Best Fighter of the war to build Your Fighter Arm around.

[wuzak]

Don't apply recip engine tactics to a fighter with nearly 2X speed of the fighters you wish to kill. Sweep and destroy and let the bombers follow. As far as bombers - why not 'Be the bomber" and let your opponents try to stop you. In 1939 your max tactical radius is probably 200-250 miles with a 1 KG bomb load. Do you think two years of development yields tip tanks, external mid air refueling options and other variations to extend range another 100 miles by 1941? Maybe/Maybe not - but France based airfields give the 262 to range to go to most important British targets from 1940 onward.

Because your Me 262s are based in France for the BoB they are within range of my Spitfire XIVs and/or Tempest Vs. Using our rapidly organised system of French informants we will get forewarning of attacks and send our fighters to destroy the Me 262s on the ground or taking off. Later our reserves will return to catch any that got away as they return to base....

 

[drgondog]

LoL Wayne..

 

[dedalos]

Because your Me 262s are based in France for the BoB they are within range of my Spitfire XIVs and/or Tempest Vs. Using our rapidly organised system of French informants we will get forewarning of attacks and send our fighters to destroy the Me 262s on the ground or taking off. Later our reserves will return to catch any that got away as they return to base....

... and you will lose all your fighter in the flak corridors that the jets would use for take off and landing....

 

[tomo pauk]

But would France fall if the RAF or the French Air force had the Me 262?

In case the French don't have radar coverage, as historically, France would fell. The jet is dependable to the (radar) warning as any other fighter to be effective.
The jet does not 'cure' the Allies falling to the bait (Germans in Belgium/Ned), nor their shortcomings in the conduct of ground warfare. The Germans can go to hit the Allied air bases as historically.

If France doesn't fall it reduces the need of a long range escort, in the ETO at least.
[Any fighter from the post #1 can destroy the RAF in 1940]
True, if the RAF doesn't have any of those aircraft in the list.

Agreed.

 

[davparlr]

So, the question is - would you place the P-47N at the top of your list for Germany in 1939?

I certainly would. One of the main problems the Germans had during the Battle of Britain was endurance and the associated limited range of the Bf 109. The P-47N would have a made a major impact on this battle. It could escort bombers over the entire island. It could support raids before the bomber attack, flushing the RAF, fight the RAF until it runs out of gas, hang around till the bombers arrive and pick off RAF as they try to reengage then fly home. In addition deep interdiction raids could be performed on transportation and airfields. In other words, the Germans could do to Britain what the P-51s did to Germany in 1944. German sea control could be extended with long range escorts of condors. With over a 400 mile radius of action with 2000 lbs of ordnance, or one torpedo,it could, by itself be a dangerous threat to the British supply lines. A question arises, could several squadrons of P-47Ns equipped with ship attack weapons flying from Brest have possibly been able to save the Bismarck given that they could locate her?

 

[drgondog]

Dave - I have no problem picking the P-47N except that it has zero growth potential from 1939 forward, nor would I personally choose it over the Me 262 as the only strategic footprint that matters in 1939 and 1940 is Britain.

Just me. This is why I pose the question - and want folks to frame their choice based on the potential force leverage.

For me, I pick the P-51H because the US entered the war with the infrastructure and commitment to support Strategic airpower and the most important role for 'the fighter' of choice was escort of medium and heavy bombers to project force across the widest of footprints. What the 51H will not do (nor the P-47N and really not the F4U) is become a top night fighter. It will also suffer more CAS losses than the P-47N.. but will go the necessary distance with same or greater performance at 2/3 the operating expense and 2/3 the cost.

For Japan I am awfully tempted to pick F7F because it was not only so capable as a fighter, but perhaps the most versatile of all the fighters developed for WWII. From land bases it is a better anti shipping weapon than the Betty, a far better performing fighter than any Japanese counterpart fighter. There are a few better day fighters on the list above - but only the jets offer a significant edge due to their speed.

 

[drgondog]

So, what does Britain pick for themselves and the Commonwealth for global ops?

 

[stona]

Because your Me 262s are based in France for the BoB they are within range of my Spitfire XIVs and/or Tempest Vs. Using our rapidly organised system of French informants we will get forewarning of attacks and send our fighters to destroy the Me 262s on the ground or taking off. Later our reserves will return to catch any that got away as they return to base....

