Best Fighter III (1 Viewer)

blue swede said:

Maybe the difference at the start of WW2 was that the Germans were planning for their war and developing weapons for that purpose.
The Allies may have been naive about the impact of negotiations, and were not planning for the war that was to come. Instead, maybe they were developing weapons designed for containment of threats. (Excepting the Pacific forces of America being designed for projection of force, which were superior to their opponent.)
The point being; That maybe it wasn't that one country was superior to the other in technology, but more that the developments of weapon systems were subject to government policy at the time.
After WW2 the United States certainly changed its emphasis on weapon development, partly based on the experiences of WW2 and partly on it's recognition of being a true world power. Before the war it had a pacifist policy, after the war it had a aggresive defense policy.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head.

davparlr said:

WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc.

Mathematical theory won.

After all this baloney, the point is, there is no argument for the allies being ahead of Germany in areas or aerodynamic theory and aircraft and missile design at the end of the war. All allied nations changed their aircraft and missile (if they had any) designs to accommodate the information captured from the Germans. Had the allies been at a disadvantage, the reverse would have been true. From my perspective, the technological levels of the allies and axis was equivalent with only the forces of war and idiotic leaders affecting the military machine capabilities.

Sorry about the long winded entry

Click to expand...

That is a bit simplistic. The allies demonstrated time and time again that they could develope technologies that were just as advanced , and in some cases more advanced than Germany.

Many of the weapons developed by the allies were not put to a statistical analysis. They were developed according to what doctrine and experience dictated must be built. If it worked out, great. If not, then obviously the assumptions behind their developement, application and performace were incorrect.

I will agree that Germany developed the technological weapons because of its dire need. But many of them were deployed before the bugs were worked out.

Yeap and they had to deploy them because of the desperate will to survive.

syscom3 said:

That is a bit simplistic. The allies demonstrated time and time again that they could develope technologies that were just as advanced , and in some cases more advanced than Germany.

Many of the weapons developed by the allies were not put to a statistical analysis. They were developed according to what doctrine and experience dictated must be built. If it worked out, great. If not, then obviously the assumptions behind their developement, application and performace were incorrect.

I will agree that Germany developed the technological weapons because of its dire need. But many of them were deployed before the bugs were worked out.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't believe it is oversimplistic. Desperation tends to drive gambles in concepts. In wartime, it is military equipment and strategy. When one side is winning due to superior weapons and tactics, they tend to not emphasize risky developments but stick to the proven concepts. When one side feels threatened, they seek relief from the threat through change. The more the threat, the more desperate the change. They also tend to prematurely rush the technology into action. In the civil war, the desperate South developed electrical water mines, submarines, ironclad ships and used land mines (maybe for the first time) no matter what the economics and without proper testing and development. The Union forces resisted available weapons that could have shortened the war significantly (repeating rifles, like the Winchester and Spencer, and machine gun, Gatlin) mainly because of economics and simplicity. This did not mean the Union responses were inferior to the Southern designs. The Monitor was indeed a revolutionary vessel even if it was built as a response to the Virginia.

When the sides are roughly equal, like in 1940-43, this technilogical cycle can shift back and forth as each side jockys for a surperior position. In 1944-45 the Axis was getting more and more desperate and began to look for more and more technilogical advantage. This desperation drives both genius and foolishness, great designs and lousy designs. During this phase, the Allies were looking at winning the war the way it knew it would win, overpowering manpower and material. This did not mean the Allies did not nor could not produce superior weapons. They certainly could, it was just that the emphasis was their main strategy and countering threatening technilogical threats. (note here that the A-bomb was in a world all its own)

This concept is also true in business and sports. Football, which is minature war, is driven by the same forces. When a team is winning, it keeps doing the things that got them there, losing teams try new types of plays and defenses. When one of these work, the other team must then react and counter the threat.

I doubt if statisical analysis was really applied to the strategies of WWII. More likely gut feelings. Conforming to mathematical projections, whether planned or unplanned, was the reason the allies won (that and the bravery and safrifices of many, many heros).

Indeed the Germans deployed some technologies that had no equal for the allies, such as rockets. For jet engines, their lead wasnt as large as you might think. If the allies wanted to deploy their jets with the same engine reliability issues, we would have seen the P80 by the end of 1944.

