbacks) would most certainly be better than the Spit, but then again so would a SpiTemTyp (hybrid of Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon). The fact is, that none of those ideal hybrids existed. As to one plane against the Spit, I choose the Spit (the Hellcat actually being my last choice even from the deck of a carrier, there I would go Corsair. The Hellcat was just too slow, not a great high altitude plane, not a good ground-support aircraft and supposedly was not much fun to fly either).

ickysdad

27th December 2004, 02:16

Alot of what you say is true but I do disagree a bit on the Hellcat ,CaPTAIN Erich Brown and several othe sources say it had superb control harmony. It was a far easier to fly from a carrier deck then even the Corsair or the Seafire version of the Spitfire, it was far easier to train new pilots in than any of the other aircraft and was far easier to produce. The last 2 issues very important in a WAR WINNING WEAPON verses being the BEST FIGHTER. It also could hit a tad over 400 MPH with out water injection that cme in the later F6F-5 version and which was retrofitted to the earlier versions. Capt. Brown seems to think the Hellcat(F6F-3 version) superior to the G series of the '109, equal to the 190's up to the "Dora" version, just about equal to the Merlin engined Spitfire's , equal to the Ki-84 Hayate and almost so to the "George".
You are right in the general trend in fighter speeds you posted. Another thing on best fighter discussions is like as I posted that the F4U had superior fighter performance to the F6F but in deck handling the Hellcat was far superior now if a squadron of F4U shoots down more aircraft than a squadron of F6F's but sufferes more deck crashes then that's something you have to take into account. Same if you compare some ETO aircraft to the Luftwaffe's '109 since it was prone to crashes comparatively speaking becuase of it's high landing speed & landing gear. You are also right that you can't put the highest speed,best climb rate, best diving ability, best rolling, longest range, most ruggegness, and best turning ability into one aircraft.
I posted about the Me.262 & P-80 compared to dispute the asssumption that Axis technology was farther ahead than the Allies and also to show that the highest tech in the research & development phase is always behind the best tech that can be put into prodcution. The first "chain reaction" was achieved in '42 but it took 3 more years and the price of around 40 Iowa BB's or 150 Essex class CV's to develop a working A-bomb. The US had to develop a whole new range of technologies and aloys to do it.(PS-The Manhatten Project cost around 6 billion dollars ,an Iowa BB about 150 million,and an Essex CV about 40,000,000). Now I know the A-bomb maybe a far cry from a jet and an off-subject matter for this board but just trying to show problems in putting cutting edge technology into the war effort.
IMHO you have to go with the Spitfire or the FW-190 as the best of WWII since they both fought long stretches of time in the war . Seniority counts.

azrael

27th December 2004, 23:02

Ickysdad,
you are completely right in your post, I agree, the Hellcat was the easier plane to fly, especially from carriers. I cannot, however, find any support for your claim of its speed (400 mph) as all sources I have seen rate it at about 600 kph or 375 mph. The Corsair was a vicious air-to-air fighter though and a great fighter-bomber. These were the main reasons for their deployment on carriers in the first place, as they could both defend the carrier and attack the enemy (multi-purpose being far more important in carrier-based planes due to the limited of number that can be deployed at once). I have read that the Corsair had an even better kill ratio than the Hellcat, 23:1, but only in the hands of marine corps pilots and from land bases. Given the fact that the Corsair and Hellcat fought in the same theater and against the same opponents, with the Corsair seeing service earlier and thus against better pilots thanb the Hellcat, I would say that the Corsair is the better fighter plane. However, neither of the two deserves the title of best fighter of the war as they were inferior to the ETO fighters. They were however far better suited to the PTO and were thus not less efficient planes, just better suited for a different role.

Lightning

28th December 2004, 00:55

Hi all,

First of all, whoever said that we all agree that speed is the most important requirement to being a great fighter. If that were so, the F6F would be mediocre at best, and that is NOT the case. What knowledgeable WWII aviation buff could even hint at such a thing? My belated advice to any enemy (or friendly) fighter pilot of the period would be,"Don't bet against the Hellcat!"

GregP: Have you been reading my mail (or my mind)? I had prepared my response to azrael, but you beat me to the punch on almost every point! The fact that you did it with such eloquence is quite humbling. Let me make a few comments notwithstanding.

azrael:

I agree that the Spitfire was probably the best air-to-air fighter of the war, but not by much, so let's get that out of the way. It had, however, some very serious limitations that preclude its being the best overall fighter of the war.

As far as range goes, it had no range. This was true of the early, mid and ,even more so, the later versions. Every one of the aircraft I mentioned in my earlier posting had significantly greater range.

As far as ordnance-carrying ability (ie bombs, rockets, napalm, etc.) it was literally a lightweight. Again, all of the aforementioned planes were superior.

A good fighting plane has to be able to "take it" as well as "dish it out". The Spitfire had a "glass jaw". It was just not that rugged.

Armament? There were versions that carried only .303s; there were versions that carried .303s and 20mm; there were versions that carried four 20mm. All were wing-mounted and only the .303s were carried in any number. The P-47, with its eight .50s in the wing, and the P-38, with its four .50s and one 20mm concentrated in the nose, are in no way inferior here. And, as far as that goes, the P-51, F4U (also packing 20mms in later models), and the F6F, with their six .50s, had no trouble dispatching everything they came up against.

You mention that the Spitfire fought on many fronts; I agree. How come the praise an notariety heaped upon it for the Battle of Britain was lacking in those areas? Because it had to do the same jobs as other fighters are called upon to do? A number of Mk IX Spitfires (1188 of them) were sent to Russia. What did they do there? Does anyone here know? Why not? Was it because they had to take the war to the enemy instead of engaging slow medium bombers and fighter escorts at the limit of their combat radius over friendly territory?

The late-model (i.e. developed after WWII) Seafire was sent to Korea. How come nobody here seems to know that? How come the Commonwealth air forces relied on the P-51D when they had such a world-beater? How come the P-51 and the F4U were so effective in comparison? Was it because they were able to handle such an un-fighter-like job as groundsupport/attack? Ask the troops on the ground which fighters they thought were better all-around.

The Spitfire was a superlative "point defence" fighter. It earned most of its accolades as such--mainly in the Battle of Britain (where the majority of enemy aircraft were shot down by the Hurricane) and the Battle of Malta.

It was not so instumental in North Africa. It was pale in comparison to the P-47 and P-38 in the rush up the Boot of Italy. It was nowhere to be found in the cross-Medeterranean operations out of North Africa into Southern Europe and the Balkans--The P-38 was there--in spades, as GregP likes to say.

What about the long-range bomber-escort missions into Germany and out over the Pacific? The P-38 and the P-51 were there, and, later, the P-47N.

What about the multi-tasked missions into Europe from D-Day on to victory? The P-47, P-51, P-38, and Tempest were the fighter planes you heard about almost exclusively. The Spitfire was there, but it had to do what great fighters are called upon to do--and it was somewhat back in the pack.

And how did it perform in the Pacific in comparison to the F6F, and the F4U? 'Nuff Said.

azrael

28th December 2004, 01:39

Lightning,
I agree on the lack of range for the Spitfire, especially compared to the Mustang and Lightning. I never claimed it would make for a great long-range escort. I also agreed that it was not the best of ground-attackers, but neither was the Mustang or the Hellcat. We are talking fighter here, not fighter-bomber though and fighters are supposed to kill other airplanes first of all, anything else is an added bonus. When it comes to firepower, sorry, 4 HS 20mm cannons pack MORE punch than 6 or even 8 M2 machine guns (see my post concerning firepower). The machineguns were adequate against fighters, inferior against bombers and useless against armoured targets (which were a problem after D-Day!). You are probably going to state that the american fighter-bombers had bombs and rockets to deal with tanks. Matter of fact is that neither bombs nor rockets were good weapons to destroy a tank as it was almost impossible to hit them. Guns killed tanks and the bigger the better. Bombs and rockets killed troops, soft vehicles, bunkers, ships. In that sense, your vaunted fighter-bombers draw up short in ground-attack and you would be better served by dedicated attack craft.

When it comes to the glass jaw of the Spit, I have read comments of axis pilots who said that while they feared the Mustang for its performance, they found it rather vulnerable as well. So again, we have fighters that are close to the Spitfire in air-to-air, namely the Mustang, and those good at ground support, Lightning and Thunderbolt. But as I have stated before, we are asking for ONE best fighter, not a trio of great ones that WOULD make the best if rolled into one.

As to your question about theatres, there was a post about Spitfire Vs defending Darwin and doing well against the Zero. North-Africa and the Med, yes they did engage the Luftwaffe there and they were feared opponents. Why did they gain less notoriety there? Simple, it was not as desperate a battle, as vital to the war as the BoB was! You gain fame in the darkest, toughest hours, not when you are winning anyways.

azrael

28th December 2004, 01:51

Lightning,
I forgot to address the issue of speed. Most posts throughout this thread DO claim speed to be important and every other post in reply to mine mentions speed. Well, the matter of the fact is that the Spit was as fast as the Mustang and faster than the Thunderbolt, the Lightning, the Corsair and the Hellcat. Maybe it is not the most important characteristic, but is is an important one and the Spit ends up on top (please, no non-WWII-combat models like the F4U5 or the P-51H+ again). When it comes to the Hellcat being good despite its mediocre speed for a late-war fighter, let us keep in mind that it was flying against obsolete and slow opponents. It might not have been fast but it was faster than most Japanese fighters and certainly than the carrier-based one, the Zero. The fact that it did well against slower, obsolete opponents does not mean that it would have done well against fast ETO fighters. Maybe it would have, maybe it would not. Hard to tell as they were basically not deployed in the ETO. Might have been interesting to see how it fared against FW-190s or late model BF-109s or maybe Me-262s. Would it have been up to it? I think so. Would it have run up scores of 19 to 1? I sincerely doubt it.

simon

28th December 2004, 02:09

"First of all, whoever said that we all agree that speed is the most important requirement to being a great fighter. If that were so, the F6F would be mediocre at best, and that is NOT the case. What knowledgeable WWII aviation buff could even hint at such a thing? My belated advice to any enemy (or friendly) fighter pilot of the period would be,"Don't bet against the Hellcat!""

Well, yes and no, the Hellcat may not have been fastest of the bunch, but crucially it was faster than most if not all of its opposition. How would it have faired against the Spitfire? We can never know for certain.

Let have a go at each point in turn...

The MkXIVs with the fuselage tank had almost as much range as a Mustang without droptanks, the weakness of the Spitfire here lies in its ability to carry additional loads, its wings just were not strong enough to carry big drop-tanks, however over the ETO just how much of advantage they were is debatable since you'd almost certainly have to jetison the tanks by the Dutch-German border anyway and this was still within range of the Spitfires with drop-tanks.

OK, the 1939/1940s MkIs had a poor range, but just how much range did the Mustang, Thunderbolt, or Lightning have in 1939?

