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

[GregP]

OK, I'd strat with the P-51H (4 x 20mm cannons) and the F4U-4 (also 4 x 20 mm cannons) in both the ETO and the PTO.

If the supply were unlimited, I'd stay with them. If not, I'd go with the F4U-4 and F8F (cannon-armed) for the MTO and North Africa.

I can build reasons, but these are near the top of the fighter heap and, agian, I'd ask whether or not the German side also had 1945 fighters? ... it might affect the choices in that threater.

Then again, it is open ended to the point that we'd have to come up wiha reasonable scenario for any reasons to make sense.

Interesting presise though.

Might make a good movie or three, depending on wich side selected the best equipment in 1939.

 

[Glider]

OK, I'd strat with the P-51H (4 x 20mm cannons) and the F4U-4 (also 4 x 20 mm cannons) in both the ETO and the PTO.

If the supply were unlimited, I'd stay with them. If not, I'd go with the F4U-4 and F8F (cannon-armed) for the MTO and North Africa.

And I will stick with the Meteor III A lot faster, better firepower, a decent range and a reasonable payload. It also has the advantage of being an aircraft that the RAF did base much of its air defence around including a NF version

 

[drgondog]

I think the Meteor III is a good choice. It would not have been significantly outclassed by the 262, would have been able to adapt going forward to longer range - and NF. IMO it's sole deficiency is that it will never perform medium/long range escort for Bomber Command. Having said that, if Germany selects the Me 262 as its foundation fighter, BC is still not going to be successful in daylight, nor would any fighter on that list, including the P-51H or P-47N, been quite enough to offset the 262 as escorts. I suspect the 262 however would not have been as effective as a night fighter due to closing speed - absent hang speed brakes on it to enable a medium speed closure

 

[bobbysocks]

in flight refueling is out of the question? too risky? iirc it was experimented with. with inflight refueling capability prior to entering and after exiting the battle zone....and used in conjunction with drop tanks....couldnt you get decent range out of the 262 ( or meteor iii ) for long escort missions and/or deep excursions?

I suspect the 262 however would not have been as effective as a night fighter due to closing speed - absent hang speed brakes on it to enable a medium speed closure

the premise is you are starting in 39....so you could make a NF version with airbrakes....sort of what they did with the 51 and the A36 couldnt you?

 

[parsifal]

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

I think the ame formula applies over france and the low countries, but not over Britain. But the LW was never going to be in a position to win the BoB whatever fighter they possessed. there was not enough technology difference between the RAF and the LW, and in one or two areas the RAF held the advantage in technology. The RAF held too great an advantage in recovery capabilities for the LW ever to achieve anything meaningful over Britain, even with the best fighters.

Best bet for the LW was never to attempt air superiority over Britain, so their best bet was to build a true multi role fighter for both France and Russia, clobber both and then turn to face the allied onslaughts of 43+

 

[grampi]

Take out the word "operational" and the choice is easy...the P-51H...without it's range the war in Europe would've been lost...not to mention it would outperform every prop-driven plane on the list...

 

[Glider]

Rubbish

 

[parsifal]

P-51H was a phenomenal platform, but its hard to see any single type winning the war of its own accord. In total, in 1944, P-51s shot down about 3000 enemy aircraft. that's a lot of aircraft, and its an impact that was more than just a ripple....but claiming that single handedly that could win the air war seems a bit over the top.

Same argument is trotted out with depressing for many aircraft....the spitfire was the aircraft that saved England, the zero gave the Japanese the ability to initially defeat the west, FW 190s held the entire RAF at bay 1941-2. none of these fantastic claims actually stand up to scrutiny

 

[grampi]

Rubbish

To what are you referring?

 

[grampi]

P-51H was a phenomenal platform, but its hard to see any single type winning the war of its own accord. In total, in 1944, P-51s shot down about 3000 enemy aircraft. that's a lot of aircraft, and its an impact that was more than just a ripple....but claiming that single handedly that could win the air war seems a bit over the top.

Same argument is trotted out with depressing for many aircraft....the spitfire was the aircraft that saved England, the zero gave the Japanese the ability to initially defeat the west, FW 190s held the entire RAF at bay 1941-2. none of these fantastic claims actually stand up to scrutiny

The OP established the criteria. There's only one on the list (in fact it was the only one of the war) that was capable of escorting our bombers in and out of Germany, without which our bombing campaign would've failed, plus the "H" model could take on anything prop driven the enemies had...

