New look at an old question

[Badger 1]

The "Best Fighter Thread" ran a long and ragged course with many good points expressed. I wonder if a new set of parameters for this question would result in different perspectives...soooo (with a gulp before the plunge) I ask you..If you could take any one series of fighter (e.g. Spitfire V) flown during the war, and have it available at the start of the conflict (limited to the numbers actually manufactured e.g. Lightning L - 4000 made). What would you choose? In the interest of asking for your "Best Fighter", this plane must be for any and all of the countries involved. The plane must only use that equipment and fuel it used in the war.

[Wuzak]

An interesting twist.

I think that in a straight pick I might choose a Spitfire XIV......but the numbers on them were limited to less than 1000, IIRC.

A lot of late war aircraft were similarly restricted in numbers.

I guess the P-51B/C didn't have that issue and would be superior to anything else in 1939. The P-38L had plenty made too, as did P-47Ds.

Then again there was over 8000 P-51Ds made.

Have to look at some more production numbers....

[ickysdad]

What about the 12,275 F6F-3's? One might say all Hellcats since all were upgraded to F6F-5 status eventually you then would have a very capable fighter that is also a very capable & rugged fighter-bomber. The plane also has long range and is also capable of operating from both land bases & carriers,is very easy to build and furthermore it's a great plane for the multitude of new pilots you'll be training for a war starting in 1939.

[Lightning]

Hi Badger 1,

Do you have any idea of what you could be starting??? :)

Just a thought. What about having equal numbers of each type/variant to be considered e.g. 10,000 each of Spitfire XIV, P-51D, Fw190D, P-38L, A6M, etc., etc., etc. That way, only the attributes of the individual fighters would come into play--unaffected by number built.

All contenders would start the war in equal numbers and then would be used as their respective countries saw fit. (Even this could cause some inequities due to poor strategies employed that didn't utilize a given type to its best advantage--for instance using a Spitfire extensively as a ground-attack plane.)

All fighters would be used in all roles for which fighters were employed during the war. The results of all tradeoffs would determine the overall best fighter.

As I said, just a thought. Your ideas are as good as mine, and I'm sure there are others out there who can come up with scenarios just as valid as either of ours.

(If this gets started, it should be good for 50 pages :D)

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

Stretching things a bit but can I have ~1000 Meteor F.8s available in 1940? The Battle of Britain turns into a complete bloodbath for the Luftwaffe. The design isn't too advanced either so more can easily be built in large numbers. Its a very good fighter, good for ground attack and can have an AI radar set installed in the nose without problems.

[Wuzak]

Weren't the F8s post war?

Not sure how the F6F would fare in Europe, but what about the F4U-1?

[Badger 1]

Hi lightning,

My reason for limiting each plane to the number used during the war is best described by the phrase..."quantity is a quality all its own". During the conflict each series of fighter was available in a specific number. That quantity can help determine each variant's quality, and IMHO should be a factor in figuring out which is the "Best Fighter"....

The obvious problem with this theory is that the TIME when the plane was available is not taken into account...but since the question is for the entire war, that issue may be mitigated somewhat.

I'm guessing that I already know the answer, but given these parameters what is YOUR choice? Don't worry I won't be offended if its the P38L...I was born and raised in Wisconsin, which as I'm sure you know is Richard Bong's home state...In fact my first job during college was working at the Bong Recreation Area, so I've got a soft spot for the big beast.

[Wuzak]

Stretching things a bit but can I have ~1000 Meteor F.8s available in 1940? The Battle of Britain turns into a complete bloodbath for the Luftwaffe. The design isn't too advanced either so more can easily be built in large numbers. Its a very good fighter, good for ground attack and can have an AI radar set installed in the nose without problems.

Weren't the F8s post war?


What about the F3? How many of them were built? They first went into service in late 1944.

The F4 didn't appear until 1947.

They built 3000+ de Havilland Vampires, but not many of the early WW2 mks, and also not many before the end of the war.

[Wuzak]

Some other options.

Germany: Focke Wulf Fw190 A-8 - quite a few built
Messerschmitt Bf109G - alot built
Focke Wulf Fw 190 D-9 although the production of this was limited.

