Best Fighter III

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I completly disagree the P-51D only made such an impact because of the massive amount of numbers that were in the air. Just as Les pointed out if it had been the other way around and P-47's were the most numerous then it would be the P-47 that you are talking about. The P-47 was even a better aircraft all around than the P-51D as was the Fw-190D.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

Sorry Nonskimmer, you are right. Carried away.

Lesofprimus, if a duck had the beak talons of a hawk, would it be a hawk. The P-40 didn't have the range or performance of a P-51, as you know. But it seems that you may not be aware that the P-40 was built in numbers just a few thousand less than the '51. Since we are not talking about a Japanese aircraft, this is a small numerical difference. About 13,700 P-40s were built, all during WW2. About 15,600 P-51s were built, and I'm not exactly sure how many of them were built during WW2, but my memory of what I've read says about 14,250. As a matter of fact the P-40 was built in greater number than any other US fighter with two exceptions. The P-47 P-51. Not that I like bantering stats…

As for Axis fighters that I admire…
From Germany >>
*Seems that the Fw-190 Dora is a site fave. I also think the Dora was an aircraft with few or no peer. Fast, sturdy, agile, adaptable. The Fw-190 was produced after the war for the French (A-8s an NC-900s; Seems they just went plum nuts after the surrender of Germany, buying German American aircraft, as if children in a candy store) Turkey, which supplanted German supplied Fw-190s received in '42. Turkey flew Fw-190s until about 1948/9.
*Another German fighter aircraft I admire, He-219. Less than 300 built, and in service with 1 night fighter group; I/NJG 1. Heavily armed, this night fighter, probably the best of the war, was 'the' Mosquito catcher.
*I can't explain, but I also admire the Hs 123 'mud fighter'. Replaced buy the Ju 87, this biplane's short lived front line career was replaced with miserable overworked conditions on the Russian fronts until withdrawn due to attrition in mid '44.
From Italy >>
*M. C. 205V – Smashing Italian duds, German power. About 30 to 40 MPH slower than the average front line fighter fielded by the Allies, but this was the 'Zero' of Europe, in my opinion. There are two important differences however between the M.C. 205V the A6M-5. The M.C. 205V could dive, and it could roll.
*Re-2005 – Same as the M.C. 205V; A little less lovable duds, a smidgen less able to dive and roll, but a bit more agile horizontally, a tick faster, and 1 extra cannon firing through the prop shaft.
From Japan >>
*The Ki-100. 1st flown in Feb. '45, the re-engined Ki-61 was brilliant. About 270 of type 1a and 100 of type 1b were built. With maneuverability unmatched by anything else in the sky, save maybe those old Oscars; able to fly high enough with just enough speed to catch B-29s, even with pilots of little to no experience, they found a way through the '47Ns '51Ds and were able to score a few '29 Super Forts.
*The J2M5. About 500 built by Mitsubishi, and an unknown number by Koza, this aircraft was able to climb more steeply was more responsive to controls than anything in US inventory according to the US test pilots who flew a pair in early '46, that were captured a year earlier.
*Ki-46. Wow. If you think the Mosquito was something… Almost untouchable, with a top speed of 390 to 400 mph, until the final stages of the war, and in service from early '41 as a recon aircraft. Dinah was a streamlined beauty. Never fully developed as a fighter, hastily employed as a night fighter, she was of the few able to catch Super Forts.

No, not a propaganda junkie, however I believe I must bear some permanent damage from exposure.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, As I wrote…

"If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be… the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best. Well, although the '51' was the best fighter, it is not my 1st personal choice because although it excelled in escort rolls, I wonder what accounting history would have awarded the '51' if it were to have to intercept a bomber formations with fighter escort; in other words if the tables were turned. Or to be blunt, I don't think the '51' would have been the success it was if it was to have the roll of being a defensive fighter."

"In order to be able to be called 'Best Fighter' the aircraft may not be the most adaptable, or able to dominate any single or combined category subset. The Best Fighter would be the one that, as a fighter, performed its assigned objectives so well no other type could have replaced it, and in being irreplaceable, would have changed the war's outcome to the greatest degree if its type were not in service as a fighter. It's in this aspect that I nominate the '51 as best fighter of WW2, and say that there was simply none better."