 

[parsifal]

P-51s established a kill loss ratio of around 6:1 in the final year of the war. by any standard thats a phenomenal exchange rate, and they certainly played a role in the final defeat. A very important one. Neither is it out of the question to make it the mount of choice in this hypothetical. ive got no issue with any of that but they did not win the battle by themselves, and victory, even in the air wars over Germany would still have been achieved without them, alberit much harder.

The kill loss ratios are not greatly different to other exchange rates being notched up by 1944 by other types similarly engaged, and by wars end, there quite a few aircraft engaged in the same or similar role. What sets the P-51 apart is that it was the first, and on pure performance, the best. not enough to claim that it won the air war single handedly which is at the root of your statements, but still a very impressive record,

Fighters dont win wars, because in the first place they simply cant inflict enough hurt on the enemy to make that much difference. Neither do they inflict the majority of losses on an opponent. Attrition does that.

The LW was bled white and left vulnerable through years of mis-management and overuse. in every sense it was a tactical machine. the biggest single failing of the LW was its failure to plan ahead. Its strategies were essentially opportunistic and short sighted. it simply was not preparing for the big end game battle. in this regard, the efforts of the RAF and the VVS, through years of attrition were as important as the battles fought over Germany. What the bombing campaign did more than anything was to deny the Germans safe skies in which to rest and recover. Far more damage was done to the LW firstly by itself, and secondly as a result of the vicious land campaigns it was fighting than the battles that it fought over its own skies. not in terms of numbers, but in terms of lost experience, lack of reserves, no rest, it was on the battlefields of the Eastern Front that the Germans lost everything, their air force, their ground armies, their confidence.

 

[grampi]

P-51s established a kill loss ratio of around 6:1 in the final year of the war. by any standard thats a phenomenal exchange rate, and they certainly played a role in the final defeat. A very important one. Neither is it out of the question to make it the mount of choice in this hypothetical. ive got no issue with any of that but they did not win the battle by themselves, and victory, even in the air wars over Germany would still have been achieved without them, alberit much harder.

The kill loss ratios are not greatly different to other exchange rates being notched up by 1944 by other types similarly engaged, and by wars end, there quite a few aircraft engaged in the same or similar role. What sets the P-51 apart is that it was the first, and on pure performance, the best. not enough to claim that it won the air war single handedly which is at the root of your statements, but still a very impressive record,

Fighters dont win wars, because in the first place they simply cant inflict enough hurt on the enemy to make that much difference. Neither do they inflict the majority of losses on an opponent. Attrition does that.

The LW was bled white and left vulnerable through years of mis-management and overuse. in every sense it was a tactical machine. the biggest single failing of the LW was its failure to plan ahead. Its strategies were essentially opportunistic and short sighted. it simply was not preparing for the big end game battle. in this regard, the efforts of the RAF and the VVS, through years of attrition were as important as the battles fought over Germany. What the bombing campaign did more than anything was to deny the Germans safe skies in which to rest and recover. Far more damage was done to the LW firstly by itself, and secondly as a result of the vicious land campaigns it was fighting than the battles that it fought over its own skies. not in terms of numbers, but in terms of lost experience, lack of reserves, no rest, it was on the battlefields of the Eastern Front that the Germans lost everything, their air force, their ground armies, their confidence.

You're sighting the P-51s actual kill numbers/ratio which would be completely irrelevant in the OPs scenario. If the P-51 would've been our only fighter, it's number of kills would've been much higher. You seem to be leaning towards saying the P-51H would not be the best choice from the OPs list, without actually saying it. Which plane on this list (or one not on the list for that matter) would've made a bigger impact on the war effort?

 

[parsifal]

Im not saying that its not the best on the list. in fact i happen to think that it would be the best. Thats not what you claimed however. Your claim is that "

without it's range the war in Europe would've been lost.

. There is no evidence to support that claim, and the circumstances actually suggest otherwise. The war would have been won regardless of whether the P-51 was there or not. probably harder to do, and pure speculation as to what might happen if it wasnt available. But lets say the effort used to develop and build the P-51 did not occur, other options would have presented themselves, and the dollars and effort used on the P-51 would have been used to develop one or more of the other options available.

And, the second thing is that without all the efforts of all that went before it, the LW facing the 8AF would not have been defeated, p-51 or no. Allied victory was not the result of a single type, not even the result of a single country let alone a single type arriving late for the party. it was the effort of many different types and many different countries. P-51 was a very important element of that victory, but it was far from the sole reason for victory, and with or without it, the Allies were going to win after 1942. P-51 was not even the single most important fact or piece of equipment. The most important factor was the red army, and behind that, and aircraft bordering on obsolescence,,,,the lowly IL-2

 

[drgondog]

P-51H was a phenomenal platform, but its hard to see any single type winning the war of its own accord. In total, in 1944, P-51s shot down about 3000 enemy aircraft. that's a lot of aircraft, and its an impact that was more than just a ripple....but claiming that single handedly that could win the air war seems a bit over the top.