Russia: Lavochkin La-5, nearly 10000 built.
Lavochkin La-7, improved La-5 and nearly 6000 built.
Yakalov Yak 1 - just under 5000 built.

Great Britain: Supermarine Spitfire MkIX - about 10,000 built IIRC.
Hawker Tempest V - 800 built

[Red Admiral]

Weren't the F8s post war?

Yes, but the Meteor itself was in service during the war - but its a bit of a stretch.

Realistically I think you'd have to choose something that is "good enough" and available in large numbers for this question - but I don't think that leads to being "best".

6000 Spitfire IXs would be useful.

[ickysdad]

Weren't the F8s post war?

Not sure how the F6F would fare in Europe, but what about the F4U-1?

I'm sure it would be competitive and it's performance isn't that much different then the F4U-1 you list. Eric Brown states in "Duels in the Sky" that the F6F was superior to the '109G and the outcome between a F6F & '190A would only be determined by the pilot.

[Lightning]

Hi Badger 1,

I'm guessing that I already know the answer, but given these parameters what is YOUR choice? Don't worry I won't be offended if its the P38L...I was born and raised in Wisconsin, which as I'm sure you know is Richard Bong's home state...In fact my first job during college was working at the Bong Recreation Area, so I've got a soft spot for the big beast.

My choice, as you guessed, is the P-38L. It was best in some roles and very good in others. I can think of no role in which it was not rated near or at the top (except carrier fighter). It was the most versatile fighter of the war.

Dick Bong was, if memory serves me, from Poplar Wisconsin. They have a memorial to him there with a P-38 on display. (Is the memorial at the recreation area where you worked?) I have never been there, but I have seen photos of it, and I have sent a donation to its building and upkeep. (I suspect the cold winters in Wisconsin lead to considerable upkeep.)

Keep warm!

Regards,
Lightning

[Badger 1]

Hi Lightning,

Somehow I figured that you would know where Bong was from. The Recreation Area named for him is in the very South East corner of the state (Kinda between Milwaukee and Chicago). It was meant to be a SAC base and the local farms were seized via Emminent Domain (my grandmother was still upset about her friends farms being seized when I worked there in 1982). After the runway had been prepped (upwards of 8 foot depth of gravel) it was realized that the landing patterns would intersect with the landing patterns out of O'Hare and Mitchell fields...ooops. Long story short, Bong Recreation Area is now the flattest camp ground East of Kansas. Poplar Wisconsin is in the North West corner of the state and has 2 seasons...Winter and the 4rth of July.

Your choice of the Big L is in my top three. The P-38's range and overall performance were
just superb. Lack of proper training and flight time with this twin engine powerhouse reduced this stellar planes combat results (probably not as much of a problem in the "L" as it was in the earlier versions). I've read a number of accounts of men being trained in the P-40 and then being thrown into combat with the P-38. I would hazard to guess that many of the "engine malfunctions" were a direct result of that lack of training. Ergonomics also appeared to be an issue with the 38, and thats not even including the early problems of heaters and defrosters. It's unfortunate because in the right hands I think this plane could have saved a lot of lives of B-17, B-24 crews. (Sorry, I digress)

The P-51H is high on my list also. Performance and range are unbeatable. 2 downsides to this pick however. A single inline engine with a lot of plumming means a short shelf life when it comes to ground attack, and I want my "Dream Team" around for a long period of the war. Which brings up the second issue which is only 555 delivered before the wars end. The P-51D has the numbers (over 8000 I believe) and good performance...but again is limited in ground attack like the "H". The "D" is slow to get up for interception (average climb rate) as well. This is a definite negative with the Battle of Britain being such a turning point of the war.

