For Twitch Hunter368, Others,
I find myself both enjoying the exchanges, experiencing 'flashback'. The excerpts should clarify…
(
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-320.html)
Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:33 pm
… "To argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft's ability to perform it's specified task negating it's actual environment, is, simply nonsense.
Create 'Weighted' awards if you'd like. But the 'Best' award should be for the best, period.
Best fighter of WW-2 without question, was/is the North American P-51." …
… "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? …the '47' seems the WW2 package that is most survivable in my eyes. Fast enough to walk away from all except the Me-262, and rare variants of other types, heavily armed, armored, wide landing gear, simple (although not without development problems) powerful, robust, air cooled radial; no fuel in the wings (-N/K the exception); and from all accountings ( stats that I can recall), extremely well made, even the Curtis built ships."
The replies were quick in coming! I was surprised.
Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:11 pm
"I would like to point out that you just contradicted yourself almost throughout that entire posting. You state that the P-51 was the greatest fighter of World War II on the basis that it gives an all-round package. But then move on to wondering if the P-51 would be able to handle itself in other roles." …
Edited From > lesofprimus > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:52 pm
"U know, if the P-40 had the range of the P-51, and flew in as many #'s as the -51, people would be saying the P-40 was the greatest fighter in WW2...."
My response:
Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:44 pm
"…I should have been clearer.... It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the '51's contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this 'hardship'. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to 'handle' their jobs/circumstance effectively." …
Basically, I was disappointed with what followed, as it completely bypassed my points...
(
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-340.html)
Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
"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."
Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:39 pm
"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." …
Edited From > Gnomey > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:33 pm
"Well said pD, I agree also."
So I got 'childish', as I catered to the derailment, replying…
Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:58 pm
"…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…
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…
At a 31,000 dollar or $61,000 savings (Vs the P-47, or P-38, 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. …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."
This caused a continuation of exchanges dealing with relevant tangents, 'if what if' scenarios, the likes. But the most significant reply, to me, was the following…
Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
... "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."
Wow!!! I felt it important to serve as my contribution to the members here, ultimately to render performance 'envelope' of any individual fighter as 'meaningless' with regard to this issue, to develop a performance table 'weighted for the FIGHTER role'. This should clearly prove the 'ability' of the aircraft insignificant, as compared to one another, much like Coke, Pepsi; prove their 'accomplishment' clearly is the determining factor, as performance is not 'personal' or 'historical' it is numerical, has no bearing on 'best', as clearly Achilles is a better warrior than the current javelin record holder. This table should prove that history accomplishment are the sole criteria for the award of best.
Coke is clearly superior to Pepsi; as demonstrated by Coke's accomplishment of market share dominance. Each product's 'performance' if you were, is too close to the other to call, as enforced by the ingredients listed on the label; as unquantifiable as the reason may be, Coke's #1; Burger King found out the 'hard way', they sold less Whoppers when Pepsi products were at the fountain. People do not ask for a Cola, and most do not ask for a Pepsi (diet cola may be another thing all together).
During the many exchanges that followed, and the evolution of my 'tables' a strange thing happened. I found a new argument, one that focused our point; accomplishment history are relevant, not 'ability' or 'stat'; but it also replaces the '51 as best WW2 fighter…
(
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html)
Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:34 am
"Is it possible that a 'match' between WW2 fighters can be confined to altitude 'X', assuming that one or the other contestant isn't wiped out on the first pass? ...
Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? ...
Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? ...
My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; 'members' stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, "…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter."
… I'm thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I've seen avoid this plane… the answer was in front of us all along.
Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at
http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm
"Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed."
"What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox."
"By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective."
"Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird."
"The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations."
To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the 'wining team'. I was in error, I was wrong.
The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2."
Another lesson I learned is that most members have closed their minds long ago… See below as I fence with DerAdlerIstGelandet; as the holder of an opinion in opposition to his, not a personal attack, as I respect his efforts, not his wavering opinions in this matter.