Too add, there were more '47s in the sky than '51s. I gave production numbers for the '40 '51 above. '47 production totals are about 15,660. Fw-190, about 19,424. This number is higher than either the '51, or '47. So there were plenty made, why do you feel there were less opertunities for the P-40, or the Fw-190 to dethrone the '51 is not clear to me.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-51 was a good escort fighter and nothing more. It would have been a lousy interceptor and meager defense fighter. Its only attribute was its range and shear numbers. That does not make it the best.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

DerAdlerIstGelandet,
I see we must agree to disagree. I feel the '51 was a good fighter escort. So good at being an escort it was the single best fighter of WW2. I agree, it may not have been as capable at anything else. But what the Allies needed, more than any other 'fighter type' in order to see their strategies succeed, was a proper fighter escort. They didn't't need an aerobat, or multi-roll fighter, as badly as an escort. Until the Mustang, potential could be found in the '38, and '47, but both were expensive, thirsty aircraft. The '47 was less expensive thirsty than the '38, and on the 'scene' before the '51 in RR/Packard duds, was therefore built in the greatest number. Only a handful of the 8ths pilots retained the '47 when offered. I believe only one squad refused to switch to '51s. '47s '38s can credit more 'top' aces than '51s. But it could also be argued that the '51 came later, Americans were rotating pilots more frequently then. I hate stats.
If the '51 were missing history may have been much different. If the Fw-190 were missing, maybe there may not have been the '51, but history would have would not have been much different. The conclusion I draw from this statement is that the '51 was better at being a 'fighter', than the Fw-190, or '40, or '47, or Me-262, '38, La-7, Spitfire…
Another view, if you would, would be an MVP in sports. The MVP may not be the singular best at any/every measured category. What he/she is, is the best the sport can offer. Not only is their performance above average (not necessarily the best) but the contribution they make is best seen only grows when their 'measured' ingredients are viewed in conclusion. MVPs exceed the performance their individual specs especially when ever those ingredients are looked at in pieces. MVPs need to have and added something. Usually they are able to do something special, no other has done. Also they are on the right team at the end of the season. I believe the Fw-190D to be the MVP fighter of Germany, the entire Axis powers, but it was not the MVP fighter of the war, it was on the wrong team.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will agree that P-51 may have made the most impact for the allies but I still can not place it as the best fighter of WW2. There were still better aircraft and I feel that the aircraft should be chosen because of its qualities and not because of its impact.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...I believe impact is the best testiment of quality!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, however lets see the Fw-190D and the P-47 were better quality in my opinion and they did not make as much of impact yet they were much better aircraft.....

 

[plan_D]

That is hardly a fair comparison for the fighter itself if you're basing it on what the side the said aircraft is on achieved. The Fw-190D was a remarkable interceptor and certainly something the Luftwaffe needed most but because Germany lost the war, it's not the best.

What if the P-51 had never existed. Well, the P-38 while thirsty was a capable and adaptable machine. The heavy bombers didn't carry the full brunt of the war. In fact, I would say during the latter half of 1944 fighter-bombers would have been the most important plane type in Allied service. Our ground forces desperately needed that air support and heavy bombers, with their escorts, cannot provide that duty. The P-38 could have filled the void of the P-51. And the U.S economy could have supported it.

On the Hurricane against Spitfire. The Spitfire was superior in every aspect of design except from build time and expense. Had the Hurricane never existed and all British fighter production been thrown on the Spitfire in 1936 - then there may not have been the amount of interceptor squadrons that were present in the BoB. But the lesser amount of actually aircraft would have been acceptable because the aircraft were just better.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree pD. If the P-51 had not come along it would have been the P-38 or the P-47 or hell maybe they would have brought over the Corsair. The Corsair too was a much better fighter all around and in every catagory than the P-51. The P-51 was a pretty aircraft though.

 

[Gnomey]

Well said pD, I agree also.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap same here but some people just dont see through the myth...... Naw just kidding everyone is entitled to there opinion. I just dont have to agree with it!