My choice is the F4U-4. Any country could have used 5400 of these beast in the war. With a range of just over 1000 miles, top speed of 446 mph @ 26,000 ft, time to climb 4.9 minutes to 20,000 ft, accelerates at 2.4 mph/sec. and a role rate on par with the Jug. The Corsair was able to carry 4000 lbs. of ordinance (more than the Mossie?) and was armed with either 6 - .50's or 4 - 20 mm's take your choice. Ground attack? No problem even the USAAF admitted that the Hog was better able to resist damage than the very tough Jug. Last but not least was it could be used on carriers (without the penalties inflicted on performance numbers like the Spitfires)._

Russia, Germany, Poland, Japan, China, England the US and all the rest? I think the upgraded Hog fits the bill for any of them.

[Wuzak]

My choice is the F4U-4. Any country could have used 5400 of these beast in the war. With a range of just over 1000 miles, top speed of 446 mph @ 26,000 ft, time to climb 4.9 minutes to 20,000 ft, accelerates at 2.4 mph/sec. and a role rate on par with the Jug. The Corsair was able to carry 4000 lbs. of ordinance (more than the Mossie?) and was armed with either 6 - .50's or 4 - 20 mm's take your choice. Ground attack? No problem even the USAAF admitted that the Hog was better able to resist damage than the very tough Jug. Last but not least was it could be used on carriers (without the penalties inflicted on performance numbers like the Spitfires)._

4000lb - same as late model Mossie bombers. But as it is carried externally it has a greater performance effect.

The F4U is a good choice, but when were the F4U-4s built?

[Lightning]

Hi Badger 1,

I was watching a video tape on the P-47 the other night which made me recall your comment:

...even the USAAF admitted that the Hog was better able to resist damage than the very tough Jug.

I saw this claim on one other occasion--I can't remember the details--, but it got me to thinking. Where was this ever actually stated by the USAAF? I, for one, just don't agree.

The P-47 had a very extensive history of carrying out ground attack missions while absorbing tremendous damage and returning to base. This was true all over Europe, the Med., and in the Pacific. The Corsair was a wonderful fighter bomber, but, when it comes to its combat record, it just did not have anywhere near the reputation for ruggedness that the Thunderbolt had.

Perhaps if the Corsair had been used as extensively in the ground attack role as was the P-47 it would have compiled a similar record, but, as it stands, the Thunderbolt's claim to ruggedness is based on a long wartime history whereas that of the F4U is substantially less extensive.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

I recal that the Marines used the Corsair almost exclusively as a fighter bomber in the Pacific dropping some 70% of the bombs dropped by fighter type a/c.

In the spring of 1944, about the time the P-47 was being phased out as an escort fighter, the Marines began close support missions with the Corsair.

In Korea, the Corsair was a ground pounder.

One thing the P-47 couldn't do was dive bomb. The Corsair could be dived up to an angle of 85*.

[Lightning]

I recal that the Marines used the Corsair almost exclusively as a fighter bomber in the Pacific dropping some 70% of the bombs dropped by fighter type a/c.

In the spring of 1944, about the time the P-47 was being phased out as an escort fighter, the Marines began close support missions with the Corsair.

But the scope of Corsair fighter-bomber operations during the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific is nowhere nearly as extensive as that of the Thunderbolt in Italy, Europe (especially during, and subsequent to, the Normandy landings and during the Battle of the Bulge after the weather had cleared) and the Pacific. The P-47 made a name for itself as a superb fighter-bomber based on its performance in Italy alone, and its reputation as such was solidified by its efficiency in this role in all the other areas in which it fought.

In Korea, the Corsair was a ground pounder.


So was the Mustang. This is not to say that the F-51 was as good a fighter-bomber as the Corsair--it most certainly was not--but these were the planes of choice because they were the ones available when the need arose, not because they were great at that task. The jet fighter-bombers were just coming on line and did not yet have the range, load-carrying ability, and loiter time that the propeller-driven planes had.

The Mustang performed a large percentage of the ground attack missions in Korea, but it also suffered a very high loss rate in doing so. There is no doubt in my mind that the P-38 and the P-47 would have been much more effective and better suited to those operations than the F-51.

During the last year of the Korean War, a special ground-attack version of the Corsair, the AU-1, was delivered to the Marines. It was very potent in this role but at the expense of the capabilities that made the F4U a great fighter. It was much slower, and it was only good at low altitudes. It was also much heavier thereby giving up a great deal of maneuverability. It was, in short, a fighter-bomber that was very much less a fighter than a bomber. At any rate, it was too much of a specialized aircraft to to be considered in this discussion, and, of course, it was not a WWII warplane.

