Best all-round fighter of WWII

Ratsel said:

- jack of all trades, master of none.

Click to expand...

Master of none? The P-51 was a superlative long range escort fighter, a superlative high altitude fighter, an excellent long range interdiction fighter, and, a very good low altitude fighter.

Ratsel said:

Nobody can deny that P-51 by themselves or B-17 by themselves not much threat against Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

Hard to imagine that an aircraft, available in quantity, that could fly 600 miles, out fly prevalent enemy aircraft over their own airfields from ceiling to SL during the most critical period of the war, strafe transportation vehicles on the way out and fly 600 miles back home, could be considered not much of a threat to the Luftwaffe.

As for the best dogfighter, for yanking and banking, I would guess the Spit XIV, however the Bf-109K is pretty impressive in speed and climb from SL to 30k+. I don't about the turning part. The F4U-4 was certainly a good performer but I don't think it played enough of a role in WW2.

As for the best fighter, well, with carrier capability required, the only answer is the superb F4U. With the carrier capability removed, in my opinion, the P-51 was the best fighter for the following reasons:
1) It was the most advance aerodynamically efficient piston aircraft of WW2, with only the equally impressive, but later and much fewer, Fw-190D-9 coming close. The P-51A, with 1150 hp was capable of 342 mph, with racks, at SL, with 1170 hp, the Bf-109F was capable of 326 mph (no racks?), and, with much more hp the Spitfire V was capable of 324 mph (no racks?). All models of the P-51 were very fast.
2) Due to its aerodynamic efficiency and plentiful internal fuel load, it had great range, able to support long range bombing raids and interdiction or extended on-station time.
3) As stated above, it had great combat capability from high altitude to SL. Its airspeed was faster at all altitudes than any prevalent enemy aircraft and at fighter weight; it could also climb and turn with good authority at all altitudes, commandingly so at high altitudes. And, it had great dive speed. Not until late in the war was their an enemy aircraft capable of such a broad range of excellent performance, and allied aircraft that had this, e.g., Spitfire XIV, did not have the range or endurance.
4) It was a good flying aircraft with few flying vices.
5) It was designed for manufacturing efficiency without compromising performance. Units were cheap and could be produced in great quantity. This allowed overpowering forces to be available when the enemy did develop a counter.
6) It had significant impact on the war in Europe for an extended time.

The best fighter in WWII was always the one coming out of the sun, cloud, or neutral background against an enemy not looking at you. But that was before radar.

After radar ... I mean the radar with altutude reporting capability, the best figher was the one who arrived to the immense surprise of the other guy. Very much like the statement above, huh?

After that radar, the best figher was the one employed the best by the flight commander. He could be on either side, but the best situational awareness usually wins.

Today it might be the unmanned robot who wins ... maybe not. If so, kill the terminator now and be done with it.

It's really impossible to identify "a best" without specifing its roles and when it was operational. That said, I'd go with the P-51D. The Mustang had no real flaws, excelled in many areas, and was probably more versatile overall than the other types mentioned. The F4U is a high honorable mention.

It's expected, but sad nevertheless, to see that the Tempest V is missing from that list, especially since Hans-Werner Lerche, who spent his war service testing captured Allied aircraft, rated it above all of the others, and reckoned that only DB605-powered Axis aircraft had a hope against it.

That's interesting - was he specifying a DB-605 subtype, or maybe a Bf-109 subtype?

To me "dogfightng" at least classic dogfighting is irrelevant. Most American fighters did not dogfight. They were energy fighters who used hit and run tactics more than traditional dogfighting. The Axis did this too but maybe to a lesser extent. Now the question was framed as best "all around" fighter. Not dogfighter. Of course if you talk dogfighter than you have the usual suspects - Spitfire, Mustang, FW-190, and Zero - maybe a few others. But let's consider the all-round best fighter.

OK. What tasks did a WWII fighter do and what attributes did it have???

1) dogfight
2) escort bombers
3) ground attack (fighter bomber)
4) interceptor (here not only is rate of climb is important but how fast can it get its motor started, warmed up and in the air).
5) bomber destroyer - this goes with interceptor but here I'm focussing on the firepower aspect to bring down heavy bombers (Libs, Lancs, Forts, Super Forts, HE-111's, H8K's etc)
6) Survivability - can it take a beating as well as dish it out? Can it protect its its pilot and get him home in less than pristine condition?
7) Impact - a (subjective I'll admit) measure of its overall effectiveness in the theater and partially supported by the numbers produced (for example the ME-262 is a fantastic plane but they made very few of them so the impact is not there)

If you can think of some others please chime in!

