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

[GregP]

If the Germans had P-51s, then maybe we had Messerschmits or Ta-152's. It would have been a REAL fight if we BOTH had been flying the same aircraft!

 

[drgondog]

I stand by the zero growth potential for the P-47N after 1945. Some modest performance boost with upgraded engines but level flight taps out around .67-68M because of the wing. Great aircraft and fits nicely with AAF or even RAF. What I think you have to compare against is the MiG 15 in Korea, against which no escorts could protect the B-29s over NK.

The P-47N wouldn't have done as well as F-80s, or Me 262s, or F-84s as escorts against the MiG, and each of those were hopelessly outclassed.

Post WWII the only reason the P-51H, P-47N and P-82 remained in service is that there was nothing else available to provide long range escort - and at that time no one in the US was ready for the shock of the MiG 15 in Korea - which forever killed the notion of conventional long range escorts. Had our technology base been sufficient to project a long range fighter with top speeds > Me 262 as the 'known' threat, then development WOULD have continued.

Now, with respect to me picking the Me 262 as Germany's choice to build around, the Me 262 design change feature potential was huge going forward from 1939. New wing = longer range interceptor/medium range escort. Extend fuselage, sweep wing = higher speed and more internal fuel. Improved features of Jumo engines = greater reliability, better acceleration, more thrust, more speed.

I don't care what you take for Germany's adversaries, the Me 262 better suits its war fighting strategy for fighter aircraft but also represents a quantum leap in performance - with the only limitation of Range for AAF or RAF bomber doctrine. Worst case is parity if say Britain picks Me 262 to build around. Then it is all about attrition.

If the Germans had all the missions that the Me 262 was capable of, then they could set as a priority to build long range escort and work to that end.

 

[Bad-Karma]

The f7f seems to be an all around winner here for any country. Assuming they could further develop the range (honestly no idea how feasible that is)there really aren't any downsides to the aircraft.

 

[soulezoo]

One and only one then I am going with the -47N. Was it the best at anything? Perhaps not, but it was close to it in so many of the pertinent areas. Every other plane it seems to me has a significant drawback in one or more areas that severely handicaps the choice. Range is often mentioned here. More than anyother aircraft, the -47 is the jack of all trades and master of none IMO.

Things it did/does/can do very competently if employed correctly: CAS, interceptor, escort, dive bomb, anti-ship interdiction, recon. Qualities: produced in number, reliable, ease of flying, survivability, firepower, range, bomb/rocket load, speed, dive, versatility.

Mitigating factors: cost (but not as much as jets or twin engine) overall manueverability.

Dogfighting Spits? while they are circling at 24,000 ft. I am circling at 35,000. As soon as they have to take their ball and go home as they run out of fuel... boom and zoom baby!

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Dogfighting Spits? while they are circling at 24,000 ft. I am circling at 35,000. As soon as they have to take their ball and go home as they run out of fuel... boom and zoom baby!

Presumably the Spits are circling at 24000 ft because they like the view better from there, and really can't be bothered climbing another three miles to their service ceiling?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One and only one then I am going with the -47N. Was it the best at anything? Perhaps not, but it was close to it in so many of the pertinent areas. Every other plane it seems to me has a significant drawback in one or more areas that severely handicaps the choice. Range is often mentioned here. More than anyother aircraft, the -47 is the jack of all trades and master of none IMO.

Things it did/does/can do very competently if employed correctly: CAS, interceptor, escort, dive bomb, anti-ship interdiction, recon. Qualities: produced in number, reliable, ease of flying, survivability, firepower, range, bomb/rocket load, speed, dive, versatility.

Mitigating factors: cost (but not as much as jets or twin engine) overall manueverability.

Dogfighting Spits? while they are circling at 24,000 ft. I am circling at 35,000. As soon as they have to take their ball and go home as they run out of fuel... boom and zoom baby!

Why would the Spits be circling around at 24,000 ft?