Me 262s could have got across the Channel fast enough to defeat the British radar and fighter control system. That might cause some serious problems for your interceptors. By the time the fighters were scrambled the Me 262s would be arriving. Even conventional aircraft managed this on occasion.
Cheers
Steve

 

[pattern14]

The Focke wulf Ta 152 H-1 was THE operational piston engined fighter zenith of WW2, in my opinion, bar none. Even with no infrastructure to speak of to back it up, questionable quality control, and no spare parts apart from cannabalised wrecks, it would be my pick. Had they been made under optimum conditions, instead of total chaos, who knows what potential they might have had. If the luftwaffe had concentrated on them, and not wasted their time with the He 162, Dornier Pfeil and Me 163 Komet, it would have been a far better use of resources. The pilots that flew them regarded them with awe.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Ta-152H depended on whether the Jumo can design manufacture the Jumo 213E or maybe 213F (ie. a two stage versions of the 213), or, lacking that, a two stage DB 603. Neither the single stage 603 nor single stage 213 can push the Ta-152 much, if at all above 700 km/h at 5km - the Fw-190D-9 (with Jumo 213A, featuring a single stage compressor + MW 50, a smaller wing than the Ta-152H, and no in-built tanks for 1000+ liters of fuel) was only good for just under 700 km/h. The D-15 (with DB 603E, again single stage S/C) was touching 700 km/h mark. That against the Ta-152H doing 730-750 km/h at 9 km.

Neither the He 162, nor Pfeil nor Komet cut into what the Jumo or DB were capable to deliver historically.

 

[wuzak]

Me 262s could have got across the Channel fast enough to defeat the British radar and fighter control system. That might cause some serious problems for your interceptors. By the time the fighters were scrambled the Me 262s would be arriving. Even conventional aircraft managed this on occasion.
Cheers
Steve

My French buddies tell me when the operation is to begin, so I arrive at that time. Don't bother waiting for radar.

 

[wuzak]

Dave - I have no problem picking the P-47N except that it has zero growth potential from 1939 forward, nor would I personally choose it over the Me 262 as the only strategic footprint that matters in 1939 and 1940 is Britain.

Just me. This is why I pose the question - and want folks to frame their choice based on the potential force leverage.

For me, I pick the P-51H because the US entered the war with the infrastructure and commitment to support Strategic airpower and the most important role for 'the fighter' of choice was escort of medium and heavy bombers to project force across the widest of footprints. What the 51H will not do (nor the P-47N and really not the F4U) is become a top night fighter. It will also suffer more CAS losses than the P-47N.. but will go the necessary distance with same or greater performance at 2/3 the operating expense and 2/3 the cost.

For Japan I am awfully tempted to pick F7F because it was not only so capable as a fighter, but perhaps the most versatile of all the fighters developed for WWII. From land bases it is a better anti shipping weapon than the Betty, a far better performing fighter than any Japanese counterpart fighter. There are a few better day fighters on the list above - but only the jets offer a significant edge due to their speed.

My XIVs will sweep your P-47Ns from the sky. They will force you to fight at an altitude that suits me (20-25k ft) rather than you (>30k ft).

 

[tomo pauk]

How the Spit XIV will force the P-47Ns to come down?

 

[wuzak]

How the Spit XIV will force the P-47Ns to come down?

What is the P-47N going to do at higher altitude except fly around?

The bombers certainly won't be up there, so no real need for the Spitfire to go up.

 

[drgondog]

What is the P-47N going to do at higher altitude except fly around?

The bombers certainly won't be up there, so no real need for the Spitfire to go up.

I suppose provide escort for B-29s?

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure we are allowed to field the B-29 here, yet another non-historical type?

What is the P-47N going to do at higher altitude except fly around?
The bombers certainly won't be up there, so no real need for the Spitfire to go up.

Giving up the opponent the altitude advantage would be a bad move.

 

[davparlr]

Dave - I have no problem picking the P-47N except that it has zero growth potential from 1939 forward, nor would I personally choose it over the Me 262 as the only strategic footprint that matters in 1939 and 1940 is Britain.

Just me. This is why I pose the question - and want folks to frame their choice based on the potential force leverage.