So knowing the above you have to choose a plane that had speed, maneuverability, range, firepower, climb, ruggedness, mass numbers and so forth.

May I have the envelope please?

IMHO the winner is:




The P-47 Thunderbolt

Best dogfighter - no, but it had great speed, not a bad climb rate (especially after the paddle blade props were used), and although it wasn't a turner it was great in a roll (I didn't say the best roller but right up there).
Best bomber escort - no, but not bad here either. And range was not a problem with drop tanks (P-47's could go all the way to Berlin by the end of the war). The N model was more than adequate in the Pacific when it came to range. High altitude performance was one of its better qualities.
Best ground attack - very well could be. You could argue about the Corsair but you have to rate the T-bolt at or near the top in this regard.
Best interceptor - Hard to say just where it would fall because it did not serve in that capacity but it should be noted it was originally designed for this role, so it would have at least been competitive.
Best bomber destroyer - The FW-190 certainly comes to mind but since the T-bolt was designed as a high altitude interceptor and it had 8 .50's - well I think it would have been more than adequate.
Best Survivability - Again at or near the top in this regard (as is the Corsair)
Best impact - It was made in more numbers than any other American fighter (15,000). That's a far cry from the Spit and ME-109 but it's a hell of lot planes in it's own right. And it made a significant contribution in Western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific. Some were sold to the Russians but I don't know enough of how well it performed for them.


So there you have it. The P-47 wasn't the best _________ fighter (fill in your favorite single attribute here), but I believe, it was the best all-around fighter of WW-II.

Naturally windswords, there are those who will disagree with you; I am one of them. My real problem is I like almost all the fighters of WWII for some reason or another. All had at least SOME great cahracteristic or they would not have been built to fight the war.

The Spitfire, P-38, Me-109, and A6M Zero were around for the entire war. The rest were pretty much not around for the entire war, but werre developed when existing planes showed inadequacies ... so at least some of the later-war planes almost HAVE to be better than what they replaced.

The best kill ratio goes to the Hellcat, hands down, but my favorite is the P-51 for its ability to do many things well and almost all very well.

But as I said earlier, I love 'em all. If called upon to choose ONE to be in when on a mission, my choice would change depending on the mission.

Cheers!

Any reason the Tempest doesn't rate much in these discussions/doesn't even make the poll. Is it because it came too late? Or were there issues that I have missed? It seems to be a ripper performer.

Watanbe said:

Any reason the Tempest doesn't rate much in these discussions/doesn't even make the poll. Is it because it came too late? Or were there issues that I have missed? It seems to be a ripper performer.

Click to expand...

IMO the importance of a special aircraft you can see how long it served after the war.
cimmex

GregP,

You are right. It ultimately would depend on the mission. I don't know if I want to take a T-Bolt to swirling dogfight, although it could roll with the best of them and if someone got a shot off on me my plane wouldn't immediately blow apart, but if I was going to strafe an enemy field and take on some bandits that rose to oppose me, that would be my ride.
Kill ratios are important but it depends on who your opponent is, and Vals, Kates, Judy's, and Jill's were not the best opponents for the Grumman. And that is not to dis the Hellcat (or Corsair) by any means.

Watanbe,

Maybe it just isn't as well known. The Spitfire was around for the whole war and they made a boatload of them. Certainly on paper the Tempest looks great.

cimmex,

I would caution you that postwar availability of a particular aircraft has a lot more to do with its cost to an airforce than its abilities. Both the P-38 and P-47 were quickly phased out of service because they cost too much to keep in a postwar budget era. I don't know about other nations planes like the Tempest.

Like this, and I will place another possible contender into your criteria: the P-38 Lightning.

1) dogfight It could hold its own, perhaps not the greatest. Late J and L models much better
2) escort bombers It could fly anywhere the Mustang could, sooner. But not as economically
3) ground attack (fighter bomber) The record shows it was great here. Equal to the Thunderbolt
4) interceptor What it was actually designed for, and if used as such would have been great, fast climb, lethal firepower.
5) bomber destroyer - as stated above
6) Survivability - just as rugged perhaps as the Thunderbolt, but with another engine to limp home on.
7) Impact - Was there from the start to the end of the war for the USA. And besides performing in all of the above, it was one of the most important photo recon aircraft the U.S. had.