While I agree your last statement, the victory credit total for US Mustangs solely in the ETO was about 3215. I don't have the 'near' exact tally for MTO, PTO, CBI but the 1944 Mustang total was approximately 4,000 without RAF. The air to air ratio was about 10:1 after review of the MACR's

Same argument is trotted out with depressing for many aircraft....the spitfire was the aircraft that saved England, the zero gave the Japanese the ability to initially defeat the west, FW 190s held the entire RAF at bay 1941-2. none of these fantastic claims actually stand up to scrutiny

Agreed. Having said that, one can claim with a high degree of certainty that the Casablanca POINTBLANK objective of destroying the Luftwaffe to the point of achieving air superiority over the Invasion front at Normandy would not have been achieved without the P-51B/C.

 

[drgondog]

Im not saying that its not the best on the list. in fact i happen to think that it would be the best. Thats not what you claimed however. Your claim is that ". There is no evidence to support that claim, and the circumstances actually suggest otherwise. The war would have been won regardless of whether the P-51 was there or not. probably harder to do, and pure speculation as to what might happen if it wasnt available. But lets say the effort used to develop and build the P-51 did not occur, other options would have presented themselves, and the dollars and effort used on the P-51 would have been used to develop one or more of the other options available.

And, the second thing is that without all the efforts of all that went before it, the LW facing the 8AF would not have been defeated, p-51 or no. Allied victory was not the result of a single type, not even the result of a single country let alone a single type arriving late for the party. it was the effort of many different types and many different countries. P-51 was a very important element of that victory, but it was far from the sole reason for victory, and with or without it, the Allies were going to win after 1942. P-51 was not even the single most important fact or piece of equipment. The most important factor was the red army, and behind that, and aircraft bordering on obsolescence,,,,the lowly IL-2

To turn the argument around, independent of all the Allied clashes with the Luftwaffe prior to 1944, neither 8th AF strategic daylight bombing continuation nor the degradation of the LW's ability to contest the Invasion would have been achieved absent the P-51 unless virtually all the 1943 production from July 1943 forward had been diverted to England in lieu of the P-51. Even then the LW easily avoids the P-38 while dealing daily thrashings on the 8th, which in opinion would have made daylight strategic bombing politically untenable.

What you can say is that a large percentage of the LW fighter pilot strength at the beginning of WWII was gone by the end of 1943. You can say the same for the RAF and the VVS. Independent of the pilot training inadequacies of the LW, the core strength of LuftFlotte Reich were experienced groups and pilots greatly augmented with experienced pilot reinforcements from East and South for the Defense of Germany. That is the force that the Mustang defeated without help from RAF, VVS or even to a large extent the P-38 during long range escort.

 

[grampi]

Im not saying that its not the best on the list. in fact i happen to think that it would be the best. Thats not what you claimed however. Your claim is that ". There is no evidence to support that claim, and the circumstances actually suggest otherwise. The war would have been won regardless of whether the P-51 was there or not. probably harder to do, and pure speculation as to what might happen if it wasnt available. But lets say the effort used to develop and build the P-51 did not occur, other options would have presented themselves, and the dollars and effort used on the P-51 would have been used to develop one or more of the other options available.

And, the second thing is that without all the efforts of all that went before it, the LW facing the 8AF would not have been defeated, p-51 or no. Allied victory was not the result of a single type, not even the result of a single country let alone a single type arriving late for the party. it was the effort of many different types and many different countries. P-51 was a very important element of that victory, but it was far from the sole reason for victory, and with or without it, the Allies were going to win after 1942. P-51 was not even the single most important fact or piece of equipment. The most important factor was the red army, and behind that, and aircraft bordering on obsolescence,,,,the lowly IL-2

We could debate endlessly about whether or not the war in Europe would've still gone our way without the Mustang, but you can't deny at the very least it certainly contributed to the war ending much sooner than it would have without it...my point remains the same, it's the best plane on the list...on that we agree...

 

[drgondog]

Grampi - I put the Thread together to make each person think about any single Nation's Highest and Best Use fighter to build around for 1939. For nations committed to long range strategic DAYLIGHT bombing the P-51H and P47N are natural 'teasers' - but neither Japan, Italy, USSR or Germany were committed to anything beyond medium/short range bomber force.

