# All-rounders.



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

In your opinion, what was the best all-round planes from each of the following countries:

Japan
Germany
UK
Italy
USA
France (  )
Russia
+ any other countries that i may have missed out 

8) 

i am very interested to hear everyones opinion on this so i can disagree with you all


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

UK.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

Japan . . . B7A Grace (recon, torpedo, or dive-bomber)

Germany . . . Ju-88 or maybe the Fw-190 (the Ju-88 did better work in ground attack the Fw-190 was better air-to-air)

Uk . . . Mosquito

Italy . . . MC. 205

USA . . . P-38 Lightning (no surprise from me there)

France . . . D.520 (not much to choose from)

Russia . . . La-7


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

The La-7 wasn't much of an all-rounder really. 
Neither was the Fw-190. The Ju-88 would be the best choice there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

russia didnt really have the widest variety of planes though


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Il-2, Yakovlev series, Lagg series, Migs, I-15, I-16, Pe-2, Pe-8, Tb-3...I'm sure there's more. I bet the Pe-2 could have been a more ideal all-rounder.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

i love the Pe-8


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

It is a nice looking plane, I have to admit.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The thing was that the Soviets didn't really have any aircraft that were extremely versatile. I had considered the Pe-2 and it was probably as close to a true multi-role aircraft as they came.

The Fw-190 was used for a lot of different missions. In addition to it's air-to-air duties, it saw service as a hit-and-run raider, tank-buster, night-fighter (as much of a nightfighter as the Hurricane was anyway). So it had some multi-role capability as well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

Japan - Zero
Germany - Ju88
UK - Mossie
Italy - SM.79
USA - P-38
France - D.520
Russia - Pe-2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

i fail to see how the zero was multi role?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

i just put it cos i like it  i dont really know of any other japanese planes


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The late marks of the Zero had some multi-role ability. And the A6M7 was used as a divebomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

i thought it had some, i didnt wanna put it though incase it made me look really stupid, not that i dont already look stupid


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

If the Japanese had had any competent pilots left to fly it, the A6M7 would have made a pretty effective fighter-bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

i don't really think the japs had anythinghalf good untill the end of the war anyway ..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

you cant say the zero was crap


----------



## kiwimac (May 8, 2004)

Best all-rounders, hmm

Japan KI 61 Hien / A6M2 / Aicha 'Val'

Germany Ju 88 / Dornier Do 217 / FW 190 / JU 87 / FW 189

UK DH Mosquito / Westland Lysander / Hurricane

Italy Macchi MC 202-205 / Fiat CR 42 / Sm 79. 

USA P-51 / P-40 / P-38

France DW 520 / Caudron C.714 C1 Cyclone








> Type: C.714
> Function: fighter
> Year: 1939
> Crew: 1
> ...



Russia IL2 / Yak 9 / Polikarpov Biplanes / "Chaika"

Rumania : IAR 80 / 81






Finland : Myrsky fighter-bomber / Tactical Reconn.








> The Myrsky was a monoplane fighter with rectractable landing gear, built in Finland during WWII. It was of mixed construction. Fifty were built, and used on a limited scale, primary as tactical reconaissance aircraft. The 'Ilmavoimat' had, probably justified, doubts about the structural reliability of the Mysrky.
> 
> Type: Myrsky II
> Country: Finland
> ...



Yugoslavia :Rogozarsky IK-3 Fighter






Hungary: Hejja II fighter-bomber

Sweden: Fokker J.22 Fighter-bomber






Incidentally, today (May 8) is:



> (May 8 1945) The German ace Erich Hartmann scores his final victory over a Yak-7 in his Me-109, making a total of 352 kills. Later that day he surrendered to British forces, ending his war.



Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Well I wasn't expecting all those countries, but probably in most cases they were the only aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

he's pretty much put the only planes worthy of mention for most countries...........

i take it that list was a spur of the moment thing and you just happened to have al them pics lying round?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

The A6M2 was the best naval fighter in the world until 1943.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Well that I won't disagree with.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Also Russian bombers were always raiding Scandinavian cities, and East Europe. I think Helinski got a big beating from Russian heavy bombers until they retaliated against the bomber airfields.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I thought the Russians followed the German practice of focusing on tactical rather the strategic bombing. But I don't know as much about the Russians as I do some of the others.


----------



## kiwimac (May 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> he's pretty much put the only planes worthy of mention for most countries...........
> 
> i take it that list was a spur of the moment thing and you just happened to have al them pics lying round?



   

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

No, the Russians although mostly using Pe-2s and aircraft of that kind for specific bombing, they did use TB-3s and Pe-8s to bomb East Europe and Scandnavia. 
The Finnish did retaliate well though, I think there's a thread on here about their retaliation by bombing the air bases where the Soviet bombers were flying from. They used to join formation with them, and bomb them when they were landing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

makes sence, you get the planes too then................


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Well that was the idea. The Russians soon moved away.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, I remember reading that post. I was just saying that as a general rule the Russians seemed far more concerned with tactical rather than strategic airpower.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

how did we get from all rounders to this?

best allrounder, the mossie...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

i prefer the lightning to the mossie 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

A good choice I think.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Don't lie, you don't think  

The P-38 was good, but in my opinion the Mosquito was better. It was cheaper and easier to produce as well...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

they made more p-38's though


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Look at the size and economy of America compared to Britain C.C.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I think the edge goes to the Lightning because an individual Lightning was more versatile than an individual Mosquito (ie, the Mosquito's versatility came from being built in several distinct versions).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

as much as i love the lightning, i think the mosquito was the more versatile of the 2. remember, it could carry the same payload as a b-17 would normally carry 8) the highest stat i have seen for a lightnings payload is 4000lb


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

the mossie was the better plane....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And I have posted on here that the Lightning could carry well over that 4,000lb limit. And then turn into a very effective fighter once its bombload was dropped. Just try that in a B.IV.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

yup, the mossie could do that too.... if you can convince me that the lightning is better then you will have done a superb job


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The only single marks of the Mossie that were truly multi-role were the fighter-bomber marks (specifically the FB.VI). They could function as low-level attackers (good fire power and bombload) and to an extent as air-to-air fighters. Any single version of the Lighting could (and was) used as an interceptor, and escort-fighter, skip-bomber, dive-bomber, tank buster, etc. And just about any mark of Lightning (and especially the definitive Js and Ls) had the advantage over the Mossie in just about any category (roll, turn, speed, climb, ceiling). Ergo, the Lightning was better.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

The Mosquito was better than the P-38 at all the bombing duties, and it had anti-shipping to its name.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

im edging toward the lightning....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

P-38's were modified to carry the Norden sight (considerably better than anything the British developed) or "Mickey" BTO radar and were used on several level-bombing missions. It was well loved as a dive-bomber and sank lots of shipping in the MTO both dive and skip bombing. One guy actually managed to destroy two transports with the same bomb!


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

That's a skillful pilot but the Mosquito was still better at bombing than the P-38. A few Mosquitos freed a load of prisoners from Amiens Prison, 'what was that? West Wall, Garrison Building, Cafertia..ok..shall we drop one in the Prison commanders cup of tea for good luck?'


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I didn't mean to imply that the Lightning was the better bomber, but it was very good in its own respect. And the Mosquito can't begin to approach the Lightning's air-to-air record.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

And the P-38 can't compare to the Mosquito in bombing.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Maybe, but the Lightning made a better bomber that the Mosquito made fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i'm not sure the mossie was the better bomber, and some marks were faster than the P-38....................