MikeGazdik said:

Like this, and I will place another possible contender into your criteria: the P-38 Lightning.

1) dogfight It could hold its own, perhaps not the greatest. Late J and L models much better
2) escort bombers It could fly anywhere the Mustang could, sooner. But not as economically
3) ground attack (fighter bomber) The record shows it was great here. Equal to the Thunderbolt
4) interceptor What it was actually designed for, and if used as such would have been great, fast climb, lethal firepower.
5) bomber destroyer - as stated above
6) Survivability - just as rugged perhaps as the Thunderbolt, but with another engine to limp home on.
7) Impact - Was there from the start to the end of the war for the USA. And besides performing in all of the above, it was one of the most important photo recon aircraft the U.S. had.

Click to expand...

Just like to point out that the poll question refers only to (1) - roles 2, 3, 4 5 are not mentioned. Items 6 7 are independent of role.

wuzak said:

Just like to point out that the poll question refers only to (1) - roles 2, 3, 4 5 are not mentioned. Items 6 7 are independent of role.

Click to expand...

This thread has been confused about "Best all around" or "Best dogfighter", since day one. The poll results speak to most people voting in an attempt to name the "Best all around" fighter.

Love the Thunderbolt, but it is not the "Best Dogfighter" of WWII. Its been so long ago, but I believe that when I first chimed in I was going under the "Dogfighter" premise, and went with the Messerschmitt.

The list I used, I copied from the fella that created it before my post. (windswords)

Sticking with the "Best Dogfighter" I'd go with the Yak-3 down low in the horizontal plane. An air superiority fighter has to go vertically also. And though the Yak was no slouch the P-63 was better. At higher speeds the Kingcobra could outroll, outturn or turn with and outclimb (except for the Spit at certain heights) anything listed on this poll. 4x05.in. + 1x37mm armament. The 37mm wasn't the best for dogfighting, but one hit against any fighter and it would be over.

The following information is from Francis Dean's AHT ( Mike Willams' wwiiaircraftperformance.org):

Maneuverability: Exceptionally easy to perform at all altitudes at which the aircraft would normally
operate and a new pilot would quickly feel at ease doing them. The aircraft responds rapidly to ailerons at all speeds.

Turning ability: About the same as the P-38J using maneuvering flaps. The P-63 could get on the P-51B's tail in 3 to 4 turns and P-63 performance became relatively better with increasing turning speed.
With flaps down part way it was superior to most anything else in the air. Changes in tail surfases and elevator control system improved longitudinal and directional characteristics of later P-63 models to the point they were considered very nice aircraft to fly.

Roll rate: Action was rapid with light but positive forces. No effort and would roll exactly on its longitudinal axis. Maximum was 110degrees/sec. at 275mph. ( It could out roll the Fw-190A at speeds over 325 mph. It could outroll a normal winged spitfire over 225 mph and any fighter in U.S. inventory.)

Range: This was the P-63 major draw back. Internal fuel places in the wings only seriously limited the P-63's distance capability after combat at midpoint in radius missions.

Climb: All over 4,000 fpm. dry. Initial for P-63A-10= 4,980 fpm. Initial for P-63D/E= 4,970 fpm. (calculated).

In this poll the A6M gets few votes. This is understandable because of the later model and more advanced planes it is up against. I would argue though that in 1941 the A6M might have been the best fighter in the world and was almost certainly was the best shipboard fighter in the world at that time. The A6M was not available in any numbers during the BOB but if it had been available to the LW in numbers the RAF would have had a more difficult time. The A6M outranged anything on either side.

However, having just reread "Shattered Sword" one of the glaring weaknesses of the A6M was it's armament. The two 20 MMs they carried at Midway were fairly potent but they were short ranged, had a rainbow trajectory and only carried 60 rounds per gun. The two cowl mounted 7.7s were well supplied with ammo but were not very lethal aginst the US A/C. The A6Ms at Midway had to continually go back to the carrier to rearm which cancelled out some of the advantage of it's long legs. Later the A6M had it's 20MM ammo capacity increased to 90 rounds per gun and the cowl mounted guns were changed to 12.7s.

I wonder if the A6M would have been a more lethal fighter if it initially had not been armed with two cowl mounted 12.7s alone ( like the Oscar had) or with two additional 12.7s in the wings in place of the 20MMs. With more ammo per gun ( at least in the wings) and with much more lethal MGs, the Zero might have been a more successful fighter and the Allies would have suffered more ( not a good thing).

