wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
Yep - and then the next day drop 3,200 lbs (H model) or more on a target.
wmaxt
Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep - and then the next day drop 3,200 lbs (H model) or more on a target.
wmaxt
- Thread starter
- #282
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Nope, the next day he's getting interrogated at a local POW collection center...
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
Not that sure, in air to air combat in the ETO it had a 4:1 kill rate (The 8th AF only lost 451 P-38s total) excluding the AA fire they had to contend with on ground attack missions which made up just over half the sorties the P-38 made in the ETO. In the MTO the ratio was 5:1.
Though if he did go down he was captured but thats a risk you take when you take the war to the enemy over his turf - something the P-38 did better than the Spitfire or the Fw-190. It's a point several Japanese pilots and military leaders noted when they mentioned that they never knew where or when the P-38s would turn up.
wmaxt
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
what the hell does range have to do with dogfighting? could the P-51D out dogfight a Spit XIV? no, a dogfight's a dogfight no matter where it happens, so i'm gonna say spit Mk.XIV...........
Im going with the Fw-190D because overall I think it was a better aircraft.
This discussion has been hashed, and hacked to pieces before. The Spitfire Mk.XIV and Fw-190D-9 were both dogfighting equals, it would take the pilot to tip the balance rather than the aircraft itself. But there is also the Spitfire F.21 - let's not forget this aircraft did serve from January to May, 1945. Although, from my information it's climbing was actually slower than the Mk.XIV but I think that's sustained climb because it's engine was more powerful than the XIV. I don't know for sure.
Sorry, the Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire Mk. XIV are the best. And the poll says Fw-190D-9, with the Spitfire in second. So, obviously some people with sense are voting.
Sorry, the Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire Mk. XIV are the best. And the poll says Fw-190D-9, with the Spitfire in second. So, obviously some people with sense are voting.
plan_D said:
LOL Agreed!
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
No, but the P-38 could at least hold it's own, and take it to the enemy, that doesn't take away anything from either the Fw-190 or the Spitfire's dogfighting ability but the P-38 belongs in the mix to.
wmaxt
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Ok - another term that coincides with range - endurance; true a dogfight is a dogfight but it kinda sucks when you're about to get close enough to flame your opponent and run out of gas!!
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
FLYBOYJ said:
I agree, right off the top of my head I can put these circumstances where it was a critical point.
1. The BoB what if the Bf-109s had another 40-60min of fuel?
2. Sicily and Sardinia where to quote Stienhoff, The fact the P-38s would turn up anywhere at any time was very troubling. Moreover, the clear superiority the Lightning, in both speed and maneuverability, was especialy disconcerting.
3. As mentioned above the Japanese said similar things.
4 I belive it was Goering that said "The jig is up" when he saw American fighters over Berlin.
5 Probably the best piston dogfighter to come out of WWII, the F8F Bearcat was only with the fleet a few years because its short range made it virtualy usless for anything but CAP flights.
6. Escorting - you can't win a major conflict just over your own bases, you must project that power to the enemys strategic heart.
Maybe in the strictest sense range doesn't matter but in the prosecution of a war it can make a criticla difference. In my opinion.
But back to the point of this thread, I think the P-38 belongs right there with the Spitfire and the late models of the Fw-190. All three had advantages over the others at certain altitudes/situations and winning/losing depended more on who got and held the initial advantage than the capabilities of their indivdual aircraft.
wmaxt
Here is my 10cents b/c my 2 cents is for free. I think you all bring up good points, Fb, Lanc, Wmaxt, but I think you are talking about different planes, meaning the following. The thread is talking about best Dogfighter, not best over fighter or anything else. When I see the title of the thread I think both planes that do not have to about reaching a target or anything else just one on one and you do not have to worry about fuel levels. If you start talking about fuel, over all height performances, then it starts getting very hard to even compare one plane to the other. It becomes like comparing apples to oranges. If you take all the gloves off and then you should just say the ME262, it would shoot any of these planes down one on one. But if you say dogfighter then can argue different planes and forget about fuel etc., if you want to talk about best fighter over all that is a different thread. I hope I am getting across what I am trying to say here. If not oh well.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Hunter368 said:
It all is valid, the best dogfighter in the world is essentialy useless if it can't fight when it needs to or can only fight in defensive battles over its own field.