Yes, in terms of additional ordinance the Spitfire was a lightweight, but it could carry bombs of enough poundage to damage most tactical targets, almost any of the latter were better, and so was the Hurricane however the Spitfire is universally regarded as better than the Hurricane so I don't see why external ordinance should necessarily swing it here.

"The Spitfire had a "glass jaw". It was just not that rugged."

Maybe not so much as the Lightning or Thunderbolt, but the Spitfire was a pretty rugged plane, in terms of survivability it was leagues ahead of the likes of the Japanese fighters, I'm really not sure what the point is here, the Spitfire was certainly not hugely lacking in the ability to absorb damage.

"Armament? There were versions that carried only .303s; there were versions that carried .303s and 20mm; there were versions that carried four 20mm. All were wing-mounted and only the .303s were carried in any number. The P-47, with its eight .50s in the wing, and the P-38, with its four .50s and one 20mm concentrated in the nose, are in no way inferior here. And, as far as that goes, the P-51, F4U (also packing 20mms in later models), and the F6F, with their six .50s, had no trouble dispatching everything they came up against"

Eh? Probably the most common armament fit was the 2x20mm/4x.303 mix, although the MkXIV introduced the "E" wing of 2x20mm and 2x.50cals. In any case the 8x.303("A" wing) armament ceased production in about late 1941. We could go round the houses in this one, but as far as the P-51 (The B/C only had 4 .50 cals BTW), F6F and F4U go the contemporary Spitfires carried a heavier armament in each and every case, only the very late and (mostly!) postwar US planes carried 20mm cannon.

"You mention that the Spitfire fought on many fronts; I agree. How come the praise an notariety heaped upon it for the Battle of Britain was lacking in those areas? Because it had to do the same jobs as other fighters are called upon to do?"

Probably because the others were more numerous in all other areas, it doesn't necessarily follow that they must have been better!

Having said that, in most respects the Seafire was a pretty poor carrier plane, difficult to land in all but perfect conditions, and the initial Seafires MkI-III had their performance so badly degraded by the introduction of carrier gear as to be basically inferior to the Sea-Hurricane.

Yes the Spitfire may have (arguable) paper superiority over the F4U and F6F, but the latter were required for a specific role in the Pacific, I think the USN would have been foolish to take Seafires over either American design because the latter fitted their role perfectly, better than the contemprary Seafires could have.

Overall I would say that the Spitfire is a stronger contender for best fighter than is being indicated, but it clearly could not have filled all the roles that the others did.

"A Mustang and a Bearcat this year went over 500 mph on a closed-course circular lap! Try that in your Spitfire! To date, no one who has tried it has made it, but WE have."

It will never happen Greg and you know it because there are simply more Mustangs and Bearcats left than Spitfires, so personally I hope the Spitfires stay being used for airshows and don't end up getting wasted at races...

Lastly...

"The P-47 was MUCH better than the Spitfire at diving, ground attack, bombing, and straffing while being many hundreds of miles from home, on the way back from Berlin. It didn't do too badly at shooting down enemy fighters and bombers, either."

The P-47 was pretty lacking when it came to range as well, and certainly didn't do the round trip to Berlin all that often and certainly didn't do so from bases in the UK circa 1943, if they had the Mustang wouldn't have been required in the first place!

simon

28th December 2004, 02:15

No automatic weapon mounted by any of our contenders for top fighter was any use against anything other than an extremely lightly armoured target. Four .303s and two 20mm's will shred a truckful of troops as well, if not better than six .50s, nothing a Hellcat, Corsair, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, Lightning or Mustang carried in its wings could hurt something like a Panzer III, Panzer IV or Tiger, and even the effectiveness of Rocket projectiles against a medium or heavy tank is open to debate.

azrael

28th December 2004, 02:19

Simon,
I also do not see the relevance of speed-racing modified Bearcats and Mustangs in 2004 when it comes to the performance of a 1944 P-51D. Sure, if I stuck a Mustang into the payload compartment of a Saturn V rocket it would be the first piston-engined fighter of WWII in space. Does that make it a better fighter against a Bf-109? Not really...

simon

28th December 2004, 02:31

Azrael, I think we're actually arguing the same sort of point there, probably wasn't too clear when I posted that! :D If I post something in italics and quotation marks I'm usually quoting someone else!

azrael

28th December 2004, 02:38

Simon,
I was agreeing with you actually. Too much in a discussion mood from the previous posts by Lightning I guess :D. It was meant in support of what you were saying, as we are seeing eye-to-eye on the armament and speed issue.

azrael

28th December 2004, 03:21

Lightning,
I just saw the rest of your post, it was cut off before.
North Africa, sure the Spit served well there, who else? The Jug or Mustang? In 42? Yeah, the Hurricane served with distinction down there, as a figher-bomber. But it was the Spitfire that saved Malta and the convoys supply Monty. Without it Operation Torch would have been a whole lot harder to pull off if not impossible! Pacific, long-range escort, we covered that already, the Spit was not a long-legged bird, neither in the ETO nor the PTO, done, over with, next point.
Italy and Southern Europe, the Spitfire served as a fighter and interceptor, flying sweeps and keeping the skies clear over the advancing troops. Did it bomb axis postions? Yes. Did it do particularly well? No! Did the Mustang do better in that campaign? No! You want to cross the range and air-to-air performance of a Mustang with the ground-attack capabilities of a Thunderbolt again.
Eastern Front, not sure there, but as the Russians did not fly many long-ranged fighter missions, rather using fighters to cover their REAL ground-attack planes that could do the job better than the Thunderbolt, I am sure they found the Spitfire rather satisfying in fending off those pesky german fighters trying to shoot down their IL2s. How many Mustangs and Lightnings and Thunderbolts did the Soviets use I wonder?

ickysdad

28th December 2004, 08:40

azrael,
I get my figures for the F6F-5 from Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" ,the F6F-3 could only get to about 380 MPH but the later F6F-5 ,to which standard the earlier F6F-3 were brought up to, could hit over 350 MPH at SL and slightly over 400 MPH at altitude.
Once again on speed and the Spitfire XIV most sources give it a top speed of 446 MPH HOWEVER that speed was also listed in a test against the P-51D conducted by the RAF and in that test the Spitfire pulled 25 lbs. of boost and used 150 octane fuel. The P-51 in that test had to settle for the "stock" setiings of 16 lbs. of boost(or 67" on manifold pressure) and it used 100 octane fuel and the XIV still only had like a 5-11 MPH advantage. The Mustang in that test hit 435 MPH at it's best altitude and around 370-380 MPH at SL HOWEVER the RAF & USAAF modified thier Mustangs to pull either 81"(for RAF) or 77"(For USAAF) resulting in it hitting 410 MPH(for RAF) & 405 MPH (for USAAF) at SL and SL wasn't exactly the MUstang's best altitude. So add another 25-30 MPH to a Mustang's speed and see who's faster(maybe more at higher altitudes).

ickysdad

28th December 2004, 09:54

OK, back again on a few issues....
1. The Hellcat against the '109 & '190 well Captain Ercih Brown seems to think it'll hold up rather well against those two. It did fight against both in a raid on Norway in late '43,early '44 bagging 2 -109's & a '190 for no losses with about equal numbers to begin with. It also help cover the Southern France invasion.
2. On the IL-2 being a better ground attack plane tham "Jug" well I don't know about that ,the IL-2 was produced in record numbers it better have been considering record numbers were lost and by the way how many enemy fighters did the IL-2 shoot down? The IL-2 lost twice as many gunners as pilots a plane like that wouldn't be accepted by either the RAF or USAAF,it also had the bomb carrying ability of a Spitfire not too good for a dedicated ground attack plane.
3. On speed again ,it seems the "XIV"'s top speed was around 446 MPH using 150 octane fuel ,I've done posted the top speeds of the P-51 using that grade of fuel and with extra manifold pressure ,as per the XIV's case. Now the top speeds for the following fighters are with 100 octane fuel and right out of Dean's book,the P-38 J & L could hit around 425 MPH(some sources say the L could hit 440 MPH which maybe on higher grade fuels),the P-47D( and don't forget the "M" & "N" versions much,much faster) around 423-425 MPH,the F4U/1A-D around 417-425 MPH, and the F4U/4 at 445 MPH , now add anywhere from 15-25 or even 30 more MPH when using higher grade fuel.
4. On rate of climb the XIV hit 4500-4600 FPM as per above listed settings ,now a P-51D at stock settings climbed at around 3475 FPM when on boosted settings it would climb o at around 4000 FPM .

azrael

28th December 2004, 20:36

Ickysdad,
all I ever see as the speed for the Hellcat is about 600kph for the F6F3 and F5 models. Maybe you can boost it with better fuel and the then possible higher compression, but never by 120 kph which would be the Spit XIV advantage. That takes the Hellcat out of the speed contest. The Corsair I see listed at 685 kph for the U1 variant, 720 for the U4 (very similar to the Spit but also a lot later, produced in Octobre of 1944 and did not see much action, so I do not really consider it a contender, unless we allow the Spit 21 as well). For the Lightning I get 675 kph for the J and 666 for the L. Thunderbolt P-47D comes in at 690 kph (forget the later models as they barely reached the frontlines). The Mustang I see listed at about 703kph for the D model (again, the H came too late to do much). The Spitfire Mk XIV reaches 720kph by what I read. Ok, can the Mustang be boosted to be faster? Probably, although the question is, was it done regularly? The rest, probably not, a 50 kph difference in speed at about 700kph would requires at least a 12% boost in power (simplified aerodynamics as drag scales with the square of velocity). So, again, while the numbers may not be accurate to the last digit, the qualitative result is sound:
Spit and Mustang about even, Thunderbolt, Lightning, Corsair in second place, Hellcat beaten far back.

