Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Best Fighter Aircraft of World War 2

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by Punisher88, Jun 17, 2010.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Biak

    Biak Boy from Illinois Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    9,399
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    I'll leave the "Best Aircraft" determination to the pilots who flew the planes themselves. As for the Kill to Kill ratio; as stated in the 348th FG reports, in one stretch of fighter missions, over 150 (forget the actual number) Japanese aircraft were shot down without a loss of a single P-47 due to enemy action. ::: Just dug out the Group totals for July 1943 to August 1945;
    = 271 fighter aircraft and 90 bombers were shot down with the loss of 348th aircraft as - 19 major damage and 13 total losses. 4 pilots were killed in combat operations and 4 missing in action. That gives a 28 to 1 overall average. Not bad for a plane not even mentioned.
    I think "Favorite Aircraft" would be better suited.
    Here is a link with the thoughts and 12 reasons why the P-47 was the "Best" from someone who should know;
    http://www.chuckhawks.com/p47.htm or http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.naval_military_history.htm

    "It is not unusual to favor your own aircraft. In fact, it is a bit common. We probably all look at this in a different way, and in a different light. And if you didn't get to fly both the Jug and the Mustang, you were at a decided disadvantage. Here are my dozen reasons why the T-bolt was the superior fighter of the two.
    Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there. Simply walk up to one of them and see for yourself.
     
    Biak, Mar 25, 2011
    #21
  2. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31
    The Zero in the hands of the IJN was certainly first class in 1942 and early 1943. Remember it had one thing most fighters didn't have in that period , very long range. Over Darwin it was able to take the fight to the RAAF all the way from Timor whereas the Spitfire V's based at Darwin couldn't do the same.

    However I think if ones wants to describe the best you must also decide which one influenced the war the most. I mean the USAAF produced some excellent fighters but the threesome of Spitfire/'109/'190 were certainly more important because they entered and affected the course of the war much soner.
     
    ickysdad, Mar 28, 2011
    #22
  3. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    3,468

    This was simply a comparison between P-47 and P-51...He eludes to the P-47 being a very good fighter bomber...and thats what it was...the Jug's eight tonnes made it sluggish in a dog fight...sure if you locked on those 8 guns, your target would disintergrate in front of you, but one had to lock on first...an FW190 let alone the nimble Me109 could easily out manouvre the Jug. This is why the US didn't just make P-47s...It designed the P-51 as a PURE fighter...with the BEST manouverability, speed, and fire power package. The Jug could do more than the P-51 and suffered for its versatility. Best war plane? P-47 Best fighter? P-51.

    Of course all look anachrinistic compared to the pfeil or swallow.
     
    CAC, Mar 29, 2011
    #23
  4. FalkeEins

    FalkeEins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    75
    ..don't usually participate in these types of threads ..so many variables that the discussion usually ends going up round and round...but I've just read Roland Beamont's 'Tempest over Europe' and there's one type you haven't mentioned. In his book Beamont describes the comparative testing he undertook at the end of the war. He was a huge fan of the later marks of (Griffon-engined) Spitfire of course, although he describes the P-51 as a true fighter pilots aeroplane, although not quite as handy in the dogfight....but surpassing all of these in Beamont's view - and able to take on the Luftwaffe's Ta 152 and beat it low down- was the Hawker TEMPEST V.
     
    FalkeEins, Mar 29, 2011
    #24
  5. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    436
    Its never really a simple comparison. "Hub" Zemke flew both the P-47 and the P-51 in combat. His opinion was that the P-51 was the best of the two overall, but that the P-47 was better above 25,000 ft.
     
    mcoffee, Mar 29, 2011
    #25
  6. Biak

    Biak Boy from Illinois Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    9,399
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    I'll admit that what CAC pointed out has merit. As FalkeEins and mcoffee also mention it is not a simple comparison. If I'm not mistaken the driving force behind the P-51 was greater flight radius. Primarily to escort bombers heading into Germany. The "Jug" was not intended to be a 'dog-fighter' but as an interceptor/escort and transitioned into a multi-role aircraft with the experiences gained from the pilots and changing needs. I think that a comparison of the P-47s War record against enemy aircraft attests to its viability as a 'fighter'. The top criteria of any aircraft is to shoot down the other guy and the "Jug" did very well in that regard. Having said that, it was not the sleek looking, highly maneuverable airplane we usually consider as seen in the movies. The P-38 did quite well for itself but there again, in the hands of an experienced pilot the Jug could hold its own going head-to-head with it, as Col. Kearby did against Maj. Bong. And vice-versa when Bong flew a P-47 against his own P-38 flown by Kearby. They flew/fought to a draw. I'm not saying the P-47 was The Best and I'm also not convinced there was any One Best Fighter. I'll still stick with the Jug if only for the story I heard of 16 P-47s going up against nearly 70 Japanese aircraft of various types. 30 Japanese "splashed" with no losses due to aerial combat. Personally I like the Spitfire for looks and the one I'd like to take for a 'hop'.
     
    Biak, Mar 29, 2011
    #26
    TacticalTank likes this.
  7. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    kill ratio of more than 2:1 for the wildcat? first, how did they compute that, number of planes shot down by that grumman type? i'll point out that at midway, the japanese lost all their zeros mostly when they burned and went down with their carriers, or because the pilots had to ditch.

    if the kill ratio is vis-a-vis a counterpart enemy aircraft, i'd take it seriously. i dare say from 1941 to early 1943, zeros must have shot down a whole load of aircraft in relation to their total number.
     
    mac_bolan00, Apr 5, 2011
    #27
  8. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    436
    The definitive source for Naval Aviation statistics is the document Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, World War II compiled in 1946 by the Air Branch of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The source for the data included in the document are the individual squadron and mission records, combat narratives and war diaries. So, yes, you should take it seriously.
     
    mcoffee, Apr 5, 2011
    #28
  9. TacticalTank

    TacticalTank Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Canada
    The funny thing is: I recently got some battle of britian documents and they mostly British planes to be superior over German ones. They even went as far as saying the British killed 2 to 1 in a ratio. So i think the British planes were some of the best out there.
     
    TacticalTank, Apr 5, 2011
    #29
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page