1943-44: the best Axis fighter(s)? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
13,799
4,332
Apr 3, 2008
Hello,people,
What Axis piston-engined fighter could be considered as the best in the specified time frame? Or, is there a champion in 1943, and then another champion in 1944? At least 100 examples of the fighters' type need to be in service, in order to compete, per each year. The overall performance (speed, RoC, roll rate, combat range...), weaponry, protection are the categories of interest.
 
It probably changes by the year if not the month :)

OK maybe by the season???

FW190D-9 coming to mind right off the bat. Late 44. changes the whole 109 vs 190 argument.

Japanese Ki 84 doesn't show up in numbers until late 1944.

The N1K1-J Shiden makes your list, the N1K2-J Shiden-KAI does not ( less than 100 produced in 1944)

Fiat G-55??? when?
 
The Mitsubishi Raiden would gave the Germans a good run for their money?
 
First half 1943 : Fw190A-4
Second half 1943 : Macchi 205 Veltro , especially if fitted with german propeller and german built engine
First half 1944 : Fiat G55 , especially if fitted with german propeller and german built engine
Second half 1944 : Bf 109 , the version with MW 50 and streamlined nose( G6/AS, G14/AS, G10, K4) and KI84 if properly built
 
Erich Hartmann shot down over 150 enemy aircraft during 1943 while flying Me-109G and he wasn't the only successful Me-109 pilot. 20 April 1943 JG52 scored their 5,000th kill.

That's good enough for me.
 
Fw 190A-6 up to early 1944: after the A-6 the A series 190s started losing their edge.
AS series 109s most of 1944.
Fw 190D-9 late 1944.
 
Erich Hartmann shot down over 150 enemy aircraft during 1943 while flying Me-109G and he wasn't the only successful Me-109 pilot. 20 April 1943 JG52 scored their 5,000th kill.

That's good enough for me.

Hartmann spent most of the war hacking down practically untrained russian kids,with his skill he could have been flying a Buffalo!
kills are a poor yardstick if you dont examine the circumstances!
 
Just a quick note on Hartmann and the Bf.109: I read an article several years ago in which Eric was being interviewed. He was asked if he thought the Bf.109 was a better fighter than the Fw-190 because that's what he elected to continue flying in. His response was, "No, I wouldn't say that. I could fly it better."
He was then asked if he thought the Spitfire could outturn the 109. He answered, "Yes, but not by as much as you might think".
 
I think I read that interview, too. I believe there were some places in there (possibly another interview) where it said the 3 top scorers all stayed with the 109 not because it was better, but because they knew it very well and didn't want to be killed while learning the Fw 190 as well.

Familiar equated with effective, that is, a veteran who knew his mount was better than a rookie in a newer mount. If they changed, they were back to being rookies when it came to pulling g and maneuvering near the limits.

When not in combat, Erich Hartmann was versatile enough to learn to fly the F-104, which he didn't like, and not get killed in it, as a lot of contemporaries of his did.
 
The F-104 was well loved by the pilots that knew how to fly it - particularly the RCAF. It was not a 'turning' fighter but it was one hell of an airplane. It embarrased USAF and RAF and many NATO partners in low level precision attacks.
 
How many kills did Fw-190 achieve during 1943?
What is the most kills achieved by a single Fw-190 pilot during 1943?

How many USAAF heavy bombers did Bf 109s shoot down in 1943?

Most kills achieved over heavy bombers by a single Bf 109 pilot during 1943?
 
If you could relax your production criteria a bit, the Reggiane RE 2005 would have to be a candidate, particularly in 1943. The Germans tested all the late war Italian fighters and considered it the best, and very competitive with the contemporary Fw190s and Bf109s, with more development potential than the latter. They considered putting it into production themselves, but it was a time-consuming beasty to build, particularly compared to the Messerschmitt.
And it looked awesome!
 
Do you have price or man hour data for production of RE 2005 airframe?
Sorry, no figures. But from Wiki:

"It was one of the most advanced Italian fighters but it was also too advanced to be made by the Italian industry, and one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive to produce. Its complex design and small dimensions led to its contemporary, the Fiat G.55, being evaluated as a superior choice for mass production."

I recall reading that It took much longer to build a Re 2005 than a Bf109 (which to be fair could be produced exceptionally easily) and that this was the main reason the Germans elected not to make it themselves, even though they had evalauted it as the best of the Italian fighters and better able than the 109 to handle the increasingly powerful engines that were becoming available.
 
Fiat G.55, being evaluated as a superior choice for mass production.
G.55 was a fine aircraft. So why not just produce it and forget about the expensive Re2005?

This is no different then Germany producing Me-109 rather then more expensive He-112B. Only the USA can afford to pay two or three times as much for fighter aircraft as everyone else.
 
G.55 was a fine aircraft. So why not just produce it and forget about the expensive Re2005?

This is no different then Germany producing Me-109 rather then more expensive He-112B. Only the USA can afford to pay two or three times as much for fighter aircraft as everyone else.

Yep, the G.55 offered pretty much everything the Re 2005 did and was cheaper - another strong contender for best axis fighter. Just not quite as pretty...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back