Oh well yall have a good time, see you when I get back from the Range.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

DerAdlerIstGelandet... Were the Fw-190 '47 of higher quality? How? The '51 type fielded variants that were better in every performance category, save the amount of lead able to be fired at an advisory, than either the '47 or Fw-190 (Yes, no piston aircraft has exceeded the claimed 505 mph of the XP-47J – not fielded, nor the high altitude grace of the TA-153, with it's highly specialized high aspect long span wing – not fielded). I know of no '190 pilots that climbed back into one after piloting a Me-262. I know of only a handful of pilots that wanted to revert back to the '47 after flying the '51. For that matter, the 2 '51 pilots in Italy didn't trade their P-80s to revert to '51s. Not that any pilot really had a choice…

plan_D…You are fun. Achievements are to be considered especially when talking of the 'best', when achievements by the individual contribute in such a manner, as to allow the whole (the team) to achieve. That is an MVP. MVPs are rarely, if ever, chosen form the side of lesser accomplishment (at lest in the States).

Although capable the '38 required too many parts, pristine service facilities, and suffered severe engine problems in Europe. From www.p-38online.com … "When the equipment was working properly, the P-38 was a definite match for German fighters. In fact, when below 20,000 ft., the P-38 was superior in many ways. The problem was that the Germans rarely engaged American fighters at lower altitudes. General Doolittle was especially fed up with all the engine problems. Many theories exist as to the reason why. In other theaters, the Allison engines were fairly reliable. One theory was that the quality of the British aircraft fuel was not a high as the American developed aircraft fuel. When operating with the British fuel, this theory states that the turbochargers would become more volatile and cause terminal engine failures. Another possible theory was the nature of the combat and weather. The aircraft, especially in the fall/winter months, were constantly soaked with moisture on the grounds. Combine that with flying at extreme high altitudes, conditions were ripe for engine failures. In other theaters, the P-38s flew at lower altitudes, and were not operating in the same weather conditions. Whatever the reason for the engine problems, the P-38 was on the way out in the ETO."
"Early 1944, Tony LeVier was ordered to get to the ETO fast. The P-38 was awash in rumors or how deadly it can be to fly. Pilots not experienced with twin-engine flying were having many preventable accidents. Many of these pilots were killed not by the enemy, but a lack of knowledge on how to operate in case of an emergency. With the many engine problems, operating with one engine was a necessity. At some point in the war in the ETO, every pilot would probably be faced with a one-engine flying situation. LeVier was to get to Britain and demonstrate flying techniques to the pilots and would in the process hopefully dispel many rumors, which were unfounded.
LeVier believed too little testing at high altitudes was done before sending the P-38s to Britain. He also believed that too many experienced pilots were spread too thin in the pilot ranks, and that the cockpit heat was a serious problem."