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The record of the Mosquito shows a better bomber, it could carry more as well. The Lightning could drop bombs, anything could do that. The Mosquito was precise.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

A P-38 with a Norden or Mickey radar could drop bombs very accurately. And their dive-bombing was extremely accurate. The P-38L had a topspeed of 443mph at altitude. I've not seen a speed for a Mossie posted that high.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Seriously, are you trying to say that the P-38 was better a bomber than the Mosquito?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

No, but the P-38 was very capable of precision. And alot of the Mosquito's precision came from the nature of its missions, low-altitude, rather than any particular aspect of the plane.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

The plane has to be able to do it though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

And many planes could fly well at low-altitude. The P-38 was (in Europe) generally considered more effective at low-altitude than high.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

There's low, and there's Mosquito low. It was one of, if not, the most precise bomber.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

It definitely was precise. But several planes flew that low. B-25s in the Pacific came back with bits of foilage stuck in their engines and bomb bays.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Yes, and I love the B-25. People were looking down on the Mosquitos in the Amiens raid.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

German Sentry:"Are those ficken Britanien gonna ram the wall?!"


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Exactly....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

i prfere the mossie to the P-38, it was after all, better..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

I would concede the Mossie was a better bomber, I would adimately deny that it was a better fighter, and strongly argue against it being a better fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

i only like it as a bomber/ fighter-bomber so i don't really mind what you say about it as a fighter.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Well, a key point of being a fighter-bomber is being a fighter. Lightning still takes that.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The Mosquito was a brilliant bomber that could defend itself, the Lightning was a high altitude interceptor that could bomb. 
The Mosquito was probably better at destroying bombers because of its much stronger armament.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The Mossie carried a heavier weight of fire, but the guns on the Lightning were still more concentrated (though the Mossie's were grouped very tightly). The Lightning was more than capable of taking down a bomber. The Italians used a captured Lightning to attack B-17 stragglers and managed to shoot down several.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Don't get me wrong, the Lightning was very good at taking down bombers. I still believe the Mosquito would have been better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

it had better armourment................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Yes.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

But less climb and would have been a bigger target for enemy gunners. I think it would have been effective, but in my opinion (and that's all this discussion can be) the P-38 would have been more effective.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

It will be an opinion based discussion, but the Mosquitos less climb rate is not a huge disadvantage because it can still get up to the bombers. Being a bigger target, again it's not really that much bigger. 
I think that the Mosquito would have been a better interceptor.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

The climb thing becomes a problem depending on the warning radar or (in the Pacfic) coast watchers can provide. In the BoB, faster climbing Spits and Hurricanes often found themselves getting pounced by the higher flying 109s. The problem for the Mossie would have been magnified. In the Pacific, coast watchers were not always reliable and warning might be barely a matter of minutes. In that instance the Mossie would have had little chance of making an interception before the bombers had hit their target.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

The P-38 would have had the same problem in both circumstances. In the BoB you could not have avoided the high flying 109s, no matter how quick you got up. The Mosquito can handle itself in a dog fight, and even then the tactics of the RAF were for the Hurricanes to take the bombers, the Spitfires to take the fighters, this would be the same wiht the Mosquito only the Mossie would be on the bombers. 

In the Pacific, the Mosquito would still be able to get up. You make out as if the Mosquito climbs like a WW1 Gotha bomber or something.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

No, but the climb rate of the FB.VI was 1,870fpm which is only about half the P-38's climb rate. And the P-38 could hold a sustained climb (hitting altitude about twice as fast as a P-51 for example). The point is that the Mossie would probably still be climbing when it got bounced while the P-38 could already be at the bomber level.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

but the ceiling of the bombers wasn't that bit anyway, i think it's speed would have benn able to do it...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

I'm not saying it couldn't do it, just that it would be at a disadvantage to the P-38. During the BoB the Germans typically bombed from 20,000 feet or so. It will take the Mossie a little over 10 min to get there, the Lighting is there in 5. (A follow loaded Lightning, from a dead stop could hit 20,000ft in only 7 min). Advantage Ligtning.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

they could both get there so it doesn't matter does it...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

My point is, the Lightning gets there sooner, ie. further from the bombers' targets.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

but the mossies speed will soon close the gap............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Speed has nothing to do with getting to altitude though. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Advantage Lightning, for what? The Lightning could get up there, yes, so could the Mosquito. The Lightning gets up there earlier, a little further from the target, the Mosquito is taking more down when it gets up there with stronger armament. 