As to the performance of the Hellcat in the raid on Norway that you mentioned, I read that one Hellcat was lost to the three German planes downed. Either way, one battle and 3 actual kills to one actual kill do not make a statistic! I also read about a clash between ki-61 Tonies against Hellcats over Okinawa where they downed 14 Hellcats without taking any losses themselves. Never trust a statistic you have not faked yourself. So we have to keep guessing when it comes to the performance of the Hellcat against a FW190. BTW I find it interesting that your source claims that the Hellcat would be about an even match for the BF-109 and the FW-190. I would have expected any plane that can handle a FW to handle BFs with ease. Either way I do not consider the Hellcat to be a contender for the title of best fighter of WWII. Best carrier-based fighter, probably, though the Corsair can give it a run for the money. Lightning, much the same, great in the PTO, only so-so in the ETO as a fighter.

azrael

28th December 2004, 21:52

Ickysdad,
concerning ground attack... My point was that a dedicated ground attack craft is by its very nature superior in the ground support role to a fighter-bomber. Specifically, fighter-bombers were next to incapable of killing tanks, something that was vital on the Eastern Front. Heavy machine guns and even 20mm cannons did not have the penetration to kill a Panzer IV, V (Panther), or VI (Tiger and Koenigstiger) and had problems with StuGs, Panzer III and Jagdpanther or Jagdpanzer IV. The IL-2 could kill them with their heavier cannons. Bombs and rockets were, despite popular believes to the contrary, singularly unsuited to busting tanks as they could not hit them. Sure, the IL-2 took terrible losses but it got the job done. So did the later model Ju87 with the 37mm guns. The western allies solved the problem differently. They took out the supply lines (railways, bridges) leaving the superior German tanks immobile and overwhelmed those that could fight with pure numbers of Shermans, Cromwells, Wolverines and Hellcats (the tracked ones, not the flying ones). But it took about a company of Shermans per Koenigstiger and the allied tankers took bad losses. Killing tanks from the air was a close-support mission, flying right over your own advancing troops. It required local air-superiority and the enemy DID know where you would strike. Tough-business but the IL-2 could do it, throughout the war, even when the Luftwaffe was completely superior to the Red Army Air Force. They took terrible losses from opposing fighters, true. But still, they did push the Germans back in the face of the advancing red army. Also consider the speed and distance covered on the East and the West front and the Soviets had to face far more German troops as theirs was the ONLY front in Europe in mid 43! Could they have done it without the IL-2? Probably, but way slower and with way higher losses in tanks and troops. Could they have done it using Lightning, Typhoons and Thunderbolts instead? Yes, probably, but not as well as with the IL-2. I shudder to think what losses they would have taken if their T34/76c's had been their main weapon to kill Panthers....
Was the IL-2 a flying coffin? Hell no! You put it very well yourself, without drawing the correct conclusion. Twice as many rear-gunners were killed as pilots. Is that bad? No way, see it this way, half the planes that were raked and shot up from behind by enemy fighters made it back to base! Now that is what I call survivability! It also means that they were pretty impervious to AAA as anti-airguns would kill gunners and pilots pretty indiscrimanetly (the reason why so many gunners died was that the pilot was better protected and that the armour lay-out was against AAA, not fighters swooping in from the rear). As to the issue of the Germans and western allies stating that they would not have accepted the IL-2 for service.... that makes them dumb! I can also explain why they would not have accepted it. The Germans in particular, but the western allies as well, were sticklers for product quality. Their weapons had to have a nice finish, every screw polished etc. They were acting as though they had to sell the thing on the open market. The Soviets were more practical and desperate. Looks and finish were unimportant as long as it worked. They knew they would be taking losses, so who cares about a shiny airplane lying burned out in a field compared to ten rough looking ones killing tanks while 5 of them got killed? As an anecdote to show this difference in philosophy: when the germans captured some T34 they also said that they would never let them leave the factory looking like that. Armour slapped on, the edges not smoothened out, bad paint-shops etc. Now, would you claim that they would have been right rejecting that tank? I did not think so.
Finally, as I am rambling about the IL-2 in a fighter threat, no, it was NOT a fighter and neither was it intended to be! But given air-superiority as the allies enjoyed in 44, which would you choose: an IL-2 flying close support with some fighters overhead to keep them safe or lone Thunderbolts? I think I know the answer. And yes, that WAS a realistical scenario as the allies had far more fighters than the Germans did!

Ricky

28th December 2004, 22:32

I just noticed something:
We are asking the question of what was the best fighter of the war.
Azrael put forward the Spitfire, and pretty much everybody here agreed that yes, it is the best dogfighter of the war.
However, it is being disqualified because it cannot carry a decent bombload.:D That just seems a bit silly. We are after the best fighter, not the best fighter-bomber...

Anyhow, that just tickled me...

ickysdad-
You mentioned a while back that Spitfires could go faster because they were alowed to use more boost than the P-51, and the P-51 could in theory go as fast or faster. Well so? The Spitfire was flown across the Atlantic when they gave it the same fuel load as the P-51, but that does not make the Spitfire long-ranged.

Lightning-
quote:The late-model (i.e. developed after WWII) Seafire was sent to Korea. How come nobody here seems to know that?
Me, but we are discussing the Spitfire, not the Seafire, and especially not post-WW2 variants...;)

azrael

29th December 2004, 00:03

Someone wanted kill-ratios and while I disagree with their importance as the ulitmate criterium for a fighter, here is the best I could find:

Hellcat 19:1
Corsair 11:1
Spitfire II 10:1 in the BoB, 8:1 in the CBI Theater
Mustang 10-11:1
BF-109 7:1
Thunderbolt 4.65:1
Lightning 4:1 (L 6:1)

A comment on these numbers. Except for the ones for the Thunderbolt, Corsair and Mustang as well as they ones for the Spit I consider the sources I found less than completely trustworthy. Also, it is unclear how many of the US kills were ground kills as the US credited those as well and included them in total kill numbers (to encourage fighter pilots to do some strafing). Also, the American numbers are best documented (must be a result of the American love of statistics).
A short interpretation of the numbers:
1) The P-47 and the P-38 do not come out all that well even compared to the BF-109 and especially not against the Mustang (the only other plane that flew in the same theaters and against the same opposition at the same time).
2) Spitfire is restricted to ONE single theater for the whole duration and ONE single battle otherwise. Not exactly the sort of statistic you can rely on. A note though, the Spit had a far better kill ration than the Hurricane in the BoB, the fact that the Hurricane shot down more planes was based on their far superior (something like three to one) numbers!
3) Overall these numbers are useless unless we compare the P-51, P-38 and P-47 alone. In that comparison, the P-51 comes out far ahead, so we can concentrate on that plane from the trio. Narrows our choices and makes it easier to argue the case of which fighter was the best. As Ricky said, we are discussing best fighter and who cares about bombload if the kill ratios are 2:1 against you! Fighters shoot down planes first and foremost. If a fighter is worse than another at that it cannot be the better fighter. Ground-attack craft, yes, bomber, yes, fighter, no!

azrael

29th December 2004, 00:07

BTW looking at these numbers I wonder if there was a single fighter anywhere that did not have a positive kill ratio? Also, the numbers suggest that fighter almost never killed each other but shot down other aircraft mostly (otherwise some would have kill ratios lower than 1:1). Makes you feel sorry for the poor sods in bombers, transports, ground-support, liaison, recon and whatever else aircraft.

Lightning

29th December 2004, 00:58

Hi azrael,

When you use Malta as an example, that is not a viable rejoinder to my statement regarding the Spitfire's short range limitations. I had already mentioned Malta in an earlier posting.

You keep stating that the Spitfire operated in many areas. Again, I already acknowledged that, but I also brought out the fact that their performance of these missions was on a rather ordinary scale. They did not, as they did in BoB, do anything outstanding. Just being there does not make your point. Case in point: Russia.

Regarding armament, this has been argued back and forth ad nauseum by many of the members of this forum, and to repeat everything here would add another 31 pages to this topic. Anyone interested in the points made over the last year can use the "Search" option to look them up. By the way, in the BoB--the high point of the Spitfire's career--the guns used to shoot down all those bombers were the .303s which you state are inadequate to shoot down bombers. Also, if you're implying that the Spitfire was a better ground attack aircraft against "hard" targets than the P-47 and P-38 because it had 20mm, I think it's pretty obvious, in the light of history, that you are in error.

As to the availability of types in various theaters, there were over 20,000 Spitfires built. This is over twice as many P-38s (10,000) and over 30% more than either the P-47 or p-51 (roughly 15,000 each). I'm not sure about the F4U or F6F, but I believe neither was produced in nearly the numbers as the Spitfire.

We're running in circles here. I originally stated that, to be the best fighter, an aircraft had to be able to take the fight to the enemy on a larger scale than just in air-to-air combat. The Spitfire gained, and maintained, its immortality mainly as a defenseive aircraft. Defense does not win wars!

Which fighter of WWII did the most damage to the enemy? Which fighter destroyed, to the greatest extent, the enemy's ability to wage war?
Which fighter did these things in the most areas of the conflict and over the greatest distances?

It's hard to say which of the airplanes under dicussion here meets this description, but it is quite easy to say which one doesn't: the Spitfire.

azrael

29th December 2004, 01:28

Lightning,
where is the relevance of the Spitfire's performance in the Soviet Union as none of your contenders was used by the Soviets at all (ignoring the monstrous number of 100 Thunderbolts and 4 Mustangs). As I stated before, you can only compare two things under the same conditions. The Soviets did use the Spitfire by the way, in their air defense command, but they saw little action. I assume that was caused by the deterioration of the Luftwaffe's offensive capabilities, there were no axis bombers for them to intercept.
Ok, you do not want to mention Malta anymore, despite the fact that the Spit earned a good rep there as well and that was your original challenge. What about North Africa? Or the CBI where the Spit raked up a 8:1 kill ratio as I just posted? Or the Normandy? The Spit flew there as well, not in the same numbers as the Jug, but hey, there just was a lot more Jugs around.
Either way, you have made a lot of arguments of why the Spit is not the best fighter plane by pointing out other planes that performed better in a given mission. But, as Ricky already said, even you admitted that the Spitfire was the best dogfighter and somehow that should count big-time for the best fighter discussion. On top of that, you never name one SINGLE fighter that could do it better in all roles. Sure the Mustang had better range, sure the Thunderbolt was a better ground-support aircraft, sure the Hellcat had a better kill ratio, sure the Lightning was more rugged and so on. But so far you failed to name ONE contender for the title of best fighter. Not ten, each in their best role, but ONE. Come on, put forward your champion, let him put up his dukes and THEN we can slug it out on even terms.

azrael

29th December 2004, 02:51

Lightning, damn it, my browser keeps swallowing half your posts...
Here is the reply to the rest of your statements.
Let us begin with how we measure effectiveness of a fighter. Most damage done directly? Bad measurement as the Mustang would fall short as well as the Spitfire. Most damage done directly implies a fighter-bomber, not a fighter. I would say when we compare damage we WOULD have to go with "most damage done as a result of the actions of the fighter". But that is a rather intangible quantity, so we would fail miserably to assign a value to any aircraft. Biggest contribution to the war effort, we might be hitting gold there and then I do not see how the Spitfire draws up short with its vital contribution everywhere (the BoB would probably have been lost without it, so would have been North Africa and the Mediteranian, maybe Burma. Would the war have been won by the allies IF those campaigns had been lost? Maybe, but it would have been a lot harder for the allies). All of your planes contributed to the war effort, beginning in early 1943. But there might not have been a war to contribute to without the Spitfire. In those terms the Spitfire caused a lot of damage indirectly, namely all damage done by the allies after the end of 1942. NOTE: Before you rip me apart for this overly simplified statement, it was meant as an extreme and not as particularly accurate. All I am saying is that damage done as in troops killed, tanks destroyed, factories blown up, airplanes shot down can be very misleading. Take the Germans, they caused IMMENSE ammounts of damage, especially on the Eastern front, probably a lot more than the allies did (especially if you consider neutralizing or even swallowing the economy of their occupied territories). Did it win them the war? Nope, and that is not something you can argue with.