One thing the P-47 couldn't do was dive bomb. The Corsair could be dived up to an angle of 85*.

Although the P-47 was certainly no dive bomber, it was, nevertheless, used as one occasionally--and not without some success. The F4U, becuse of its low-speed stability in a dive, was much better at this task. This, however, does not make it a better fighter-bomber. Early in the Pacific war, the P-39 and P-40 were used very effectively as dive bombers. No one would call them great fighter-bombers (except maybe the Russians). The Navy's SBD Dauntless and SB2C Helldiver were both better dive bombers than the F4U, but they were not even considered for the fighter-bomber role, much less in a class with the Corsair. The German Ju 87 Stuka was a better dive bomber than any of them, but it was certainly no fighter-bomber, as evidenced by its performance in the Battle of Britain. It is true that these aircraft were purpose designed to be dive bombers; the point is that one role doesn't translate into the other.

The above having been said, it doesn't address the original subject i.e. was the F4U as, or more, rugged and impervious to battle damage, than the P-47? Although no definitive answer has been arrived at here, I believe that, based on the accumulated records of these two planes in the fighter-bomber and ground-attack roles, the answer is no.

[Kutscha]

It is a waste of bandwidth to use P-47 operations in the European war, as except for one or two occasions with the FAA and that was a2a, the Corsair was not there. For a meaningful comparison, their operations in the Pacific should be used.

[Lightning]

It is a waste of bandwidth to use P-47 operations in the European war, as except for one or two occasions with the FAA and that was a2a, the Corsair was not there. For a meaningful comparison, their operations in the Pacific should be used.

It really doesn't matter that these two planes were not used side-by-side in the European war. The only matter of discussion here is which of the two was better able to withstand battle damage and return to base.

One thing is true when comparing fighter-bomber operations in the Pacific with those in Europe and the Mediterranean theaters: The German anti-aircraft fire, both in quality and quantity, was far more effective against low-flying attack planes than was that of the Japanese. Whatever the Corsair's loss rate to ground fire in the Pacific, it most certainly would have been greater in the Europe/Mediterranean theaters where the Thunderbolt gained its well-deserved reputation.

[Badger 1]

Lightning - I used Jeff Ethell's article seen in the "Best Fighter" thread as the source for the damage resistence claim. Ethell appeared to be one of the modern day experts on all things WWII fighters, but I may be wrong on this and if so please let me know. I thought that I had read about a post war USAAF analysis regarding this issue...but have been unable to find it, so the point is moot (memory - byproduct of a college career fueled by cheap beer and Ramen Noodles I'm afraid).

By the way if you Google "Tilley P-38", you'll find a neat article about your favorite plane by a young guy who flew her. He gives some insight's (good and bad) that only someone who flew many of the models could. He also flew the Mustang and makes some comparisons.

Kutscha - I agree that comparing planes that flew in the same time and place is always the most accurate. I must say, however, that many of my favorite debates revolve around models that flew in different areas (e.g. Mossie vs Blackwidow - Nightfighter thread). Not to beat a dead horse (please - no P-51 jokes) what is your choice for this thread?

[Kutscha]

It really doesn't matter that these two planes were not used side-by-side in the European war. The only matter of discussion here is which of the two was better able to withstand battle damage and return to base.

One thing is true when comparing fighter-bomber operations in the Pacific with those in Europe and the Mediterranean theaters: The German anti-aircraft fire, both in quality and quantity, was far more effective against low-flying attack planes than was that of the Japanese. Whatever the Corsair's loss rate to ground fire in the Pacific, it most certainly would have been greater in the Europe/Mediterranean theaters where the Thunderbolt gained its well-deserved reputation.

One wouldn't know, would they, since the Corsair wasn't used in Europe. One has to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. They only way is to look at the operations of both a/c is in the Pacific and then possibly draw some kind of conclusion for Europe.