The '47 however, that plane could have, as seen with the '47 aircraft starting with P-47-D-RE-25, especially the P-47N replaced the '51 and it is debatable weather or not it could have been as effective. From www.p47pilots.com "
P-47 Reigns Supreme over P-51 Mustang
Don Whinnem B-17 Escort Mission
352nd FG ETO -
We were escorting B-17s. I was flying Al Marshall's wing. We got into a mixup and got separated from the Group. I looked over my left shoulder and saw something coming in. I called , 'Al, there's a bandit coming in at 7 o'clock high'.
We did a scissors. Al broke left, I broke right and when I completed my circle it looked like Al was being shot up by an ME109 I put the throttle to the firewall, poured on the water injection and got on his tail. When I got within 200 yards I started firing and got strikes all over the plane. But as soon as he was hit he broke up sharply, and only then did I see the square wingtips and square tail. It was a P-51!
I called our Group Commander, Col. Joe Mason, a real tiger, and said 'Sir,there are some P-51s in the area'. He came back, real caustic, 'The hell they are. They're 109s. Shoot the bastards down'. 'But sir, one of them is a P-51 and I just shot it up pretty good'. Silence.
Well, I located the P-51 again, and by this time he knew we were 47s, so I pulled up alongside to take a look. I didn't know it was Glenn Eagleston, but he looked like he was hurting. There was nothing I could do, so I left him and joined our formation.
I got part of the story later that day and the rest of it 3 months later. It went all the way up to the 8th Fighter Command Hqs......A p-47 had shot up a P-51. Col Mason had to go up there and explain it to the brass. But our story held up. The P-51 was 150 miles off copurse, and his camera film showed him shooting at a P-47.
The trouble was that an FW190 and a P-47 have the same silhouette. You have to see the planview to see the elliptical wings.
Three months later I crash landed near a 9th AF base, and was taken to their hospital with a banged up nose and forehead. Eagleton was stationed there and they knew my name from the flap at Hqs, so he looked me up and we drank beer at the club and flew the mission all over again.
Eagleton swore he was shooting at a FW190, and even my camera film looked like I was shooting at a 109 to our Intelligence Officer. Glenn said the only thing that saved him was the armor shield behind the cockpit.. The bullets came in over his shoulder, hit the instrument panel, knocking most of them out.. When he got to his base it was weathered in and he was forced to bail out. His instruments were too shot up to try it.
And that's how Don Whinnem shot down Glenn Eagleston - something no German pilot was able to do. Glenn ended up with 20 1/2 confirmed victories, tops in the 9th AF. Whinnem was no slouch either. He didn't get credit for that P-51, but he got enough 109s and 190s to make him an Ace.

However concider the following…

This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives
SPECIFICATIONS P-47D
Span: 40 ft. 9 in.
Length: 36 ft. 2 in.
Height: 14 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 17,500 lbs. max.
Armament: Six or eight .50 cal. machine guns and either ten rockets or 2,500 lb. of bombs
Engine: One Pratt Whitney R-2800-59 of 2,430 hp.
Crew: One
Cost: $85,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 433 mph.
Cruising speed: 350 mph.
Range: 1,030 miles
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft.

This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives
SPECIFICATIONS P-51D
Span: 37 ft. 0 in.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 13 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max.
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp.
Cost: $54,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 437 mph.
Cruising speed: 275 mph.
Range: 1,000 miles
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft.
SPECIFICATIONS (P-38L)
Span: 52 ft.
Length: 37 ft. 10 in.
Height: 12 ft. 10 in.
Weight: 17,500 lbs. loaded
Armament: Four .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon
Engines: Two Allison V-1710s of 1,475 hp. ea.
Cost: $115,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 414 mph
Cruising speed: 275 mph
Range: 1,100 miles
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft.

At $31,000 dollar, or $61,000 savings (in 1945 dollars) for what appears on paper to be the same thing. Could the US economy absorb this; plus the added cost to operate the '47, or '38? Yep. But how much less aid would the US have given after the war, if indeed the '47, or '38 proved as capable as the '51. These 'cheap' escort fighter aircraft (the P-51) do have claim to 1 vital stat. 1 that I didn't want to mention, as I hate stats. The '51 by war's end had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Early 1944, Tony LeVier was ordered to get to the ETO fast. The P-38 was awash in rumors or how deadly it can be to fly. Pilots not experienced with twin-engine flying were having many preventable accidents. Many of these pilots were killed not by the enemy, but a lack of knowledge on how to operate in case of an emergency. With the many engine problems, operating with one engine was a necessity. At some point in the war in the ETO, every pilot would probably be faced with a one-engine flying situation. LeVier was to get to Britain and demonstrate flying techniques to the pilots and would in the process hopefully dispel many rumors, which were unfounded."

LeVier went over to Europe to demonstrate engine out procedures on the P-38 - I know this first hand because my ex-wife and him had their offices next to each other (he actually became a family friend). There was not an intense multi engine transition for pilots going into the -38 and unless you had several hundred hours flying multi engine aircraft jumping into a P-38 (or any other high performance multi-engine aircraft) with minimal multi time is an accident waiting to happen. In any multi engine propeller driven aircraft, the critical training required involves engine out procedures at take off. Except in the combat environment, this was the most dangerous time to have an engine failure and where many of the accidents occurred. Even today, this is a heavily emphasized training element with General Aviation pilots flying multi-engine aircraft.