Next, numbers of Spitfires available. Yes there were over 20,000 Spitfires available, but you cannot really count early models compared to the P-47s, P-38s and P-51 (which started to see service in late 1942). Here is the production numbers for the late models (production after mid 1942):
VIII 1,658 examples
IX 5,665 examples
XIV 957 examples
XVI 1,054 examples
Meaning about 10,000 overall. Compared to that there were:
P-51D 8,102 examples
P-47D 12,602 examples
P-38J 2,973 examples
P-38L 3,923 examples
F4U1 8,663 examples
F4U4 2,556 examples
F6F3 4,423 examples
F6F5 6,436 examples
Hmm, all of the sudden the production figures look pretty even for all aircraft considered, do they not (leaving aside the Lightning at 6,000). If we look at the versions we are discussing here, Spit XIV and for arguments sake the Spit XVI, P-51D, P-47D and P-38L each of the American fighters was produced at least TWICE as often as the Spit. So, yes, I would say that they were available in far greater numbers.
More to follow (as soon as my browser agrees to play more of your post :D)

azrael

29th December 2004, 07:21

One more thing I forgot....
"defense does not win wars"... interesting statement and one that I hear often. It is true in a way, you have to be on the offense to win the war in the end. But I could be saying the same about offense, "offense (alone) does not win wars" or all of continental Europe would be speaking German and all of East Asia Japanese as they were on the offense for a long time and quite succefully. I think it is fair to say that you need both offense and defense, as without offense you cannot win but without defense you will loose. Defense just has a tendency of seeming less spectacular in the long run than offense. Who remembers the British RAF marshall (I guess) who won the BoB? Who remembers the commanding officer on Malta in 1941-42? Who remembers the names of the valiant defenders of Moscow in 1941? Very few non-historians I am willing to bet! Yet they did as much to win the war as a Monty or a Patton, a Sukov or an Eisenhower or a Harris! Take a look at any strategic game. Chess, soccer, basketball, american football. The top teams or the top players are quite often the ones with a great defense, more often than with a great offense. And yet it is the offense that always gets the glory. Human nature I guess.

azrael

29th December 2004, 10:08

And yet another post in response to Lightning (hectic day here, did not have enough time to address every issue at once and there was a lot of them there.)
quote:I originally stated that, to be the best fighter, an aircraft had to be able to take the fight to the enemy on a larger scale than just in air-to-air combat.
...
Which fighter of WWII did the most damage to the enemy? Which fighter destroyed, to the greatest extent, the enemy's ability to wage war?
Which fighter did these things in the most areas of the conflict and over the greatest distances?

Using that definition of the best fighter, I agree with you, the Spitfire was not even a mediocre fighter. Almost all damage it ever did to the enemy was shoot down some airplanes at short range. Not exactly point-defense, as you put it, but short range. Any half-way decent fighter-bomber did better than the Spit, hell, the P-40 was probably a better fighter by that definition even. It would also reduce almost every single axis fighter to pure mediocricy. The FW190 and the BF109 were both short-legged at 900km and 700km respectively (same as the Spit XIV for the BF109) and could not carry more than 1000kg of bombs. The Italian G55 had a better range at 1200km but could only carry 300kg of bombs. The Zero had good range at about 2000km but could only carry 130kg of bombs. The Ki-84 could not carry any bombs, making it completely useless by your definition. Does this match the general perception of the quality of these planes?

Using your definition I would go as far as saying that the B-24, the B-17 or the Lancaster was the best fighter of the war. But I do not want to sound (too) sarcastical, you DID mention the word "fighter" in your post from which I deduce that your best fighter would have to have some sort of air-to-air capability, however secondary it would be to its range and bomb-load. I furthermore deduce that this very secondary air-to-air capability would have to go beyond merely defensive armament. In that sense I guess the P-47D would grab the title of best fighter (easy despite your claim that it would be hard to decide as the P-47D was a good air-to-air combatant, had pretty god range and carried a lot of bombs. In fact, it dropped more ordinance than any other western single-seater, to the best of my knowledge).

However, I find your definition singularly lacking in defining a FIGHTER. It would be the perfect definition for the most effective fighter-bomber (not the best, but the most effective). That is however a different question and a seperate thread on this forum. To distinguish fighters from fighter-bombers we have to stress the air-to-air capability as the PRIMARY characteristic. Range is relevant as one true fighter mission, long-range escort requires it as the name would imply. It is however not the ONLY characteristic of a good fighter. Another interesting little fact: most fighter-bombers were former fighters that had successors more suitable to the air-to-air role. The Thunderbolt and the Lightning are great examples of this. Once primarily used as fighters they were replaced by the Mustang as long-range escorts. The USAAF, being smart, was looking around for other things to do for those planes and realized that they could be equipped with bombs and rockets and could make themselves useful in ground-support roles. E voila, they had become fighter-bombers (and excellent ones at that). But does it bode well for a fighter to be relegated to another role because there were better planes available for their originally intended air-to-air role? I think not. The Spitfire however continued to be build and improved while sticking to its original role, fighter as in air-to-air combat (at short range admittedly). Now, I think it is fair to assume that the Brits were just as smart as the USAAF and that they did so based on the fact that the Spitfire did fill a vital niche in the total concept of aerial warfare. And it did, even you admitted that it was second to none in air-to-air combat. Did THAT make the Spitfire the best fighter? Yes, I think so, but the point is up for argument or we would not be talking about this at length.

You are of course free to disagree with me on this, that is what makes discussions such as this so much fun, controversy.

GregP

29th December 2004, 11:10

Azrael,

I'd define a fighter was an aircraft designed form the outset to do several tasks:

1) Dominate the skies in an air superiority role by virtue of highest performance, best armament, and superior piloting. This is offensive air operations at its best.

2) Defend the home skies against attacking enemy aircraft. This includes night opertions.

3) Escort friendly bombers to and from a target area and drive off any attacking enemy. This does NOT mean shoot down enemy fighters; it means to deny the attacking enemy aircraft the opportunity to shoot down the friedly bombers. There is quite a difference in the two, and a fighter has no opportunity to affect the aim of enemy anti-aircraft gunners unless they are attack the ground emplacements. If they are doing so, they are not defending the bombers against attacking enemy aircraft.

4) Fly reconaissance missions as required; both pre-strike and post strike.

5) Fly ground support missions as required and attack such targets as present themselves when doing so. This could mean troops, armor, trains, etc. SOmetimes, the ground attack mission is more important than the air-to-air mission. That typically copmes once air superiority has been won, but CAN come at any time when the commander requires it.

Personally, I contend the best fighter sircraft of all times was the Grumman Hellcat with the 19:1 kill ratio. In your statements above, you say that kill ratio is not all that important but in other statements, you say a fighter is made to shoot down enemy aircraft.

C'mon Azrael, can't have it both ways.

Kill atio is the best indicator of air-to-air ability.

That takes into account the aircraft, the pilot, the armament, and the quality of aircraft, pilot, and armament of the enemy. If that isn't an indicator of a great fighter, then WHAT IS?

Yes, the Spitfire was important and helped win the BOB, thus ensuring all the other fighters had an opportunity to fight later. However, the Hurricane was there and so were Fairely Battles, Bristol Blenheims, etc. The Spitfire was the class of the fighters, obviously, but the Hurricanes contributed more to winning the BOB by attacking the bombers. History agrees with me on that one, and so do most Englishmen.

Anyway, I say it is the Grumman Hellcat, in spades, with far-and-away the best air-to-air kill ratio of any piston-engined fighter aircraft of all times ... that being the best indicator of a fighter in the air-to-air role which, like you, I think is the most important task of a fighter.

It was only after WWII, when the cost of a tactical aircraft began to rise alarmingly, that "multi-role" aircraft were saddled with twing engines and two aircrew. After that, I don't consider them "fighters" anymore ... just crew-served weapon systems. At least the F-22 Raptor goes back to a single seat configuration, even if it IS bigger than an F-15! Note the F-35 is ALSO a single seater!

Maybe the Pentagon CAN learn from experience! After the last 40 years, I had not thought it possible.

ickysdad

29th December 2004, 12:10

Guys you are totally missing my point on higher grade fuels what I'm saying is that that 446MPH figure for the XIV that is normally quoted for it is with boost and 150 octane fuel ,as per a test by the RAF between it & the Mustang with said test showing the 446MPH figure as the highest speed for that plane.. Now yes most Mustangs were boosted in the field and ran on 150 octane fuel when it became availiable and this is accoording to Mustang pilots themselves who you can find on mustangsmustangs.com .. So what I'm getting at is the uneven playing field in regards to the XIV's speed it's gets full boost and is allowed to use 150 octane fuel for comparison's purposes but a P-51,P-47,P-38 ,F6F or F4U isn't. Now granted the only field mod's for boosting an engines was for the Mustang you can still use higher grade fuels in an unmodified engine with which a plane may or not match,come close to,or exceed a XIV's top speed but it's not fair to compare one plane's top speed to another's when gets to use an advantage also availiable to the other.

azrael

29th December 2004, 17:10

Hi there GregP,
I never contended the fact that kill ratios CAN be indicative of air-to-air performance. What I did however say was that you can only compare kill ratios won under similar circumstances and against similar enemies. There is however no other plane besides the Corsair that shares those circumstances with the Hellcat. If you reread my post carefully you will notice that my comparison was restricted to the Lightning and the Thunderbolt that did serve in both theaters at roughly the same time. As a result, both my statements are correct as they are not contradicting after a more than cursory glance. The post concerning the kill-ratio in the CBI was in response to Lightnings challenge to pose another campaign or theater where the Spitfire did well. Never said that kill ratios by themselves do not carry a certain meaning, just that comparing two ratios won under very very different curcumstances is misleading at best and sheer nonsense at worst.

Now to your choice of plane. Leaving aside the kill ratio which cannot really be compared to any other plane in the contest, except maybe the Corsair, what makes your Hellcat the best? It did not distinguish itself as a long range escort or a fighter bomber. It lacks distinctively in performance compared the Spitfire, it was slower, had a far lower climb rate, was not as maneuvrable and lighter armed. It was more rugged, granted. As you yourself said, the Spit was probably the best air-to-air fighter, if not much more than that. The Hellcat would by that own admission have to be second best and does not really distinguish itself in any of the other roles you mentioned either. In short, I do not see where it is the best fighter. Best carrier-based fighter, sure, I will grant you that, but best fighter? Not even close.

azrael

29th December 2004, 17:16

GregP,
one other thing..... you said
quote:Escort friendly bombers to and from a target area and drive off any attacking enemy. This does NOT mean shoot down enemy fighters; it means to deny the attacking enemy aircraft the opportunity to shoot down the friedly bombers. There is quite a difference in the two, and a fighter has no opportunity to affect the aim of enemy anti-aircraft gunners unless they are attack the ground emplacements. If they are doing so, they are not defending the bombers against attacking enemy aircraft.
I would like to correct you on that point. The USAAF found out quickly that close escort of bombers (which is what you describe here, fighters sticking to the bombers, fending off attacking interceptors) was not very effective. It was after they let the escorts roam more freely, allowing them to engage enemy fighters away from the bombers with the intention of downing them, that the losses in bombers dropped dramatically. Basically, escorting bombers became very similar to air-superiority patrols at that point.

azrael

29th December 2004, 17:24

Ickysdad,
I am afraid you missed the point of the reply as well. I said that while the precise numbers for speeds might not have been completely accurate the qualitative result should remain about the same except for the case of the Mustang which should pull even with the Spit XIV, maybe a tiny bit faster even. but the difference in speed is too high compared to the Corsair, Lightning and most of all Hellcat for any fuel or any boost to cover the gap. Yes, you are right, no it does not change the results in quality.

simon

29th December 2004, 18:13

I believe Azrael has said it already, but I would just like to add my own comments here.