I would give the adavantage to Germany for the following:
Submarines and related technology
Rockets
Tanks and AFV's

I would give the allies the advantage for the following:
Heavy bombers and aircraft transports
Radar
Logistics
Nuclear weapons (of course)
Production methodoligies

I would say the allies had an absolute adavantage in naval technologies (ecept subs), but thats due more to necessity on their part as Germany didnt have the need to develope it.

syscom3 said:

Indeed the Germans deployed some technologies that had no equal for the allies, such as rockets. For jet engines, their lead wasnt as large as you might think. If the allies wanted to deploy their jets with the same engine reliability issues, we would have seen the P80 by the end of 1944.

I would give the adavantage to Germany for the following:
Submarines and related technology
Rockets
Tanks and AFV's

I would give the allies the advantage for the following:
Heavy bombers and aircraft transports
Radar
Logistics
Nuclear weapons (of course)
Production methodoligies

I would say the allies had an absolute adavantage in naval technologies (ecept subs), but thats due more to necessity on their part as Germany didnt have the need to develope it.

Click to expand...

After thinking about this, I could only add decryption technology to the Allied side. I don't know what AFVs are.

AFV = Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Ive heard the the US Army had supurb C&C for indirect fire of its howitzers and guns.

Dont know if its true, but if so, it made their batteries far more deadly than the German's.

The submarines of the axis were seriously ahead of those on the allied side. The XXI class u-bootes, and the I-400 class were both amazing vessels. Some axis ships were just as good as allied ones, albeit radar, which was already up there..They had an advantage in carriers (japanese ones innovative, and i like them, but american ones were just better). BB quality was a close one between the axis and allies. As was armoured cruised technologies. Anything below that though i would say goes to the allies.

The soviets had some nice tanks, but the germans had a slight edge..however they just kept getting BIGGER, so big in fact they actually built a MAUS, one or two of them, which reportedly engaged soviet tanks in berlin.

or they were just probably moving it to a new site, cause the plane they were working in was being overrun

anyways they were still blown up

carpenoctem1689 said:

The submarines of the axis were seriously ahead of those on the allied side. The XXI class u-bootes, and the I-400 class were both amazing vessels. Some axis ships were just as good as allied ones, albeit radar, which was already up there..They had an advantage in carriers (japanese ones innovative, and i like them, but american ones were just better). BB quality was a close one between the axis and allies. As was armoured cruised technologies. Anything below that though i would say goes to the allies.

The soviets had some nice tanks, but the germans had a slight edge..however they just kept getting BIGGER, so big in fact they actually built a MAUS, one or two of them, which reportedly engaged soviet tanks in berlin.

Click to expand...

Good points.

The T-34 was actually the most advanced tank in that it was the first to have "Sloping Armor". The Germans just made them bigger and thicker armor to the point their powerplants and operational equipment wasn't up to the task. The Americans were simply behind and threw more tanks out there to make up the difference.

Piston engined fighters wise the US and Britain were with or slightly ahead of Germany but the US had their heads in the sand on rocket and jet possibilities until late. The Germans had the swept wing technology which was 5 years ahead of everybody else.

The real war winner was production, 300,000 US aircraft, tens of thousands of tanks, hundreds of ships talk about a steam roller.

wmaxt

syscom3 said:

Ive heard the the US Army had supurb C&C for indirect fire of its howitzers and guns.

Dont know if its true, but if so, it made their batteries far more deadly than the German's.

Click to expand...

I saw a history channel special on something that said the Germans did not have much regard for the GI but feared the American artillery. One German was quoted as saying that things would be going well and then a GI would pick up a radio and all of a sudden artillery shells would be falling all over them.

The Germans made overpowering tanks but I understand that was not what the army wanted. They wanted a German version of the T-34, cheap reliable, effective, and in large numbers! The T-34 could be built in large numbers quickly and if the Germans had done this in 43, the slugfest of 44 and 45 could have been significantly different, although with limited fuel, lack of air control, and no logistics, the outcome would have been the same.

wmaxt said:

Good points.

The T-34 was actually the most advanced tank in that it was the first to have "Sloping Armor". The Germans just made them bigger and thicker armor to the point their powerplants and operational equipment wasn't up to the task. The Americans were simply behind and threw more tanks out there to make up the difference.

Piston engined fighters wise the US and Britain were with or slightly ahead of Germany but the US had their heads in the sand on rocket and jet possibilities until late. The Germans had the swept wing technology which was 5 years ahead of everybody else.

The real war winner was production, 300,000 US aircraft, tens of thousands of tanks, hundreds of ships talk about a steam roller.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

From what I have read, the American T-26 was a very good tank and was somewhat equivalent to a Tiger although its 90mm gun was slightly inferior to the 88. It came later in the war after overcoming resistance to miltary politics (we don't need a heavy tank). It played a minor role in WWII, some fighting in Europe, some in Okinawa. It went on the engage the T-34 in Korea and is the grandfather of the US Main Battle Tanks through the M60.