As I posted on several other occasions, I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51s in Europe. He told me you had to be a great pilot to fly a P-38. A good pilot became a great pilot in the -51. He actually preferred the -38.

 

[plan_D]

In Europe the "Man of the Match" can be from the losing side. He is the one that plays the best and makes the most for his team, even if his team ultimately could not play on his success. And that is how it should be.

Too much emphasis is placed on 1944-1945, in my opinion. What about 1940-1943 over the North African desert. Without the Spitfire air supremacy could have been gained comfortably by the Bf-109F and Fw-190A against what only could have been the Hurricane which was, by then, out-classed by the later German models. This would have had a drastic effect on the desert war because in a region of no cover, air superiority is all the more important. And there was nothing for the Allies that was capable of replacing the Spitfire Mk.V in 1941.

Was North Africa critical to the entire war effort? I think so. But that in itself is a matter for discussion.

 

[Erich]

Jon you are mistaken

The He 219 was already a proven dog with I./NJG 1 having them only in this gruppe of a great nachtjagdgeschwader. So disliked that the other 3 gruppen kept the Bf 110G-4 and a few Ju 88G-6's. What a teprimental bitch she was too with many problems which I have listed in the past. I./NJG 3 was equipped with at least a dozen but were not flown as the crews flew the proven Ju 88G-6. NJGr 10 also flew them operationaly by the best crews, unimpressed were they. Only 12 mossies were knocked down by I./NJG 1 not a very proven track record while at least double that by single engine Bf 109G-6/AS of III./JG 300 and also Kurt Welters Me 262A-1a staffel in NJG 11...........the He 219 was NOT the mosquito catcher as you claim

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed pD. I dont believe aircraft should be judged off of there accomplishments but rather there ability and I am sorry the P-51 was nothing more than a long range escort. The Fw-190, P-47, and Spitfire were all more capable fighters and better. Well atleast me and pD seem to understand this.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

1stly to all let me say I've had an enjoyable weekend due to the exchanges here. Thanks all. Glad I joined.

Not to belittle anyone else's opinion, honestly, but come on, face facts (or propaganda if you wish). Let's see, you guys have not 'latched' unto what we are talking about, the best fighter aircraft of WW2. Not the best fighter aircraft 'if…' of WW2. As I've pointed out, all other aircraft mentioned in 'serious' competition with the '51 were indeed produced in number near or above the number of '51s produced. I've shown you why the '51 was given the opportunity, which it did not pass nor did it disappoint, over the '38 '47, economics. The '51s 'point of judgment' in WW2 was during the time it served as fighter escort, towards the end of the war, cementing the outcome of the war in Europe. At this task, as admitted by all it was the best. The FW-190's 'point of judgment' during WW2 was ____ where its service cemented the Axis victory over the Allies. May I use your collective arguments against the '51, and say that had Germany defeated the Allies in this campaign, it would have been because of the likes of the Me-262, not the Fw-190 that turned the tide. I offer this argument as it seems that you (collectively) are enamored by it in regard to the Hurricane (my runner up for 'best WW2 fighter aircraft) vs. Spitfire (not chosen by me) as runner up to the '51 as 'best fighter' aircraft of WW2.