A good combination for the Zero would have been to leave the cowl guns alone and put an army 12.7 in each wing. And that is the problem. The Japanese army and navy couldn't standardize on anything.

The initial 20mm used in the wings was very light and weighed less than an American .50 or a Japanese Navy 13.2mm MG (clone of American .50 using 13.2mm Hotchkiss ammo). Later Zeros had improved 20mm guns that were heavier but fired higher velocity ammo.

Japanese army had problems with the 12.7mm guns (or the ammo) and many Oscars had one of each. The 12.7mm, like many big Brownings, didn't take to synchronization well. They took a bigger than usual cut in rate of fire when synchronized. They also had a problem with the ammo. The explosive filler was a little too sensitive and they had premature detonations either in the barrel or just in front of the muzzle leading the Japanese army to fit armor troughs under the barrels/gun muzzles to protect the engine.

SR, hoping you would weigh in. Many thanks. As you say, the IJN and the Army could not agree on much but the two 12.7s in the wings rather than the 20 MMs if the 12.7s had an adequate supply of ammo sounds good. The Oscar served well throughout the war with two cowl mounted 12.7s which is somewhat incongruous considering the Allied AC they had to go against late in the war. Spitfires, P47s, P51s, Beaufighters were all more heavily armed but the Oscar soldiered on against them. A hard fact to keep in mind for us arm chair pilots is that an early WW2 fighter had only one purpose and that was to tote some guns somewhere and damage the enemy with them. If the guns were inadequate or if they did not work well or were out of ammo, the fighter was almost useless.

I would not pick the P-63 as the allround best fighter but it was an excellent dogfighter. Just for fun I tried to rate it on Mike's seven points. I didn't expect it to do well in very many areas, but I was a little suprise when I finished.

DOGFIGHTER: Very close to "par excellence" (especially at low and medium altitudes) without the flimsy structure of the ZERO. 10pts.

GROUND ATTACK: 4 x 0.5in. 1 x 37mm. Offensively, one of the best. 8pts.

ESCORT BOMBERS: Maximum range 2,000-2,500 mls., but limited internal fuel. Not as desirable as the P-38L, P-47N or P-51B/D in this area, but could do the job if it had to. 8pts.

INTERCEPTOR: 4,600- almost 5,000 fpm. at sea level. The P-63A-8 could reach 10 km. in 11.55 (per AHT). Enough Said. 10pts.

BOMBER DESTROYER: See above and add a 37mm cannon. 10pts.

SURVIVABILITY - Not the flying tank like a F6F, P-47, or F4U, but it had 1,500 lbs. of Allison armor behind the cockpit protecting the pilot. Would have to realy partially on maneuverability. 8pts.

IMPACT: Not much. The USAAF never gave it the chance to prove itself. To be fair, they already had the P-38L, P-47M/N and P-51B/C with the P-51H and P-80A on the way. They just didn't need the P-63. 1pt. (ask the VVS).

Total: 55pts. or 78%

The P63 carried 126-128 gallons of internal fuel. It must have gotten really good gas mileage or monster drop tanks to have a range of 2000- 2500 miles. It is my understanding that the 37 MM cannon never worked very well operationally. The podded 50 cals were not liked by the Army.

renrich,
I'll look up more info tomorrow, but you're right about the podded guns. As far as the 37mm goes, it was much improved on the P-63 with more rounds. BUT imagine some of them in VVS use without the wing guns (and they were). Any performance figures I have posted to date were A/C with the wing pods intact. Without them (as the Russian pilots so love to fly them) probably produce climb rates over 5,000 fpm and speed in the 450 range. Its just an opinion though. Two fifties and a straighter shooting 37mm cannon could rake h@ll on even a P-47, BIG TIME. Internal fuel (most) 126 gallons, clean design and laminar flow wings= almost 700 mls. internal fuel only. How it did it, I leave to the engineers. But the fact, the Russians did not care. It was as good, and in many ways better than anything they had in 1944, Period.

Please pardon me, Ive been DJing and drinking. So, I owe you all an apology. I'm sorry. Especially to you renrich. I didn't even say hi. Hope your having as good night as I did. Gotta go now. The wife fell asleep on the day bed and I have to get the dogs in and take her to bed.........eat your hearts out.