Badger, I am partial to the Bent Winged Bird but is is tied with the Tempest and Kurt Tank's fighters.

[Lightning]

One wouldn't know, would they, since the Corsair wasn't used in Europe. One has to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. They only way is to look at the operations of both a/c is in the Pacific and then possibly draw some kind of conclusion for Europe.

I really don't think that anyone would judge the quantity, intensity, and accuracy of the Japanese anti-aircraft fire in the Pacific to be as effective as that of the Germans in Europe and the Mediterranean theaters. Nor would most students of the war consider the quality of the Japanese weapons to be equal to their German counterparts.

The point here is that the P-47 faced more potent and deadly ground fire than did the Corsair while at the same time being used against much more heavily defended targets. In the face of all this, it earned a much more extensive reputation as being a very rugged fighter bomber than did the F4U.

Bullets are bullets. Hits are hits. If an aircraft suffers a direct hit, it doesn't matter whether the shell came from a Japanese gun in the Pacific or a German gun in Italy. What matters is whether the plane goes down or keeps on flying. The P-47 had the greatest reputation for doing just that.

[ChrisMcD]

One wouldn't know, would they, since the Corsair wasn't used in Europe.

Hi again Kutscha,

Do not forget that the FAA used Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsairs in the ETA and that a lot of thought was given to fighter cover for the operations against the "Lone Queen of the North" - including an analysis of fighter versus fighter combat.

To quote 'Winkle Brown' in "Duels in the Sky" (which weirdly has a USN Corsair taking on a Fw 190 A on the front cover).

"Launched on 3 April 1944, the attack achieved almost complete surprise, allowing the first wave of dive-bombing Barracudas to score a number of direct hits on the Tirpitz. No enemy fighter opposition was met, but it was known that some Me 109G-6s and Fw 190A-4s were assigned to protect the battle-cruiser. The Corsairs flew top cover for the strike force, with the Hellcats as close escort and the Wildcats forming a low screen. The element of surprise was complete in this action, but was unlikely to be repeated in subsequent attacks. In any event, the potential opposition was formidable. British carriers made further attempts to attack the Tirpitz in April and May but were thwarted by bad weather. On 8 May Hellcats from the carrier Emperor downed two Me 109s and a Fw 190.

Corsair II Versus Messerschmitt 109G-6
The Me 109G differed from the F model in having a 1,475-hp DB605 AM engine, which gave it a top speed of 386 mph at 22,640 ft and an initial rate of climb of 3,346 ft/min. It was armed with one 30-mm engine-mounted cannon with 60 rounds and two 13-mm fuselagemounted cannon with 300 rounds per gun. A battle between the Corsair and Me 109G-6 would be a contest between two of the world's greatest engines, each superlative but differing from the other in ways that could determine the resuit of combat. The Double Wasp gave the Corsair a slight speed edge over the German fighter at medium altitudes, while the in-line engine gave the Me 109G-6 a performance advantage at low level, particularly in rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The Double Wasp was less vulnerable to combat damage than the liquid-cooled DB605, and this was accentuated by the greater firepower of the Corsair. The Corsair's best tactic would be to take on the Me 109G-6 in the horizontal plane. The German would favor vertical maneuvers. Verdict: Since carrier air battles usually take place at low aititudes, the Me 109G-6 should be favored in this encounter. However, the Me 109G-6, not as good a dogfighter as its predecessor, the Me 109F, would find itself unable to afford tactical errors against the powerful American fighter.

Corsair II Versus Focke-Wulf 190A-4
This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The Fw 190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair. Verdict'. The Fw 190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

OK, I know that Brown was not a fan of the Corsair, but he does give reasons for his conclusion.

Also, weren't there some Hellcats and Corsairs used in Operation Dragoon in the South of France?

Regards

Chris McD

[Kutscha]

Chris, Lightning is going on about the P-47 in the a2g role. A few posts back I mentioned the a2a role in Europe.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Kutscha,

I took a while to find the reference - I was looking at the comments by Wuzak and Ikysdad a lot earlier in the thread!

If we are going a2g I'm for the P-47 as well - the biggest possible radial between me and whoever is shooting!