To play fair, with regard to that argument, I will relate directly to the Hurricane vs. Spitfire thing: The Germans thought that building a small number of very high quality tanks would be better than building a large number of capable tanks (as if the Panther was merely capable). They built Tigers, at a cost of as low of 3, or as high as 10 Panthers each. No matter, say three. Big mistake. Big big mistake. If the Brits, conceding that they even could have, had chosen to have Hawker switch to Spit production, the result would have been a disaster. If you don't give the Brits time to numerically replace the Hurricanes with Spits, you simply can not deploy one aircraft in more than one place at one time, even today, and therefore the Spit would not have been nearly as effective as the Hurricane was, although superior, like the Tiger, the Spit would have been overwhelmed by volume. Doesn't this make the Hurricane, as the Panther would have been, the weapon with the most impact, the best weapon 'at that unique time'? If you give the Brits more time to build Spits, you give the Axis more time to build as well, and then we all get entangled in statistical tit-for-tats. During war, time, timing are more precious than money, and not factors that should be considered or dismissed as inconsequential. Had the Allies waited to field the P-47N, how many Me-262s would have been built, how many other 'wonder toys' would have been in service, and in what numbers. Man, they built a lot of Salamanders, and V-1s too. Guess a '47N might tackle a few of those huh. Bring over the F4U. Come on. Don't get me wrong, one of my very personal favs. But in Europe, she would have been destroyed by the '190, as she would not be fast enough to out run one. Even in the Pacific, since F4Us could not turn too well, acceleration was poor, at least until the -1D, and don't even go to a roll in one, them gull wings didn't like that too much, the only way to fly one in combat was fast. Now if she couldn't out run a '190 the European air war was about altitude, speed, rolls and dives... F4Us could dive, but unlike most Japanese fighters, so could a '190, oh, and as you all know, a '190 can roll.

With regard to the African, for that matter every other very important theater of operation not mentioned, I offer apologies. I mean in no way to minimize any and all contributions made during them. I highlight service of the Hurricane during the BoB, the '51 in Europe from mid 1944, solely to qualify their achievements. Any inference at 'minimizing' other campaigns importance, or roll in the 'big' picture was not intended. If you feel as if in any of those other theaters, or times during WW2, a fighter displayed a higher degree of service than those of the '51, or the Hurricane, during the time frames given for their incredible service, please feel free to anti up…

I believe I have proved that there was no other aircraft that could have replaced either the '51 or the Hurricane. I believe we agree that due to the success of the Hurricane, England did not surrender, nor was it invaded. We just have a small problem getting past the Spitfire, and to a lesser degree, this, for lack of a better phrase, love of direct performance comparisons. Maybe the Hurricane was not the best one-to-one vs. the Spit. It was victorious, not due to superior volume, or lack of performance as compared to the Spit; it was victorious because of how well it was applied against, and dealt with the '109 of the time, and how little the performance edge of the Spit, or the '109, its true adversary, at the time, mattered. In that time, during the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane's 'point of judgment', the Hurricane served as the primary fighter, not the rare Spit. The Hurricane was THE supreme fighter aircraft system. A nation relied upon it, not the Spit. The Hurricane did not disappoint. I repeat, at the time Hurricanes may have been able to replace Spits; but at that moment in time, Spits could not replace Hurricanes. I'm in no way minimizing the contribution, or performance of the Spit. It was a factor. It was the clean up hitter, at times simply outnumbered and rescued by Hurricanes at other times; like the Me-262 the Fw-190 in 1945, sort of, kind of.

Erich, thanks! I've gotta watch it with you guys… I should have been clearer. He 219A-5/R1. After which the aircraft became the over weight temperamental bitch you describe, except for the He 219a-6. This dedicated Mosquito hunter had impressive stats, I believe, but you may be right as I can't picture them in my head, and you are absolutely correct, they did serve in NJGr 10, although I do not recall ever reading about NJGr 3. Thanks for the pick up (brutal reminder; kidding), it's been a while since I've thought about this aircraft, I forgot about NJGr 10. I'll have to dig about the mosquito kills. None the less, I like the aircraft a great deal and feel that if engine allocation priorities were a little more forgiving to the '219, weight gains, added crew, and aerodynamic downgrades of later variants would not have made her a temperamental bitch. The 'one of' -7/R6 with 2,500 HP Jumbo 222A/B engines was not temperamental. Only the engine was not available to the 219 for production.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The Hurricane wasn't the supreme fighter system. It was merely what Britain had available, in quantity, to fight in its early battles during WW2. The RAF would of much rather equipped its fighter squadrons with Spitfires than Hurricanes, CRO and Beaverbrook be damned. Afterall, Dowding deliberately held back Spitfires from the continent, ensuring that they were available for defence of the home isles.

