Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
German fighters had no range. They struggled to get to where the bombers were and then after a couple passes had to break for home to refuel and rearm. They had little time on target. Even with ferry tanks their ammunition supply wouldn't give them effective combat duration. It can be argued that many were crack shots and to shoot down a bomber all they had to do was cruise aft of a formation and take one down after the other at their leisure. But, the idea was to do whatever they could to get those formations to break ranks so they had to engage like flies to a crap wagon. That took a lot of fuel and evasive maneuvering meant missed firing runs. So, if we're talking about a true multi-role machine Germany didn't have one that wasn't bettered by Allied inventory.
Of the ones that come to mind it would be the Jug first and Corsair second only because the Jug had better high altitude performance. After that I'd consider Hawker's Sea Fury. These were big airplanes with good range and performances at various flight levels. They carried huge payloads, ample ammo supplies and were good (cleaned-up) air superiority adversaries. The biggest plus, and I've mentioned it in another thread, is their round engines otherwise I might have added the 51 and maybe the 38. One round through the glycol system on those water cooled types and it's over so they aren't as multi-role suited as a round engine. Besides, 51's should be used for CAP over the Jugs.
Of the ones that come to mind it would be the Jug first and Corsair second only because the Jug had better high altitude performance. After that I'd consider Hawker's Sea Fury. These were big airplanes with good range and performances at various flight levels. They carried huge payloads, ample ammo supplies and were good (cleaned-up) air superiority adversaries. The biggest plus, and I've mentioned it in another thread, is their round engines otherwise I might have added the 51 and maybe the 38. One round through the glycol system on those water cooled types and it's over so they aren't as multi-role suited as a round engine. Besides, 51's should be used for CAP over the Jugs.
That is not true. The range of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 were more than sufficient for anti bomber operations. They did not have to struggle to reach the bombers. They took off from air bases over Germany and attacked the bombers over Germany.
They lacked good range for offensive operations, such as the Battle of Britain, but they certainly did not lack in the anti bomber role.
If you really want to talk about multi role the Jug still does not come close to the Fw 190 in the single engine role. It certainly can be argued that the Jug was better than the Fw 190 in certain roles, but the Fw 190 could perform more roles and do them well.
In the multi engine category, I do not think anything comes close to the Mossie, Ju 88 and P-38.
I have to go P38 on this one, hands down. From level bomber to night fighter, the P38 literally did every role imaginable in WWII. It's weakest role was divebombing, but the J/L's were even credible performers at this task.
There was even a carrier based version, the "Model 822" (which the USN did not express much interest in).
Of course this is JMHO.
There was even a carrier based version, the "Model 822" (which the USN did not express much interest in).
Of course this is JMHO.
All of Tank's designs were superb machines but hardly could any one of them load-out what the Jug could. Air-to-air, IIRC, the Jug was historically victorious over the German fighter. I'll admit that this was more to the credit of American combat flight training and mission discipline but with 8 .50 weapons firing at a rate of 900 RPM (early Brownings) a one second burst was minimally 120 rounds. That one second burst with API (armor piercing incendiary) was like a fly swatter to a fly. One of those rounds in the main spar severed the wing. They hit and began burning violently upon impact acting like buzz saws. Regular ball ammo alone would have been devastating from the sheer weight from 8 .50's. German cannon armaments, though lauded as being highly accurate, were much slower firing and because each round was heavier than a .50-round the Germans had to be closer in to their targets where their weapons were most effective. The Browning .50-cal. was the best air-to-air weapon of the war because of it's rate of fire, range, and striking power.
While the German fighters were quite capable of reaching and engaging Allied formations it is true that they could not remain on-station for long. Scrambling from their fields after report of approaching formations they had to climb at full power to altitude and then fly an intercept at that same power setting. This consumed much more fuel than if they had time to climb to altitude and turn to intercept at economy settings. At the altitudes Allied formations flew even early warnings didn't give them that leisure. Remember, best rates of climb meant highest fuel consumptions. The German fighters were not as suited to multi-role mission capabilities as the big round engine American and British types. The Jug could carry 1 ton of explosives to a German air base and go home. They did this routinely. The German machines might manage 1/2 ton but never make it back from the American base. They couldn't manage 1/2 ton of ordnance and external fuel stores. There simply wasn't enough airplane there.
I like them all. As a matter of fact I've drawn my own plans for a 1/4 scale Jack (Raiden) and hope to be building it in the not-to-distant future. But, the questions here and in other threads seem to be asking about "best" this or that and it seems to me favorites are pushed regardless of assessing the nature of what multi-role really means. For that all you gotta do is lay out the historical data showing performance, survivability/battle damage records for types, number of crewmen (one is enough), carrying capacity, range and firepower.
Wow, you guys have an interesting view on 'moderation' here on this forum. I guess you guys don't drink from the 'mods are neutral and impassive' cup eh?(please note smiley face, this post is offered in good nature.)
What is wrong with how I moderated? At the moment, I was not even moderating, I was carrying on a conversation.
Why do I carry on conversations? Because I enjoy WW2 aviation as well. I try to carry on discussion in a non biased manner that includes facts about the aircraft, and not what country it came from.
If and when a situation needs moderating, then I moderate...
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
Yes, sure! Unfortunatelly I can't arguee with the training and tactics because I don't know much about it. But the fuel problem is known for me, too. What an idiotic thing that in the outlandish North African desert and Pacific islands had a good logistics management - for the fuel now - and there are just "weak" juice in England? What a pity thing is that... Ruin anyway such an excellent bird!
P-38's shooting down more than they lost ? Yeah sure, what's next, the toothfairy ?
Fact of the matter is that the P-38 was in general considered an easy meal by German fighter pilots. (And forget about Steinhoff, a favorite of P38 fans, his words have been twisted beyond reason)
Fact of the matter is that the P-38 was in general considered an easy meal by German fighter pilots. (And forget about Steinhoff, a favorite of P38 fans, his words have been twisted beyond reason)
Soren, I do not think that any of the top fighters (i.e. P-51, P-47, Spitfire, P-38, etc) were considered "easy meal" by the German pilots.
If it is a fact of the matter, please back it up with sources (p.s. one pilot saying that the P-38 was easy to shoot down does not make it a fact...)
I have done this many times by now Adler, it rally shouldn't be necessary:
Soren, no where in there does it say that it was easy to shoot down a P-38. It says they would prefer to fight a P-38 over other aircraft, but not that it was easy.
WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS MANY TIMES NOW SOREN, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY!
Again my point being, none of the modern aircraft were "easy" to shoot down!
That is the opinion of one pilot. Opinion by one person, does not make it fact. Is that hard to understand?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