It is my contention based on statistical analysis of both "CLAIMED" and "Confirmed" Kills and losses that the Spitfire was most over rated!
Does anyone here know of admitted German losses in areas were the only or main opponent to the Luftwaffe was the RAF? Or of a web site that lists the losses and claims for either or both sides durring the war?

The reason that I ask is that the RAF was so famous, (Infamous!) for over claiming kills not actually made that it clouds the picture and makes rational analysis hard.

For instance during the BoB, the RAF "CLAIMED" over 2,600 kills, IIRC. But the Germans only lost ~1,100, of which the pols downed over 200 and Hurricanes over 500, leaving less than 400 for Spits?
Please E-Mail me with numbers if you would at sdiorg@sbcglobal.net
Sincerely, Shooter.

so, you're making these claims without even having the full stats? what's your source for those RAF claims because i've never seen a claim that high, and do you seriously think the RAF were the only ones to overclaim? the RAF proberly did it the least actually, because of German overclaiming and lack of intelligence the jerries thought at one point the RAF was down to a couple of squadrons! get over it because we've discussed all of this before...........

and the spitfire is not over-rated, she made up most of fighter command's strength for most of the war, and is the most mass produced combat aircraft the UK's ever had, she was developed more than almost alomost any other plane to stay very much in competition with them and is widely regarded as one of the greatest planes of the war........

I'd agree that it was perhaps the finest plane of the first part of the war.

But once the P51's and F4U's were making their presence known, the Spit was relegated to "also ran"

Also ran, the Spitfire was anything but an also ran during the latter half of the war. Sure the P-51's were taking the fight to over German soil but the latter mark Spitfire's were better in almost every department than the P-51's and F4U's apart from one, RANGE.

For example: Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
P-47: 2,560
P-38: 3,300
P-51: 3,600 (low blower)/ 2,965 (high blower)
Tempest: 4,380
Typhoon: 3,840 (at 1,700ft)
Spitfire MKIX: 4,620 (Merlin 66)/ 4,390 (Merlin 70)
Spitfire MKXIV: 4,700
FW-190D-9: 3,329
From here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (on the various pages for the aircraft). As you can see the P-51 climbs just over half as quickly as the Spitfires.

The Spitfire was easily one of the finest fighters of the war, it played a large part from the beginning to the end. Even at the end of the war there was NO fighter that could completely outclass it. One on one a Spitfire would most likely be able to shoot down a P-51 whereas the P-51 would find it hard to shoot down the Spitfire. The only fighters that made the Spitfire obselete were Jets, any other contempory piston engined fighter and the Spitfire was as good as (FW190D-9) or better than (most of the rest).

The Spitfire finally got the range after the Luftwaffe had been swept from the skies.

Ok, the Spit had a great time to climb rate. The F4U-4 also had a great climb rate too. All three were equally fast. Firepower was similar. Spit had great all around maneuveability, but the P51 and F4U could dive quickly.

But the clincher is range. If you cant fly to where the party is, youre going to be left home sniveling.

The P51 and F4U-4 were better than the Spit because of this.

oh, sorry, aren't we counting the spits that took the fight to the italians in Africa and over Italy? or the ones that took the fight to the japs in the far east? and remember it was spitfires that were protecting the americans whilst you guys spent hours forming your heavy bomber formations, stopping the germans coing in and ripping you to shreads when you didn't have a clue what was going on, it was the seafire that was the first allied aircraft to go back onto the continent, spitfires taking out V-1s, spitfires that almost single handedly kept up the British moral for years and it was the spitfire that was capable of taking on late war german fighters on a one to one baisis, not the P-51 who had to depend on numbers.................

It is futile to suggest that the P-51 is better than the Spitfire simply because of range. The P-51 had quite considerable stability problems on take-off with full tanks. The fuselage tanks caused the CoG to shift quite a bit which made handling worse.

Its not as if the Spitfire didn't have the range. Combine the fuel tanks fitted to all the various marks. Extra 40gals in wings (XIX), 29gal fuselage(VII), 170gal drop tank(XIX) and suddenly you have better range than the P-51 without the problems associated with that aircraft.

Why wasn't this done? Because there was absolutely no need except for PR marks. Can't escort Bomber Command on night sorties and can't escort Mosquitoes by daylight, so why have the extra range at a cost in maneuverability and speed?