"Kill ratio is the best indicator of air-to-air ability."

No it isn't, it's a statistic and like all statistics is subject to misinterpretation.

Kill Ratio is an indicator of several factors, yes air-to-air ability might be one of them but as the Hellcat's own example proves the quality and quantity of the opposition are probably at least as important as the quality of the aircraft concerned.

Also factored into this must be the opportunity to engage the enemy.

"1) Dominate the skies in an air superiority role by virtue of highest performance, best armament, and superior piloting. This is offensive air operations at its best."

Honestly Greg, how can you factor superior piloting into an aircraft's design? Yes pilot's skills will probably make or break the success of any aircraft, but they are more an indicator of the weaknesses of the airforce's training regimes not the aircraft.

To go by this logic no good Japanese fighter aircraft were available post Guadalcanal since past this point their pilot quality deteriority so badly.

Take that out and it leaves superior performance and armament.

"2) Defend the home skies against attacking enemy aircraft. This includes night opertions."

Spitfires did perform some night interceptions during the Battle of Britain. They tended to be used more on days than nights from very early on since there were aircraft less suited to operating by day and the Spits were badly needed by dad.

"3) Escort friendly bombers to and from a target area and drive off any attacking enemy."

Again a role the Spitfire performed, and performed well, and was almost as capable as the Mustang of performing when the additional tanks were added into the fuselage in some MkXIVs.

"4) Fly reconaissance missions as required; both pre-strike and post strike."

PR Spitfires carried a great deal of the Photographic reconaissance work for the RAF and were so troublesome that the Luftwaffe at one point specially converted some Bf109s to try and catch them!

"5) Fly ground support missions as required and attack such targets as present themselves when doing so. This could mean troops, armor, trains, "

Again, the Spitfire had the capability to deal with pretty much any of the tactical targets it might be called upon to attack. It might not do so with quite such success as a Thunderbolt, Corsair or Hellcat, but it could "Fly ground support missions as required".

I will say again though, forget about attacking armour as a target of opportunity, none of the contenders here carried standard armaments of sufficient strength to even worry any Medium or Heavy tank.

So the Spitfire can perform in all the roles you stated and with the exception of sheer poundage of bombs and range with drop tanks could do so almost as well if not better than its other contemporaries.

"Personally, I contend the best fighter sircraft of all times was the Grumman Hellcat with the 19:1 kill ratio. In your statements above, you say that kill ratio is not all that important but in other statements, you say a fighter is made to shoot down enemy aircraft."

I'm sorry but that's simply not true, as the Hellcat is clearly outclassed by the standards of the 1950s and 1960s how can it possibly be the best fighter of all time?

Kill ratio is not all that important because it can be so very misleading.

In any case and hoping to open out the debate a bit more before it stagnates, there were some other excellent fighters out there, notably on the German and Russian sides (Some of the very late Italian planes too), why don't we broaden out the debate to mention some of those as well?

One last point from me, last time a discussion turned to Kill Ratios it also got slightly unpleasant, let's not let this one go the same way.

Falco

30th December 2004, 01:15

The Best kill ratio had the finnish AF "Buffalo's" ! 26 : 1
But i guess noone would say it was the best fighter of its day.
Perhaps its all to PILOT's ability - Yugoslav pilots used Avia BH33
fighter of 1926 design,2*7.9mm;304 kph;etc. and scored against SM 79
& MC 200 Saeta.

Lightning

30th December 2004, 01:35

Hi azrael,

First off, there's nothing wrong with your computer; the problem is on this end. I am forced to use the computers here at the local U.S.Army library. It's great as long as no one else is waiting in line, but if they are, I have to log off and wait my turn again. In these cases, I may have to return to my unfinished posting in order to complete it. Sorry for the confusion.

When I said "damage", I was referring to the damage done to the enemy's effectiveness in waging war--both at the tactical and strategic levels. Shooting up a freight train is important, but knocking out the bridge it must cross effectively knocks out all the the other trains that must use that bridge. Which does the most "damage"?

Now lets get to the point of this response.

You called on me to declare my choice for best overall fighter of WWII. My choice is the P-38L Lightning. I state the "L" model because it could do everything any-and-all of its predecessors could do and do it better. It could also do quite a few thing they could not do.

It was a fine air-to-air fighter. The shortcomings of earlier models had been completely solved or tamed.(The problem of compressibility was never completely solved by any WWII fighter.) With the more powerful engines, better cooling, the maneuvering flaps, power-boosted ailerons, and the dive flaps, it could, and did, take on the best the enemy had (in all theaters) and won. It was also able to perform from sea level to 44,000 feet--its best speed being 414 mph at 25,000 feet-- without any modifications to wings or engines. All this while having a range of 2600 mi with large drop tanks (not at that altitude).

In the interceptor role, it was able to reach 20,000 feet in a published time of 7.0 min. It could, however, do better than that. On Dec. 2, 1943, a "J-10" model attained 20,000 feet in 6.19 min. during an in-service test. (As I said at the outset the "L" could do at least as well.) Its nose-mounted machinegun/cannon armament was enough to devastate any bomber in the world.

As a fighter bomber (although it never was designed to be one), it was as second to none, the P-47 notwithstanding. The Thunderbolt flew more missions as such, and therby dropped more ordnance, but that was largely due to there being far more of them deployed in that role.

The "Big L" could carry more than 4000 lbs of bombs; it could carry 310 gal drop tanks; it could mount 10 a/g rockets; and it had the demonstrated-ability to carry and launch two 2000 lb aerial torpedos.

The concentrated firepower in its nose (4 x .50 cal; 1 x 20 mm) made it one of the best straffing fighters of the war. It DID knock out enemy armor, as well as motor convoys, artillery emplacements, flak towers, rolling stock, troop concentrations, harbor facilities, coastal shipping, enemy warships, and more.

The choice of the P-38's gun array was not an oversight of the effectiveness of the 20mm. A proposal calling for the use of 4 x 20mm was considered. It was determined that this battery of 20mm would deplete its entire load of ammunition in 5.13 seconds! The standard P-38 armament, on the other hand, provided 40 seconds of fire. For a fighter to defend against intercepting fighters en route to the target area, attack the target (or defend the bombers in the case of long-range escort), and defend itself on the way home, 5.13 seconds was just not enough.

The Lightning was also used in the strategic bombing role. It conducted "Droop-Snoot" missions on clear days and "Bomb-Through-Overcast" missions on cloudy days using radar instead of a bombardier in the lead airplane. Another demonstration of the strategic capability of the P-38 was the raid, using only Lightnings, on the Ploiesti oil refinery. This attack did as much to slow its operations as did the more-highly publicised B-24 raids that followed shortly after.

The "L" was modified to be the premier photo-recon fighter of the entire war. It had a greater array of cameras positiond in the most advantageous location--in the nose where the field of observation was unresricted by wings, engines, or propellers. The F-5G-6 had an endurance time of 14.5 hrs, and a range of 3750 miles!

At the war's end, a number of "L"s were modified to be night fighters. This was the "M" model. It was not a "hunt-by-sight" night fighter, but a radar-equipped aircraft with a radar operator seated in a special position behind the pilot.

In addition to the above, the Lightning was used for other, not-so-glamorous, but important nontheless, jobs. It was sucessfully mounted on skis; it demonstrated its ability to tow gliders; it was used as a high-speed, frontline ambulance; and it served as an airborne command post and VIP transport. It also carried out very important Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) missions.

The P-38L was capable of doing all of these tasks without any major modifications to its basic design and configuration (except, arguably, in the case of the F-5G and the P-38M). It was "off the shelf, out of the box, and good to go". And it was, in every sense of the word, a fighter.

There you have my "Champion".

Regards,
Lightning

JoeB

30th December 2004, 07:01

Hellcat 19:1
Corsair 11:1
Spitfire II 10:1 in the BoB, 8:1 in the CBI Theater
Mustang 10-11:1
BF-109 7:1
Thunderbolt 4.65:1
Lightning 4:1 (L 6:1)

A big problem with kill ratio's besides the obvious things mentioned (against what opposition?) is the issue of real v. claimed kills. In the list above there is a semi contradiction, not a literal absolute one but still a suggested one, between Bf-109 7:1 and several main Bf-109 opponents also several to one. Part of this is of course Soviet opposition to Bf-109's early in the war, and lesser Western types as well, but part is pretty obviously because claimed kills in the numerator for one side considerably exceeded actual losses in the denominator of the other side's kill ratio. Which would not be a problem if the ratio of overclaim was always around the same for all AF's and situations, but that's not true at all, it varied very widely, even for the same air arm over time.

For example in post BoB early fighting over France, RAF's overclaims were notoriously high, claims several times German losses, much worse than BoB where overclaim was already considerable. Later on Allied (and therefore Spit) claims in ETO were fairly accurate. So an all-war Spit kill ratio is nearly completely meaningless for that reason alone, IMO. Btw Spits were on wrong end of around 20:1 ratio against the Japanese when defending Darwin in 1943, only one JNAF fighter seems to have actually been downed in that campaign by a Spit, despite many more claims, v. 20 some Spits, though some by bomber defensive fire, not counting heavy operational losses to fuel, etc. It was the Spit's worst showing in WWII.

simon

30th December 2004, 07:09

But wasn't much of that down to partly the big, ugly Vokes filters, but mostly the Spitfire pilot's inexperience vs the Japanese pilot's still superior abilities at the time?

JoeB

30th December 2004, 11:24

But wasn't much of that down to partly the big, ugly Vokes filters, but mostly the Spitfire pilot's inexperience vs the Japanese pilot's still superior abilities at the time?

It's like the lady on the old US comedy show "it's always something". And it always is, for the successes of Allied types also esp. later in the Pacific. Lots of if/buts can usually be be pointed to, often validly, by the side on the short end of the ratio.

However as for tropicalization and delicacy of Spit, not a good performer in primitive conditions, the other Allied and Japanese types had to perform in similar, or worse (think Henderson field quality of plane maintenance at height of Guadalcanal campaign, airfield under constant air and even arty attack) conditions.