 

[GregP]

Korea? I thought this was a WWII question, not a Korean war question. I think you said we had our choice in 1939 ... not 1951.

If I'm supposed to be worried about Korea in 1939 and still be worried about MiG-15's 12 years after the end of WWII hostilities, I want a force of F-16s.

 

[wuzak]

Why would the Spits be circling around at 24,000 ft?

Especially if there are only the P-47s around and no bombers.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Dogfighting Spits? while they are circling at 24,000 ft. I am circling at 35,000. As soon as they have to take their ball and go home as they run out of fuel... boom and zoom baby!

The Spitfire XIV (and 21, which was also in service before the end of the war, but is being carefully ignored) had a service ceiling of 45,000', so you'd better continue to look up, rather than down.

 

[drgondog]

The Spitfire XIV (and 21, which was also in service before the end of the war, but is being carefully ignored) had a service ceiling of 45,000', so you'd better continue to look up, rather than down.

Edgar - you are free to add it to the list - anything that was deployed to a squadron prior to September 2, 1945.

 

[drgondog]

Korea? I thought this was a WWII question, not a Korean war question. I think you said we had our choice in 1939 ... not 1951.

If I'm supposed to be worried about Korea in 1939 and still be worried about MiG-15's 12 years after the end of WWII hostilities, I want a force of F-16s.

The illustration of the advantage jet aircraft brought to air combat - and the technology growth illustration of the helplessness of conventional aircraft against heavily armed jet fighters over 1945 conventional fighters seem to have eluded you.. your opinions are invited, however.

 

[soulezoo]

Why would the Spits be circling around at 24,000 ft?

My statement was in reference to the comment Wuzak made about forcing the -47's down to the preferred combat zone of 20-25k feet of the Spits due to the performance advantage at that altitude.

So, the question is better asked of him.

Comment was in good fun recognizing the absurdity of the original statement.

 

[Glider]

A slightly off the wall contender would be the Meteor. Clear advantage over any other piston aircraft, quite a decent GA aircraft and more reliable than the 262. The Mk III with the longer nacelle would be capable of dealing with most of the opposition. Given a little urgency in development the Mk IV stood a fighting chance of making it to combat which would cement the choice.

 

[snowmobileman]

I sense a few people mocking the P-47N...
I think that the P-47 should not be discounted, as its speeds at all altitudes are at least on par with the Spitfire XIV, if not better (even at sea level, which is a traditional P-47 weak point). The only area that the Spitfire was faster was around 10,000'. Even though it is not an interceptor, it does have a lot of strenths.

 

[Garyt]

Only thing I don't like about the P-47 is that it's a hog, not a real capable turner.

Though I think someone said earlier they were kind of looking for a WW2 version of the Viet Nam era Phantom, and the P-47 fits that bill fairly well. Big, Fast, Durable, not overly manuverable, lot of power. Only thing it "lacks" is the fact the F4 was not gun armed well initially.

 

[GregP]

Nothing has eluded me Drgondog. If we had 1945 fighters in 1939, Then the war would have ended MUCH sooner and jets might have been a future thing, but not a wartime thing.

Easy. Take 1945, late-war piston fighters and deluge 1939 Germany / Britian with the numbers you have and the war gets LOT shorter ... unless THEY also have the 1945 fighers in numbers. In that case we are back to fighting with basic parity and the jets might have come in sooner if they had realized the potential earlier, but would THAT shorten the war? If you have parity, you have a long fight, just like it was.

If they didn't, from whichever side you are arguing from, the late war fighters would have easily overwhelmed the early-war pistons ... and there weren't any jets.

What you basically have here is an open-ended question but no starting premises.

It is self-defeating if anybody can say anything and it gets much less interesting to pursue.

Why not bound it a bit and have meaningful discussion?

Which planes, specifically, are available in what numbers to both sides, and when?

Maybe that could make a premise for an argument.

We have to START from SOMEWHERE.