Why would they choose P-51H over Tempest, Me 262, F7F or even F4U-4?

 

[Glider]

To what are you referring?

This

Take out the word "operational" and the choice is easy...the P-51H...without it's range the war in Europe would've been lost...

Small but important point, As far as I am aware the P51H didn't fly in Europe and therefore had absolutely no impact on the ending of the war in Europe. Therefore how could the war in Europe depend on the P51H?

 

[parsifal]

I think most nations would welcome the p-51 into their inventory, so, even though its not a perfect fit, its still a hard to beat all rounder. But there are some exceptions.

The most obvious ones are the Russians. Because they were using aluminium in their engine construction for their tanks, they really could not afford to use aluminium in their a/c. Soviet aircraft were made mostly of wood or steel tubing because of that. I have serious doubt the P-51 would be a welcome addition in that situation. Also, I expect the comms and general standard of tolerances used in the a/cs construction would be too much of a challenge for both the italians and the Japanese. Maybe they could build them, but at a reduced output. Either way, numbers would be affected, and that would be an unacceptable penalty for theses nations.

The P-51 was an adequate, but not outstanding ground attack and low level fighter, and on the eastern front this is what they needed to be. The P-51 was best at higher altudes, but this was not what was required for certain fronts.

Its hard to judge how the p-51 might perform if on the strategic defensive, like a BoB situation. it was not really a dog fighter, Im not even sure it can be said to be an ideal bomber destroyer. It would have had oodles of endurance, a welcome facet, but its (relatively) light armament (compared to its contemporaries) might mean it cant deal with enemy bomber formations quick enough to be considered ideal. We are forced to extrapolate here, but how would it have performed lugging a couple of 30mm cannon around for example.

The P-51 was built for a purpose, and it fulfilled that purpose as close to perfectly as could be asked for. Because of the inherent qualities of the design it can be argued to fulfil other roles it was not really designed for as well, but its questionable that it could do those missions as well as other types.

 

[fastmongrel]

I am choosing my aircraft for Great Britain so I think the requirements are

1. Fast climbing and a fighting altitude of up to 40,000ft.
2. Heavy Armament to knock armoured bombers down with single passes.
3. Easy to turn round between sorties during heavy continuous combat.
4. Easy to manufacture in widely seperated factories proofing it against one raid knocking out production for months.
5. Easy conversion to Fighter Bomber and Photo Recon.
6. Easy ground handling and gentle take off and landing to make conversion into a Sea version short and easy.
7. Internal provision for Tropical filters for Desert and Tropical use.

Very long range is nice but not essential for the fighter but at least 2 x points plumbed for 90 gallon drop tanks is essential.

I have done a bit of research and 3 planes are on my shortlist.
Spitfire Mk21
Hawker Tempest II (Centaurus engined model)
Martin Baker MB5

I have set myself a 1st flight cut off day of June 6th 1944 so that means no Supermarine Spiteful or Hawker Fury.

Best performance
1= Spitfire
1= MB5
3 Tempest (Only just fractions between all three)

Best firepower guns
All equal though the Tempest carried slightly more ammo

Best firepower other
1 Tempest (There were plans to fit a centerline plumbed hardpoint rated at 1,000lbs but they were never built with it)
2 MB5
3 Spit

Radius on internal fuel (approximate collated from several sources)
1 MB5 (500 miles)
2 Tempest (300 miles)
3 Spitfire (200 miles)

Radius with max external fuel
1 MB5 (750 miles)
2 Tempest (420 miles)(Possibly 600 with 3rd drop tank)
3 Spitfire (350 miles)

On balance it is going to be the MB5 one of the best British what if planes
from wikipediaThe first flight of the MB 5 prototype, serial R2496, took place on 23 May 1944.[5] Performance was considered outstanding by test pilots, and the cockpit layout was praised by the Armament and Aircraft Experimental Establishment. The accessibility of the fuselage for maintenance was excellent, thanks to a system of detachable panels.

It was designed for ease of production with sub assemblies to produced by sub contractors and final assembly to be done by the manufacturer. 3 stage 3 speed Griffons would probably have come into service during 1946 and the Molins Hispano with 1,000 rpm would have come about the same time. Unfortunately the Air Ministry didnt want another plane manufacturer and did all they could to stop the MB5 though Sir James Martin was a perfectionist and probably would have tinkered and fiddled with the design till the war ended.

Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Building the MB5 replica