The previous year USN and USMC F4F's came out even (real not claimed) v. JNAF A6M's, right from the get go. The JNAF had already had some of the stuffing knocked out of it, by Wildcats more than any other type, by the time Spits met them in '43. It's one of the most remarkable comparisons of the war IMO, that the F4F was so superior in actual results to the Spitfire against the A6M, a prediction that would never be made based on a paper analysis of F4F and Spit, even Spit Vc (tropical). A clear historical example of how much air combat really is about pilots rather than planes.

Joe

ickysdad

30th December 2004, 12:51

The XIV hit 359 MPH at sea level with 18 lbs. boost & 100 octane fuel while hitting 389 MPH on 25lb. boost and 150 octane fuel(the Mustang with 25 lb. boost & 150 grade fuel hit 405-410 MPH at this altitude) which leads me to belive that the 446 MPH figure at altitude is with the extra boost & 150 fuel. It also seems that planes get a good 25-30 MPH gain when using both higher grade fuel and extra boost. I've found another fighter that had extra boost ,the P-38L was modified with it's engines pulling 1725 HP instead of the stock 1425 HP ,i.e. extra boost & higher grade fuel resulting in it hitting a little over 440 MPH at altitude( basically equal to the XIV's) compared to the stock version's top speed of about 414 MPH. Now the radials of the F4U, F6F, and P-47 I feel almost certainly could have taken a field mod to increase manifold pressure which when added to burning higher grade fuel would add about 25-30 more MPH to thier top speeds as follows F4U stock high speed of 417 MPH, P-47 about 423-425 MPH and F6F at 409 MPH(azrael this figure for the F6F is from Francus Dean's America's 100,000 & Erich Brown's Duels in the Sky's).
IMHO the XIV is still faster than the F6F,P-47,F4U and P-38 but not as much as we may have been lead to believe.

GregP

30th December 2004, 15:55

Hi Simon,

I suppose we must agree to disagree. Piloting is part of aircraft operation including fighters, and the Hellcat's pilots shot down more aircraft in the Pacific than any other Allied or Axis plane. They were not present in any great numbers in the European theater, and so probably there were no "Hellcat Experts" in Europe. Despite that, the Hellcat kill ratio was 50% better than the next closest contender, piston or jet, Allied or Axis.

Hello? You there?

Spitfires never did much escort duties, even after they got gas tanks. Some, yes, but not much in comparison with their peers who were famous for escort duty. They are a zero as escorts simply by lack of participation, not by quality of airframe, pilot, or armament.

Performance-wise, I doubt the Spitfire's ability to outmaneuver the Hellcat except in roll. The Hellcat could turn with a Zero and and the Spitfire could not. So who is exaggerating here?

Could the Spitfire outclimb a Hellcat? Sure, maybe double; maybe not. Effectiveness? No way, the Hellcat was head and shoulder above the Spitfire in combat effectiveness. Look at kills achieved versus air-to-air combat losses.

A 19 to 1 kill ratio proves it in spades.

So you don't agree. Oh well, fighter pilots DO agree that kill ratio is a great predictor of combat effectiveness. Note I do not say Norweigan planes or British planes, but aircraft types.

The Brewster Buffalo as a type is woefully indaeqate; probably near the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 as a loser. The Hellcat is on the other end of the spectrum, WAY past the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Corsair, the Bf-109, the Fw-190, the P-38, or any other type in existence up to and inclduing the F-82, the F-86, the F-4 Phantom, and every other jet type until electronics elevated the F-15 to the status of "King." Note the F-15 is a single seater in most variants except the F-15E, particularly in the models that actually shot down enemy aircraft.

OK, you are a Spitfire nut. Me too.

I just see the Hellcat as the best, bar none , based on kill ratio. So did David McCampbell and Boots Blesse when I met him in Arizona. To him, kill ratio was supreme. According to Boots, every fighter jock in Korea was into "kill ratio" as the statistic of meaning.

I agree with them and you do not. That's OK with me. I am secure in my choice.

Since it is unlikely in the extreme that I will be appointed Secretary of Defense in the U.S.A. or Defence Minister in Great Britian, we should not quarrel over this. If I DO get elected or appointed, I'd scrap some US and/or English planes in favor of single-seat air superiority fighters. It ain't likely to happen, so rest easy.

Agreement to disagree is ALSO fun.

Go Spits! Almost as good as Hellcats! I'd take either without preference unless I was facing a Japanese WWII fighter. If so, give me a Hellcat; I'd be MUCH better off ... based on facts instead of emotion.

simon

30th December 2004, 17:48

"A 19 to 1 kill ratio proves it in spades."

Here we go again, a 19:1 kill ratio proves only that it was superior in use to the enemy it faced. I'd argue that in the Pacific at least this was as much due to the tactics employed and skills of the pilot, this does not make it a superior machine and that is essentially what we are discussing here, which was the best machine not which was the best air force.

I'll say again, going by your logic on pilot superiority there were no good Japanese planes post Guadalcanal since their pilot quality dipped so suddenly and dramatically by that point, ditto some of the very late war German planes.

Are you seriously suggesting that the likes of the Ta152 was a poor plane because most of the Experten it would have needed to make a difference were dead?

Yes, Kill Ratios are interesting, but you MUST take them in context, and taking them in context means taking the quality of the enemy into account.

Personally I have never heard of Hellcats out-turning Zeroes, they out-performed them and out manouevred them by benefit of the Thach Weave, but I can't recall a single reference to them out-turning them.

The Spitfire pilots who were shot down over Darwin probably hadn't even heard of the Thach Weave, and probably tried a conventional turning dogfight with the Zeroes. My guess is that under identical circumstances most other fighters would have suffered likewise.

This is not being emotive, this is not trying to make excuses, I'm just trying to establish a sensible reason why an aircraft that faired so well elsewhere did so dismally here, the only reasons I can think of that make sense are pilot quality and tactics.

...and Greg I really can't accept that the Hellcat was in your own words: "...WAY past the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Corsair, the Bf-109, the Fw-190, the P-38, or any other type in existence up to and inclduing the F-82, the F-86...", it was good, used with the right tactics and under the right circumstances it got results, but does that seriously make it WAY past any other fighter until the F-82 and F-86? To paraphrase yourself that seems to me to be based on emotions instead of facts.

I can clearly see that nothing is going to convince you that Kill-Ratios taken with no regard to context are not the be all and end all of a fighter's capabilities.

Had the Hellcat replaced the Mustang as escort fighter in the ETO, do you seriously believe that it still would have achieved this famous 19:1 Kill-Ratio?

simon

30th December 2004, 17:57

"Spitfires never did much escort duties, even after they got gas tanks. Some, yes, but not much in comparison with their peers who were famous for escort duty. They are a zero as escorts simply by lack of participation, not by quality of airframe, pilot, or armament."

Oh please surely we can distinguish between participation and capabilities in aircraft? If that's not the case going by your own criteria:

"2) Defend the home skies against attacking enemy aircraft. This includes night opertions."

Well, arguably pretty much every US aircraft has to be a "zero" there because with the possible exceptions of Hawaii (Was that technically a US State in WWII? I'm asking because I genuinely do not know!) and the Fu-Go balloons the "Home Skies" did not require defending throughout the war!

Am I suggesting that this means that the P-40, Mustang, Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat, Lightning etc... are incapable of acting as home defence interceptors?

Of course not (in fact Lightning has made a very strong case that the P-38 is probably the best in this area)!

But surely we have the common sense here to distinguish between an aircraft's capabilities and the roles it mainly undertook?!?

azrael

30th December 2004, 21:40

Hi there everyone, whoo a load of new posts, let me try do address them in order (though I will push Lightning to the back as his post was of a different nature (he put forward an actual contender with a score of very good and valid arguments).
So, let us start with JoeB and GregP as they both use kill ratios as the main point in judging the quality of a fighter.

First of, let me address the precision of US kill-ratios. B-17 gunners claimed a kill ratio of 6:1 during the unescorted daylight attacks into Germany. The USAAF found these so impressive that daylight bombing without escorts continued for a while. Were those claims correct? Hell, no, the B-17s got slaughtered and the whole concept of unescorted bombing was scrapped! B-29 pilots claimed a 10:1 kill ratio and still the USAAF developed the P-47N to escort them despite the P-47s rather moderate kill-ratio of 4:1. Sounds like a dumb idea if your bombers alone can do it so much better! What I am trying to say is that kill-ratio, in addition to their highly suspicious validity in COMPARING two aircrafts have little or no significance in judging the capabilities of a fighter.

Second, the defense of Darwin. I found some sources on the internet, that dispute the claims of Spitfires being massacred by the Japanese.
quote:Number One Fighter Wing, known as the "Churchill Wing", became operational in January 1943, scoring their first victory on 6 February. Shortly after on 2 March, the Wing's Spitfires led by the legendary Wing Commander Clive Caldwell came up against Zeros - the first time the two types had met over Australian skies. The Spitfire pilots immediately took the upper hand, bringing down two Zeros without loss - a portend of what was to come.

These early encounters were the start of what became a highly successful air defence campaign, and by the end of the year the seasoned fighter pilots of No 1 Fighter Wing had gained total air superiority, and had claimed over 100 victories. The Japanese withdrew and the attacks of Darwin ceased.
http://wings-fine-arts.ebusiness-apps.com/estore/4383.htm

The following website does give a detailed, blow by blow accounting of the Darwin-Raids:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/history/campaign/darwinraids.html
of which I will quote one or two....
quote:The Japanese returned to Darwin in strength on 20 June 1943. The
Spitfires intercepted the formation of 21 bombers and 21 fighters,
shooting down 9 bombers and 5 fighters. Two Spitfire pilots were shot
down and killed.
The following is probably the one that JoeB was referring to:
quote:On 2 May 1943 the Japanese again attacked with a force of 20 bombers and
20 Zeros. Spitfires intercepted the Japanese and shot down six aircraft
and probably destroyed 4 more as well as damaging 8 others. Five
Spitfires were shot down and two pilots killed. However eight Spitfires
were forced to land through engine failure or shortage of fuel, although
six of these aircraft were later recovered. The press obtained the
casualty figures which resulted in press speculation that the Spitfires
had not done well against the attacking Japanese. The next raids
were against the airfield on Millingimbi Island east of Darwin. On 9
May, the Japanese raid killed twelve servicemen and civilians. Next day,
the Japanese were back but six Spitfires were able to intercept the
enemy force and brought down two Zeros and a float plane. However, the
Japanese sank a store ship and destroyed two aircraft and damaged three
others. The third and last attack on Millingimbi took place on 28 May.
Spitfires destroyed three bombers but two Spitfires with their pilots
disappeared into the Arafura Sea.
Here is a short account of the first encounter between Spits and Zeros:
quote: Spitfires had their first major clashes with the Japanese on 2 and 15
March 1943. On the 2nd, 16 bombers attacked the Beaufighter base at
Coomalie about 100 kilometres south of Darwin. The Spitfires destroyed
three aircraft. On the 15th, Darwin town was hit by a mixed group of 40
to 50 bombers and fighters. The Spitfires shot down seven and probably
destroyed another seven aircraft. Four Spitfires were lost but the only
casualty was the Commanding Officer of No. 452 Squadron.
Do these accounts look like a slaughter of the Spitfires? I do not really think so. Sure, you can contest the accuracy of these claims, but the same can be said about any other kill-ratio, leading us full circle to the fact that kill-ratios are not as good an argument as they would seem. I cannot stress it again, "Never trust a statistic you have not faked yourself"!

