Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There is NO fighter that is the best at everything.The Spitfire Mk. XIV was still the best, and the best dogfighter of the war.
They didn't produce the K-4 in large numbers, in any case the Merlin engined HA-1112 was the best 109..but we won't go into that, it didn't see service and it was Hispano built...for Spain...
nothing works 100% of the time, nothing fails 100% of the time. What separates best from worst is the difference.Just going to put this out there: if the Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, how then, did the Germans manage to shoot them down?
was NOT a good ground-attack airplane
Put the booz away. Next you will see goblins on pink hippos.Amiot 143
I kind of cribbed this from a comment about American baseball.nothing works 100% of the time, nothing fails 100% of the time. What separates best from worst is the difference.
I have never seen a B-29…..Put the booz away. Next you will see goblins on pink hippos.
Capable does not mean "the best" at it. Never said it wasn't capable.Tell that to all that were shot to blubber in trains cars and bikes trycicles rollerscates.
Fast, could outturn light flak and have a change.
I met a person long ago who was in a train in Holland. Train was defended with some light Flak .
Attacked by Spitfires.
Flyboys killed the loco and came back to finish.
The could not have known it was mostly civilians.
The dead were stacked up at the back near the exit. Apperantly trying to get out Almost nobody got out. It was not the only train shot up like that. By far.
Spits were quite capable in ground attack. Period.
There seems to be a progression. As more capable models were fielded, the older models were relegated to ground attack.Capable does not mean "the best" at it. Never said it wasn't capable.
Any airplane with armament is capable. But you'd hardly describe a training airplane with two 30-cal MG the "best" at it.
Likewise, the Spitfire could certainly hit ground targets. But it could not take a lot punishment before catastrophic damage occurred versus more suitable ground attackers. A P-47 was worlds tougher than a Spitfire but would fall short of a Spitfire as an interceptor and/or a dogfighter. But, in the war, it shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and proved it was capable. Still, if you were going up to dogfight and had a choice (Not likely in real life, you basically flew what you were assigned to fly), you'd likely pick a Spitfire, if you could, over a P-47.
Not trying to start any thing here, but saying the Spitfire was the best ground attack airplane doesn't seem even CLOSE to reasonable.
I'd call it a mid-pack ground attacker. Decent armament, but short-ranged and not rugged versus ground fire. Against non-defending targets, like you describe above, it was quite good versus other gun-only attackers. Against well-defended targets with heavy flak capability it was was not a good choice.
No not quite. Only if it had a profit. P-47 did. It could carry a Tyson punch and some big ole bombs to top it off and had a decent range annnnnddd a lot of good pilots.There seems to be a progression. As more capable models were fielded, the older models were relegated to ground attack.
and why could the P-40 roll faster and almost anything take more punishment than the Spitfire.Just going to put this out there: if the Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, how then, did the Germans manage to shoot them down?
There really isn't a "best" when trying to define any one type of aircraft over another.