But as my last paragraph shows, I think the P-38 belongs in the mix even if range not taken into account. I base this on accounts, note Stienhoffs comments above, and from many other sources. I've even read where Gunter Rall (after the war) compared the Spitfire to the P-38 with the comment 'It's about as good as the 38'. There is also an account of Adolf Galand in a 190D that could not shake a P-38 which was getting occasional shots in to him until the P-38 had to leave because of fuel. That said I must also acknowledge that a well flown Spit or late 190/152 that gets the jump on the P-38 can, if he holds onto that advantage get the P-38. I think the three need to be ranked together.
wmaxt
Wmaxt, I guess I am trying to split atoms here, I just see a difference between the best dogfighter and the best fighter overall. I see the Spitfire as the best dogfighter (honorable mention to the 190) and the P-51 as the best overall fighter. Spitfire due to its performance, guns, and over all its very manuavability in a fight. P51 due to its balanced manuavability, performance, guns and over all its amazing range that always gets it to reach the enemy when other fighters can't even fly that far never mind then dogfight. That all being said this does not mean I would pick either one as the best overall fighter that I would want to fly if my life depended on it, that would be the 190D. It was a high flyer, great performance, guns: all of which I would rather have than mauavability. I would rather have good guns, good performance and aluitude than a manuavable plane. I would never dogfight if I could help it. Hit and run is the way to live a long happy life. Dogfighting is like standing up the throwing punches in Mixed Martial Arts, crazy!!! You might win sometimes but you are going to get hit back and it takes just one punch and you are out (see Tank Abbott who is one mean SOB who throws them but also takes them). Hit and run is like grappling to me, it limits the chance that you are going to get tagged back. You wait until you have the advantage then you get in there. Just my thoughts while trying to make myself tried enough to go to sleep.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Hunter368 said:
Your thoughts have merrit a hit and run from a higher altitude is not only the best method in all reality it was the most effective.
I will stand on my earlier post - the P-38 on its dogfighting ability deserves to be with the 190 and Spit. The P-38 was also one of the very best when it came to climb, altitude ability (Js and Ls still had full power at 30k where the Spit/190/P-51 had lost as much as half), and speed. Also as I pointed out above even Galland himself in a 190D couldn't shake a P-38. The P-38 was at least a match.
As to the P-51, the P-38 not only could out fly it, a quote from a P-51 pilot to his nephew was 'to fight one (P-38 ) you (P-51) had to start out a lot faster and higher to have a chance'. Performance wise the comtemporary P-38J-25/Ls
Flew higher - 44,000ft to 40,000ft (Sometimes rated at 41,000ft)
Climed 20% faster 7min to 20,000ft to 9 to 20,000 in METO power
were as fast/slightly faster
Accelerated faster 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft to 2.2mph/sec
Out maneuvered
carried more in Fighter Bomber roll reportedly 5,200lbs (official rating 4,000lbs) to the P-51s 2,000lbs
Heaver firepower that was housed in the center of the aircraft and was effective at twice the range of the P-51.
The longest fighter mission of WWII was by the P-38 at 2,300mi.
The P-51 was cheaper, easier to train in, easier to maintain and had a faster cruise speed if ultimate range was not required. Those are the advantages of the P-51 over the P-38.
wmaxt
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Hunter368 said:
Your welcome. Check out the Planes and Pilots of WWII web page there are 5 P-38 and 1 F4U articles that have some great info on the P-38 here is the page http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html another one thats packed with info is http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html you'll find some other good articles in the Planes and Pilots page.
wmaxt
and lost 0 bombers 