GregP, your statement is simply not sound, sorry to say so.
quote:The Brewster Buffalo as a type is woefully indaeqate; probably near the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 as a loser. The Hellcat is on the other end of the spectrum, WAY past the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Corsair, the Bf-109, the Fw-190, the P-38, or any other type in existence up to and inclduing the F-82, the F-86, the F-4 Phantom, and every other jet type until electronics elevated the F-15 to the status of "King."
Yes I agree with it, the Buffalo was NOT a great plane! But, you yourself keep saying "kill-ratio, kill-ratio, all that matters, kill-ratio". There you have it. The 26:1 kill-ration of the Finnnish Buffalos gives you what YOU asked for! It might not support YOUR fave plane, but by your own standards it is a valid claim! Yup, you said that we cannot seperate kill-ratios in different theaters. Well, the Hellcat only flew in the Pacific and the Finnish Buffalo only in, surprise Finnland. That makes their kill-ratios equally comparable to those of other planes, not at all! Sure you can keep insisting on non-comparable kill-ratios as the only stat that counts. But then you have to crown the Buffalo.

quote:Performance-wise, I doubt the Spitfire's ability to outmaneuver the Hellcat except in roll. The Hellcat could turn with a Zero and and the Spitfire could not. So who is exaggerating here?
Where or when could the Hellcat outturn a Zero? They could outmaneuver it using their superior engine power and climb-rate, going into energy-maneuvring. Outturn, no way, no major fighter of WWII on the allied side could do that. As to the Spitfire outturning a Hellcat, not sure, but I would think so and by a good margin!

One more comment concerning kill-ratios (as that part of the discussion is getting old fast).
quote:I just see the Hellcat as the best, bar none , based on kill ratio. So did David McCampbell and Boots Blesse when I met him in Arizona. To him, kill ratio was supreme. According to Boots, every fighter jock in Korea was into "kill ratio" as the statistic of meaning.
Wow, fighter pilots being into kill-ratios, what a surprise. How else could they have proven their machismo and their pride in their planes if not in kill-ratios? If generals were into kill-ratios, now that would be an indicator of their importance as their decisions are the ones that get fighters build or not.

When it comes to the precision of kill-ratios, I find it interesting that most of the numbers for kill-ratios concern US sources. Why is that? Because everyone else sucked so badly that they were to ashamed to put their kill-ratios forward? Could be, but somehow I doubt it. Could it be the American love for statistics (just open any american newspaper to the sports page and you will see what I mean)? Almost definitely. Also, whenever I see kill-ratios discussed, I hear how many planes the Americans lost on a given day or mission as indicated by their statistics. That IS a rather accurate number, I agree. But I have rarely seen the same diligence applied to the losses of the other side. Sometimes because they are not existing or because they are kept under cover. The end result of these "more accurate" statistics is that the losses of US planes gets corrected downwards to the correct number, while the losses of their opponents gets guessed at (wanna bet if the deviation from the "true" number is upwards or downwards?). Again, that makes the numbers very very dubious.

Finally, there is one conclusion to be drawn from those numbers. Pilots matter heavily when the success of a plane is concerned. The Finns raked up the best kill-ratio of the war in a plane that was considered an abysmal failure by everyone else. And they did it against the Soviets, not exactly a light-weight power in the air. What does that tell us? That the Buffalo was truly brilliant? Or maybe that the Finns had outstanding pilots and could handle the Buffalo better than everyone else? You make up your own mind, but I think I know which way all of you will lean, even GregP.

simon

30th December 2004, 22:11

"When it comes to the precision of kill-ratios, I find it interesting that most of the numbers for kill-ratios concern US sources. Why is that? Because everyone else sucked so badly that they were to ashamed to put their kill-ratios forward? Could be, but somehow I doubt it. Could it be the American love for statistics (just open any american newspaper to the sports page and you will see what I mean)? Almost definitely. Also, whenever I see kill-ratios discussed, I hear how many planes the Americans lost on a given day or mission as indicated by their statistics. That IS a rather accurate number, I agree. But I have rarely seen the same diligence applied to the losses of the other side. Sometimes because they are not existing or because they are kept under cover. The end result of these "more accurate" statistics is that the losses of US planes gets corrected downwards to the correct number, while the losses of their opponents gets guessed at (wanna bet if the deviation from the "true" number is upwards or downwards?). Again, that makes the numbers very very dubious."

Azrael, as much as I agree with much of what you've said so far, we are embarking down a very rocky road when we start on the "Your nation's statistics are wrong" route. I know on this forum and with regard to this (And the Best Bomber thread!) topic things can get more than a little heated at times, but the moment things turn to comments aimed at a nation as a whole things take a nasty turn and tend to get particularly unpleasant.

On the subject of claims, confirmed kills and actual losses it is of course worth stating that [u]overclaiming was endemic to every air arm of every nation in the war</u>, not particularly to the US.

Greg views Kill Ratios as the important decider, and he has every right to this opinion whether you or I or anyone else agrees with him or not. Hopefully anyone else reading this thread will be able to decide for themselves which view they wish to take.

Reagrding Kill ratios, arguably the best illustration of how misleading these can be was the General Motors FM Wildcat, the discussion about this type can be found at: http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=294&whichpage=1

I may bump this topic back up just because of it's current relevance, however it also serves as quite a good illustration of just how... heated debates can turn especially when Kill-Ratios enter into it!

So please, let's try to keep the discussion of Kill Ratios to a minimum and try and drag this topic back on track, Kill Ratios have been effectively done to death now, and as I said ealier apart from the Allied types mentioned there are some excellent Soviet types and Axis types that we haven't even touched on!

azrael

30th December 2004, 23:47

Simon,
you are right and I apologize. My statement was however not meant as an attack on one nation, the US, not at all. What I wanted to say is that almost all references you can find concerning kill-ratios are about US planes and done by American sources. I have no doubt whatsoever that everybody overclaimed just as badly. It is just that USAAF, USN and USMC numbers are the most commonly available ones and that, as was discussed in some other threat on this forum, many other nations, the Soviets in particular, never released their actual loss numbers on a battle-per-battle basis as the US did. My argument was meant to point out the inherent imprecision of the numbers, despite (or to a degree even because, as one side of the kill-ratio was corrected but not the other) the accuracy and diligence shown in the US losses. The rest of my post was trying to analyze the reasons for the lack in reliable numbers from other sources.

Again, I apologize to anyone who took offense to my post. It was not meant to diss any nation, not the US, not any other. It was however meant to point out the flaw in using kill-ratios, particularly when comparing two kill-ratios to derive a result from just the numbers.

azrael

31st December 2004, 00:05

Hi there, Lightning,
now on to your post and choice. A great choice I would like to point out and a courageous one at that! You picked a true heavy-weight, in every respect, an excellent plane that could do it all and could do it well and one that was HEAVY lol (almost twice as heavy as a P-51D or Spitfire XIV and a good 40% or so over the P-47D). But weight does not really matter, as your choice, as the P-38L proved! And you did choose a true multirole fighter (role, not purpose, as the F5s for example were different planes, not main line P-38s).
I will try to address your choice and arguments later, when I find the time. But cool, we finally have a good, fact-based comparison going. That is what I like!

Lightning

31st December 2004, 01:05

Hi all,

I'm not going to get involved in this "kill-ratio" thing, but one point should be kept in mind: The size of the "sample".
The number of Brewster F2As used by the Finns, and the number of engagements they participated in are really quite small.

If one plane shoots down 10 opponents for the loss of one, and that's the end of it, then the kill ratio is 10:1. It certainly cannot be reasonably expected that during the next 100 engagements between the same two types that ratio will hold up. Maybe that first plane was piloted by an exceptional pilot; maybe the 10 planes shot down were piloted by novices; maybe it was a combination of both.

At any rate, as the number of engagements (the "sample") increases, these factors begin to be cancelled out i.e. better pilots--and bad ones--begin to show up on both sides. The planes, however, remain the same. Therefore, the superiority of one plane over the other becomes more of a significant factor. This is assuming that the average quality of pilots on both sides is equal. In the reality of WWII, this , of course, was not the case.

As one side is overcome, it begins to lose its best pilots, and these, in turn, are replaced by pilots of increasingly lower ability.
This tends to swing the "kill ratio" back toward the winning side.

With this in mind, the 19:1 kill ratio for the F6F is much more meaningful than the 26:1 ratio for the F2A. The Hellcat compiled that record over the course of many thousands of engagements, which is not the case for the Buffalo.

I am in partial agreement with both sides of the F6F kill-ratio issue. (How's that for playing it safe?) No one can dispute the effectiveness of the Hellcat in the Pacific against the Japanese. Its dominance there was spectacular, and it was achieved in a very short time. I can easily understand GregP's choice of this plane for the title of "best fighter".

I do believe, however, that the Hellcat was deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate its qualities against the fighters of the other Axis powers (except in a very few instances). The need for this wonderful plane was in the Pacific, and that's where it was destined to complete the war. It is this circumstance, unfortunately, that leaves a question in the minds of the contributors to this forum as to the proper ranking of the Hellcat in comparison to the other contenders.

I really wish the F6F could have flown in great numbers against the Luftwaffe. I don't believe Grumman would have had anything to be ashamed of. As I said in an earlier posting, "Don't bet against the Hellcat".

Regards,
Lighting

azrael

31st December 2004, 02:48

Lightning,
the sample was not that small, something like 500 planes shot down for the price of 19 Buffalos lost. I would say we are at a rate of samples where we can make statistical analysis. In that respect the kill-ratio is really close in validity to that of the Hellcat. As you might remember, the average error of a sample is one devided by the root of the number of samples 1/(n^(1/2)). The Hellcat killed something like 12 times that number. So the error would be 4% for the Buffalo and 1.2% for the Hellcat. So the result would be 26+-1 : 1 for the Buffalo and 19+-0.1 for the Hellcat. Meaning the Buffalo still comes out on top

JoeB

31st December 2004, 02:55

"Do these accounts look like a slaughter of the Spitfires? I do not really think so. Sure, you can contest the accuracy of these claims, but the same can be said about any other kill-ratio,"

Arzeal, I'm not a big fan of kill ratio's as the end all.