In the Battle of Britain 18 Spitfire squadrons claimed some 1,167 kills, which was only 477 fewer enemy aircraft than was claimed by slightly more than double their number of Hurricane squadrons. Spitfire squadrons claimed, on average, 62 kills per squadron during the Battle of Britain. Hurricane squadrons claimed, on average, 44 kills per squadron. This makes a Spitfire squadron around 40% more effective than the average Hurricane squadron, claiming an extra 18 aircraft per squadron.

Undoubtedly the kill numbers are inflated, but this would be true for both types. According to British historian Jon Lake there is some evidence that Hurricane squadrons overclaimed more than Spitfire squadrons, mostly because they were tasked as bomber destroyers. The Spitfire was simply a more efficient aerial fighting machine and the combat results bear that out. With the same engine and prop it was faster at all altitudes, climbed better, dived better and turned better, particularly at high speed.

The Hurricanes strengths in battle were its tight turning circle, ease of handling and more concentrated cone of fire. It was faster to build, easier to repair and slightly cheaper than the Spitfire. But it was the Spitfire that saw development as the primary fighter type for the RAF, not the Hurricane.

With the P-51, apart from range and high speed cruise there is little that it could do other fighters couldn't do considerably better. If you look at the performance categories where a fighter is judged against its opponents; speed, roll, climb, dive, zoom climb, firepower, turn, handling, control harmony it often comes up wanting. The Fw-190A serise, 190D serise, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-47D, even the La-7 and Yak-3 even the venerable 109K, all matched or exceeded the P-51 in many performance categories.

You simply can't state that the P-51 was 'the best'. Why was it? In what categories? Was it a better B'n'Z fighter than any of its contemporaries? Was it a better energy fighter, or did it succeed as a turn and burner? You can probably state comprehensively that it was the best single engine long range escort of the war. But as an air superiority fighter, or a point interceptor, or a fighter-bomber or even as a pure dogfighter there are many others that exceeded its capabilities.

Oh, and the P-51 was the highest scoring USAAF fighter type in Europe, not the highest scoring fighter in Europe. The 109, 190 and Spitfire all scored more kills than the Pony.

 

[evangilder]

Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater:

PTO
Top five aces:
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills
Thomas McGuire, P-38, 38 kills
Charles McDonald, P-38, 27 kills
Gerald Johnson, P-38, 22 kills
Neel Kearby, P-47, 22 kills
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40.

ETO
Top 5 aces
Gabby Gabreski, P-47, 28 kills
Robert Johnson, P-47, 27 kills
George Preddy, P-51, 26.8 kills
John Meyer, P-51, 24 kills
Ray Wetmore, P-51, 22.6 kills

MTO
top 5 aces
Lance Wade, Hurricane/Spitfire, 23 kills
John Voll, P-51, 21 kills
Herky Green, P-47, 18 kills
Sully Varnell, P-51, 17 kills
Sam Brown, P-51, 15 kills

If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair.

 

[Erich]

Jon concerning the He 219 for combat operations :

Only the A-0 and A-2 were operational. The A-5 through A-7 did not exist except as test pieces. all captioning of existing photos with operational units have been incorrect and this according to losses reports of NJGr 10 and I./NJG 1 and the couple destined for II./NJG 1. The A-6 was a great idea on paper but never built. I./NJG 1 reduced the armament for lightness/more speed and manuverability and besides it was not needed as the four 2cm weapons had already proved to be a great combination in night fighting. Only with Kommando Welter and the Me 262's did the Mk 108 stay as standard but too much back flash when firing on RAF a/c.

I have been working with a Dutch author who is in process of writing the I./NJG 1's history and he has some great enlightening information once it is prepared and on the bookshelves from the pilots/crewmen and ground techs...............there are at least 2 He 219A's that flew ops in NJGr 10 as I have a copy of Bordfünker and RK winner Johannes Richters flugbuch indicating the units ~ a/c flown. My first reaction had been that the unit tested them only and from the pics I have in my data base showing the broken backs of two a/c off the tramacs. Indeed the NJG testing and combat unit was not real impressed with the Uhu but they did not seem impressed with any of the Luftwaffes twin enigne arsenal anyway.