Since it was optimized for 1945, I am not sure zero growth is a problem. And I think Britain could certainly come up with uses for a very fast, very long range aircraft with a huge weapon carrying capacity like deep interdiction flights into Germany like the British P-51s in '42. And how about continuous CAP over the English Channel just waiting for the Germans to show up and then disrupt their formations early.

In my mind the real problem with the Me 262, assuming the engine reliability problem have been solved, was its limited radius of action of only about 300 miles (at optimum cruise. Drop tanks would help but I don't think I have ever seen one with a drop tank.) This would barely make Paris. In any event, long range escort and interdiction would not be possible and daylight bombing over Germany would cease, which I think would extend the war. In addition the out of range safety for the Luftwaffe would prevent Allied elimination of the Luftwaffe prior to Normandy. And, while Me 262 would be able to provide cover over Normandy, there would be a major air battle. None this would happen if the P-47N was available.

For me, I pick the P-51H because the US entered the war with the infrastructure and commitment to support Strategic airpower and the most important role for 'the fighter' of choice was escort of medium and heavy bombers to project force across the widest of footprints. What the 51H will not do (nor the P-47N and really not the F4U) is become a top night fighter. It will also suffer more CAS losses than the P-47N.. but will go the necessary distance with same or greater performance at 2/3 the operating expense and 2/3 the cost.

A good selection. I only emphasized ruggedness and load carrying capacity and performance above 25k over superior performance below 25k (this does not mean the P-51H is a slouch above 25k) . F4U-4 would also be a good selection.

My XIVs will sweep your P-47Ns from the sky. They will force you to fight at an altitude that suits me (20-25k ft) rather than you (>30k ft).

The Spitfire XIV is indeed a very capable aircraft but with limited internalfuel would not provide the long range escort need in '43-44. It is never a good thing to cede the high ground, especially if that aircraft has around 1000 hp more available and is faster at 20-25k although not by much. The Spit will out turn the P-47 though.

 

[wuzak]

The Spitfire XIV is indeed a very capable aircraft but with limited internalfuel would not provide the long range escort need in '43-44. It is never a good thing to cede the high ground, especially if that aircraft has around 1000 hp more available and is faster at 20-25k although not by much. The Spit will out turn the P-47 though.

There seems to be the assumption that the land battles will go as historically even with 1945 aircraft available from 1939.

My thought is that at least part of France is held by the Allies in part due to the combination of Spitfire XIVs of the RAF and Tempest Vs of the French Air Force.

Better yet, since people are talking of using B-29s I think I will upgrade the French army and air force with competent commanders, who sieze the opportunity in September 1939 and drive all teh way to Berlin as Hitler is busy invading Poland.

 

[GregP]

The P-47N has zero growth potential?

I don't think so. Since we are talking 1945 aircraft, I'll assume we have late 1945 engines and would upgrade the P-47N with the R-3350 and a 5 or 6 blade propeller. While I'm at it, I'd opt for 4 20 mm cannons. I'd also build two versions, the standard high-altitude unit and a a dedicated low to medium altitude version without the turbocharger, thus eliminating the fat belly (from the lower wing skin on down) and reaping aeronautical benefits of less wetted area and lower overall drag.

The ONLY reason development ended for the last piston fighters was the emergance of jet aircraft. If not for that, they would have been developed further. They made GIANT strides from 1939 to 1945. What would cause anyone to think development would cease if jet engines had not been developed? I'm not sure what they would ahve come up with, but the pace of development during the war gives me HUGE doubt that everything had been developed to the ultimate.

Maybe that's why the war wound down, because no more development was possible? There was potential there for most designs that went untapped due to the end of hostilities, not to the lack of further improvement. The end of hostilities merely signaled the end of the money hemorage caused by moving to a wartime economy and providing for a wartime weapon development and supply function.

 

[bobbysocks]

if the LW had a plane like the 51H ( or D ) in vast numbers during the BoB things may have worked in their behalf. especially if they adopted doolitle's strategy of letting a ~1/3 of the fighter groups hunt low targets of opportunity. the spit was more manueverable but would have more limited success getting to the bombers with 51 escorts. with the 51s range it could follow RAF units back to their bases, catch them as they land, and keep them from refueling and re-entering the fight.