On Spit/A6M, the sources you refer to all tell the story from just the Aussie side. But the Japanese losses are also now known from their records and actually only 1 A6M was downed in air combat in the whole series of raids. The Japanese did lose a number of bombers and recon a/c to be fair, but the real Spit/A6M ratio was very unfavorable for the Spit. There was a site detailing it, unfortunately link now dead, but you could pursue this and I believe find that it's correct. Allied claims v. the Japanese when the Allies were hard pressed, in '42 especially (the RAAF Spits 1943 was a relatively late example of Allied fighters still heavily bested by the Japanese), the Allied claims tended to be highly overstated; in general claims tend to be more overstated by the side on the short end of the real kill ratio.

I believe *real* kill ratio's are an important statistic gauging *relative overall fighter force* effectiveness. But they don't say which airplane was better, aside from its pilots. And they don't say how the same force would have fared against other opposition. *Claimed* killed ratio's are a very second best measure of the same thing. Unless we know from real examples the approximate accuracy, and that that accuracy was similar betweeen planes compared, and constant over the periods examined for each, then *claimed* ratio's can border on meaningless.

Examples: 1) the bomber case, the B-17/24 offical claimed ratio v. German fighters was more like 2.5 than 6. Anyway if the B-29 ratio about 9, we can reasonably say the degree of overclaim was probably similar, and therefore these relative ratio's can enable a meaningful comparison: we can say B-29's could defend themselve much better relatively against J fighters than the older bombers could against G figthers. However it can't be used to directly predict B-29 effectiveness against German fighters, and it can't be compared to Allied fighter claimed ratio's because the claim accuracy is known to be very different. It can't be used either to calculate the real Japanese and German losses to US bombers, unless we do more research to nail down the accuracy (although it seems to have been around 25% on average as a very rough ballpark).

2) Spitfire 10:1 for whole of WWII: this is a meaningless number because it includes too many different situations when the Spit claim accuracy ratio varied too much over a whole 6 year war. As I said, in 40-41 sweeps over France RAF claiming was grossly inflated (several times German losses). In say 1944-45 it was pretty accurate (German losses maybe 2/3-3/4 of claims). You can't mix those numbers and get anything meaningful. And of course "Spitfire" refers to a series of planes of vastly different performance anyway: meaningless number.

3) F4U and F6F ratio's in PTO in 1945. You can compare these relatively, basically similar opposition, probably similar claim accuracy. But you can't use it to project ratio against the Germans, and you can't assume the numbers of J planes claimed was the number downed; however number actually downed again was probably over 1/2 the number claimed in that particular situation and period. And again if you go to the whole war ratio's, the F6F faced a lot more non-fighters pre 1945 than F4U, so again the comparison would break down.

Joe

simon

31st December 2004, 02:57

"I really wish the F6F could have flown in great numbers against the Luftwaffe. I don't believe Grumman would have had anything to be ashamed of. As I said in an earlier posting, "Don't bet against the Hellcat"."

In some ways I agree, however I doubt it would have achieved the 19:1 Kill/Loss ratio against the Luftwaffe.

azrael

31st December 2004, 03:11

JoeB,
Maybe I misposted it, but the 10:1 claim for the Spit was for the BoB alone, the 8:1 for the CBI... I was unable to even FIND a stat covering the whole war

simon

31st December 2004, 04:47

...and this reflects one of the most difficult things when it comes to assessing Kill/Loss ratios (and basically why they are so basically meaningless)!

How do you factor on the quality of the opposition? I can remember reading a quote that a kill on the western front was worth five on the eastern front (from a former Luftwaffe pilot), if we accepted that as a starting point where would that place the rest?

How do you figure a kill/loss ratio even over a single engagement of 20:1 of Spitfires vs A6Ms considering the Spitfires in these engagements weren't meant to be shooting down Zeroes, but the bombers? How can you tell how well these Spitfires would have been able to fare in a straight battle against the Zeroes?

How can you say that the Late Spitfires were too different from the MkIs to count as an overall statistic, yet proclaim "A Wildcat is a Wildcat and a Buffallo is a Buffallo?" given the huge differences between F4F/FM Wildcats and the equal difference between a Finnish/RAF/USN Buffallo?

I agree 100% with Joe's statement: "I believe *real* kill ratio's are an important statistic gauging *relative overall fighter force* effectiveness. But they don't say which airplane was better, aside from its pilots."

They're a Relative measure. Would the Japanese have achieved a 19:1 kill margine over the USN post Guadalcanal with the benefit of the Hellcat? Ofcourse not. So what was the real factor there? Pilots and tactics, planes played a part but as has already been mentioned the Wildcat scored an enviable success rate against the Zero at the height of the latter's prowess, does that mean the Wildcat was an excellent plane? No I don't think so, but it's pilots learnt how to use it better than the Japanese did their Zeroes. Case in point, better tactics, not necessarily better planes!

simon

31st December 2004, 05:12

Right, I want to introduce a new contender here.

The Soviet Yakovlev series fighters. Between the Yak1 and 9 which can be considered I suppose the equivalent of the Spitfire MkI to MkXIV you had everything from interceptor, long range escort (They actually performed this duty on behalf of the USAAF!), ground attack and tank buster (Anything the Allies had that could equal the 45mm gun in a Yak-9T?!?).

Overall I think the Yak's could go head-to-head with anything the Allies or Axis could produce.

JoeB

31st December 2004, 05:45

"Maybe I misposted it, but the 10:1 claim for the Spit was for the BoB alone, the 8:1 for the CBI... I was unable to even FIND a stat covering the whole war"

OK I see and am corrected on point about mixing numbers over a whole war. However of course the point would still stand that we can't assume, let's just even focus on the Spitfire, that the composition of opposition was same in BoB and CBI (lots more bombers in former certainly) or what the claim accuracy was in each case...

Re; Darwin and Simon though I'd add the "mission profile" as well as opposition of Spits over Darwin was very similar to that of USMC and USN landbased F4F's over Guadalcanal, but with a large difference in results against escorting and sweeping A6M's. Patented tactics like Thach Weave weren't used much in 1942 (Thach introduced it himself in combat at Midway, but it was really in Hellcat era that pilots of all units learned it in training). As far as USN pilots, they just had more training in general than most other air arms. Many long time peacetime guys in 42 (though even many of those plowed right back into training units after PH unlike other air arms), then later USN war trained pilots sometimes had as much as 700hrs going into combat, much higher experience level than novices in other air arms. And they did deflection shooting training almost nobody else did (in most other air arms pilots were left to intuitively master this if they could, a few could and often became the aces, most couldn't).

That's the basic reason IMO for the even performance of the F4F against more combat experienced, also highly trained JNAF opponents in a basically superior plane (A6M) when those same A6M's cut almost all other fighter opposition to shreads in 1942 (and RAAF Spits in 1943), even those flying nominally superior Allied planes to the F4F.

It's also the main reason for the F6F's impressive stats, though that plane, and the F4F too to some extent, had intangible positives that don't show up in paper comparisons; for example the sloping nose for excellent carrier landing characteristics also allowed high angle deflection tracking you just can't do in a longer nosed P-51, Spit or F4U.

Joe

simon

31st December 2004, 06:07

"Re; Darwin and Simon though I'd add the "mission profile" as well as opposition of Spits over Darwin was very similar to that of USMC and USN landbased F4F's over Guadalcanal"

Perhaps a better comparison would be the battle over Midway or the battles over Wake?

GregP

31st December 2004, 11:48

OK, one last shot here at some standardization. Norweigian or Finnish or American-flown Buffalos are not valid subjects for comparison. It smacks of gerrymandering like in a political election. If you are going to get stuck on Buffaols, take them as a complete group - the population. As such, they are abysmal, and deservedly so.

Several pilots shot down 5 or more enemies in a single combat. Are you saying that the planes they flew achieved an infinite kill ratio? Poppycock. Look at the population of all planes of that type over the length of time they were in combat. When you look at the whole, the comparison comes into closer focus.

It is a fact that statistics are based on, and the whole world has agreed that statistical amalysis is a valid concept. How do you think beer comes to taste alike from a single brewery over the long haul? Through statistics, and they WORK. Sorry, I'm an engineer.

About the "American sources," every nation's estimates of its own numbers are, almost by definition, more accurate than its estimate of an opponent since each side can really only find out its own numbers with any degree of certainty. Usually, any side is much more sure of its losses than of its victories. The same can be said for England, Russia, etc. Each is much more sure of its own losses, since the country had to pay for the replacements, than they are of the opponent's losses. Money usually rises to the top of the heap when it comes to "numbers counters." It's true in the case of combat statistics, too. The U.S.A. lost many fewer records than did most of the warring countries in WWII. Our recrods in the continental U.S.A. were never bombed, so we are quite sure of our losses. We are as sure of our victories as we can be in the face of the records recovered from the WWII combatants. So much was lost taht no one is sure how many Russians were killed ... somehwere between 20 and 35 million. That's a big variance, huh?

In the case of WWII air wons and losses, most of Germany was a bombed out wreck by late 1944 and many records were simply lost along with many historic landmarks and hostoric treasures. In the case of Japan, the government wasn't particularly interested in individual statistics, and so didn't really keep any to speak of, in addition to being somehwat devastated due to bombing. We are left with individual pilot logs that survived and then we compare the dated claims to known losses.

There was really no intention to "defraud" anyone on the part of MOST, but not all, pilots. Most simply made the best estimate they could in the "heat of the moment" and claimed what they thought they saw.

Yes, I think the Hellcat would have achieved a good record in Europe. German planes were not especially maneuverable in comparison to the Hellcat.

The F6F-5, at normal max weight, had a wing loading of 225 kg / sq. m. but, at typical combat weights, it was much closer to 180 kg / sq. m.

The Bf-109G, at normal max weight had a wing loading of 195 kg/ sq/ m.

The thing to remember is that the Hellcat normally flew with a LOT of petrol in the internal tanks plus extra tanks hanging on since range was a big factor in the Pacific. The Bf-109G, on the other hand, was in a state of fuel emergency when it was full of petrol and ready to take off. So, in normal situations, the Hellcat was usually MUCH lighter than at normal max takeoff weight while the Bf-109G was normally fairly close to max takeoff weight since it hardly carried much fuel and wasn't really going to fly very far to start with.

The Fw-190A had a normal wing loading of 213 kg / sq/ m. at normal max gross weight, and it was also not carrying overly much fuel.

I'd say a 10% lower average wing loading combined with impeccable slow-speed handling make the Hellcat a definite good-turning contender as a fighter compared with the Bf-109 that achieved fame far and wide for stall-spin accidents when trying to stay with Yak-3s on the Russian front at low altitudes.

And yes, the Hellcat could turn with or better than a Zero. All it had to do was to stay fast. Radial-engined fighters were good at staying fast in a fight. Ask anyone who flew one.

Just my opinion, but I think there were only about 256 Hellcats supplied to England during WWII. I could be wrong, but did find that figure. They were mostly used for over-water flights and patrols as far as I can tell, but I don't have definitive information about English F6F operations, so I can't say for sure.