And don't bother saying the Lightnings guns were closer together, you can line up guns to however you want them to fire. Converge them at a closer distance and you can be hitting them in one spot, where the rounds converge. Or hang back away from your rounds converging distance and you are going to spray the aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

anyway lanc, the mossie was only a tiny insignificant amount faster 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Not faster at all, the L would do 443mph the J could hit around 425mph and every model was right around 400mph. The point about the armament alignment is that the Lightning's guns didn't have to converge, they could all fire straight ahead and produce a nice, neat pattern out to 1,000 yds. And of course, if you are going to say climb rate doesn't matter, you have to note that armament shouldn't be mentioned either since both had the guns to knock down a bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

wow, faster, even better


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

So, you're saying they are both the exact same in capability at taking down bombers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

I'm saying that if my argument that the P-38 got there faster should be thrown out because the Mossie could still get there, your argument on the Mossie knocking them down faster has to go as well because the P-38 could still knock em down.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

So, you are saying that they are both the same in capability. Ones advantage negates the others.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

In practical terms, probably. I personally would still have the climb of the Lighting. With enough warning, the Lightning's rate of climb would give it the ability to perhaps even get above the escorting fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

but you could say the same for the mossie, if it had enought warning the mossie could get up there and perhaps above the figters...............


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

You're gonna have a tough time arguing that the dear old Mossie would have made a better point-defence interceptor guys - one of the Lightning's specifications was it had to reach 20,000 in under 6 minutes. In terms of speed, the fastest Mosquito did 437mph - so a fair 5mph behind the P-38 - but all Mossie marks hovered around, and mostly above, the 400mph mark like the P-38. In terms of gun concentration, there is no way you can argue that the difference between a Lighning and a Mosquito in this respect would have _any_ effect _whatsoever_. There was not a single operational aircraft in either theatre that was small, and tough, enough to be more susceptible to the Lightning because its guns were 3-4 inches closer together - there is no realistic situation I can think of in which all of a Lighning's guns would hit and a Mosquito's would not. In this area the two planes are as good as equal.

In my opinion, if you had to use either the P-38 or the dH 98 as a BoB style daylight interceptor, which is an absurd suggestion anyway, the P-38 would come out top. At night the Mosquito would get my vote every time (despite some useful nightfighter Lightnings appearing towards the end of the war) - it's record is unequalled. As a bomber you cannot seriously make the argument for the P-38 being better any more than you can argue that a Mossie was the better interceptor - the Mossie could carry an 8,000 lb bomb if it had to, and put it right on the target. The Mosquito was renowned for being able to bomb from 30,000 ft to within 75 yards' accuracy using Oboe equipment.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I would agree with that, although the Lightning was used as a nightfighter long before the P-38M came along. At least two P-38s were equipped with radar as early as 1943 to assist the practically worthless P-70s in intercepting the Japanese intruders.


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

True - they didn't do at all badly either...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I've read that one fellow took up a standard P-38 and was able to score 2 kills in a minute without radar.


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

Lol, beginner's luck that sounds like.  

Blimey, that would really pi$$ me off if I was one of those bombers' crewmen: getting shot down by some lucky git winging it in a dayfighter!


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

LG you have a unit for that P-38 black job ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

loving the siggy Huckebein.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

you should see the reply for it i have...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

go on, amaze us..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i will do when its finished


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

it's a reply not a round the world boat race, how long's it gonna take................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i dont know, ive got an evening of quality television lined up this evening so expecty it...tomorrow 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

i can't wait, i'll be on at 2400hours waiting for you...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

no such time, its 0.00hours, and besides, my "evening of quality television" extends over to 1 am.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

> no such time



it would be 0000hours.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

on a 24hr clock it says 0:00 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

that's not military time.............


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

In military time it would be 0000 hrs. On a regular digital clock it would be 0:00am.


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

In military time it would be 0000 hrs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

which is what we're saying..................


----------