Where? It's your thread. What are the limits for both sides?

If there are no limits, I'd have 15,000 P-51's to Germany's 1,500 Bf 109's and win almost immediately.

Anyone from Germany would have 20,000 VERY late-war Ta-152's and 1,500 Hurricances and win almost immediately.

There have to be some bounds or the thread seems to be a meaningless argument of what YOU would do with any resources you can imagine.

I'd equip all the ground forces with light-sabres and warp-drive tanks, and all the air forces on MY side with 1,000 F-22's against a total of 500 or less early-war He-111s and Bf-109D's. The war would be SHORT and bloody. Bur what the hell, they have NO air force. I gets easier that way.

It's much the same from the OTHER side. If Germany had 3,000 late-model Me 262's against the Brit's 250 Spitfire I's and a few Whtileys, what would have happened, assuming they had bases close enough for a mission of any importance??

We can discuss it with bounds. Without any, it is fantasy, but still interesting and I shall be inerested.

 

[drgondog]

Greg - it has subtleties. Japan, given the choice and a strict offensive doctrine, a naval power which was based on projecting footprint via sea to secure land should not be as interested in the Me 262 in contrast to an F-7F, F4U - as an example.

Britain might choose the 262 because the continental ranges for GB's strategic vision are far less than Japan with China and the Pacific in its plans.

The US should not pick the 262 if it had the choice of F4U, P-51H, P-47N because the extension of medium and long range bombardment philosophy doesn't work well with the 262 and no immediate solution for escort capability is available until mid air refueling becomes possible (and capable of being protected).

Pick your reasons, these are mine.

 

[drgondog]

If it goes from Production line to acceptance to deployment in squadron strength and is in operational training scheduled for deployment - it is operational. there were 221 P-51H's deployed to several squadrons and 370 were delivered prior to VJ Day - the last of 550 rolled out two months later.

Do you wish to set a production threshold before accepting as Operational?

 

[parsifal]

A lot of discussion about air superiority fighters. Fighters with thoroughred performance. unsure about reliability and multi role capability. Places like East Front pure fighters were not really what was needed. Needed aircraft as tough as nails to the conditions, and able to undertake many different roles. Fighters over Germany was a strategic blind alley for the Germans. So they need to concentrate on winning in the east first, and that does not need fighters. They need bomb trucks for that front, I think the best in that category would be P-47 or Tempest. Something that can get in and blast a way clear for the ground forces, and not need escort, and then, at other times, get in and shoot up Soviet attack formations. A good all rounder that could keep going in terrible conditions. The russians only ever received 113 P-47s, right at the end, but loved them Tempests never fought in the East, but I think they would be a good assignment for that front.

Allies would have a completely different priority, and the Japanese different again. Big countrries are different to little ones, so this scenario is difficult to address.

 

[drgondog]

A lot of discussion about air superiority fighters. Fighters with thoroughred performance. unsure about reliability and multi role capability. Places like East Front pure fighters were not really what was needed. Needed aircraft as tough as nails to the conditions, and able to undertake many different roles. Fighters over Germany was a strategic blind alley for the Germans. So they need to concentrate on winning in the east first, and that does not need fighters.

I am of the opinion that they needed to defeat France, then Britain - and pause for a deep breath for Russia. This thread however is about which fighter you would build your fighter arm around.


They need bomb trucks for that front, I think the best in that category would be P-47 or Tempest. Something that can get in and blast a way clear for the ground forces, and not need escort, and then, at other times, get in and shoot up Soviet attack formations. A good all rounder that could keep going in terrible conditions. The russians only ever received 113 P-47s, right at the end, but loved them Tempests never fought in the East, but I think they would be a good assignment for that front.

Allies would have a completely different priority, and the Japanese different again. Big countrries are different to little ones, so this scenario is difficult to address.

Suggest the fighter for 1939 and build the strategy that wins the west then is crucial to defeat Russia.