best fighter of ww II (1 Viewer)

[Gemhorse]

I have conceded that the Corsair, was I feel, the 'Best Radial Fighter/Bomber'...Our guys flew them, and earlier-on, P-40's, in the PTO.- On US orders, we had to destroy all of them after our Occupation Duties in Japan, around 1947....shocking bloody waste, considering what excellent aircraft they were, especially considering a restored one today is worth $1.2 million +...
All I've read indicates they were better as 'shore-based ' fighters, leaving the Hellcats to Carrier-based work, but they did great work from the shore landing-strips, 'daisy-cutting' for the Ground Forces, and could carry some serious ordanance besides the 6X .50's for fighting and strafing....
- However, I'll stay with the Spitfire, [Mk's V, VIII, IX AND XIV in particular], their overall service worldwide is well-documented, and as I've said, no other aircraft gave The People the Morale to Fight, like the Spitfire did....

 

[Lightning Guy]

Gemhorse, most aviation historians will tell you that the P-38 was disgarded too early and it would have proven far more valuable over Korea than the P-51 or (probably) any other prop-driven fighter except for perhaps the Corsair as that was the only other fighter that could hope to match its payload and its durability.

 

[Gemhorse]

Well, I can't say I've studied the P-38's history in great detail, and if they belatedly thought it would have been the go in Korea, I would have thought the Corsair the better choice....simply because of the vulnerability of in-lines to enemy fire. I believe this was proved correct anyway, the F-51D suffering heavy losses in Korea, losing nearly 60 out of some 250 used in the ground-attack role....It more or less terminated the Mustang as a fighting aircraft.
The success of radial-engined ground-attack fighter/bombers was shown later during Vietnam with the Skyraiders' tour-of-duty....

 

[Lightning Guy]

Granted a radial is far supperior to an in-line for ground attack but the Lightning did have two of them which corrected for their vulnerability in part. A lot of Lightning pilots appreciated the placement of the engines (along with the armor mount inboard of the turbo-superchargers) as they provided excellent protection of the pilot against flanking fire.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think i'd rather be in a tiffy, corsair or a t'bolt than a P-38 for ground attack.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Those were excellent aircraft. But so was the P-38. It had better payload than any of those types, twin-engine safety, and better pilot protection (armor plating ahead and behind and an engine to either side). The twin-engine, counter-rotating props made it extremely stable in strafing runs (no torque pulling either way). And it is interesting that, in the ETO, it was 2 P-38 groups that were specifically recognized for their success at locco-busting.

 

[Crazy]

For ground attack I'd feel safest in a Corsair or a P-38

 

[cheddar cheese]

Id feel safest in a P-38 i think.

 

[lesofprimus]

I have read too many reports and stories of P-38 pilots getting shot down on strafing missions, usually from rounds to the engine or part of the boom getting shot away.... If u crash landed a -38 in rough terrain, u most likely didnt walk away....

The P-47, on the other hand, was a beast.... The engine could take several rounds and still keep flying.... I have noticed that the -47 was a much more durable aircraft when it came to combat damage, and many pilots walked away from crash landings and what not unscathed...

The firepower of the -38 in ground attack is unsurpassed in a fighter, but I would want survivability on the battlefield over ordinance...

 

[Lightning Guy]

A lot of P-47s, Typhoons, and Il-2s were lost on ground attack sorties too. My point is that low-level attack missions were inheriently dangerous and regardless of how durable an aircraft was some were going to be lost. I could point to instances in North Africa where strafing P-38s had collosions with telephone poles and yet returned to base. That's durable enough for me.

 

[lesofprimus]

Alot of varying aircraft were lost to ground fire.... My point is that the -47 could handle more groundfire damage than the -38 and still return to base, dual engines or not...

Ive seen pics of Corsairs with 1/2 a wing return to base.... Pretty amazing that they could still stay aloft...

 

[Lightning Guy]

I've seen P-38's survive mid-air collisions and return to base.

Lanc, the Tiffie used a liquid-cooled engine and so I don't think it could be considered safer than a P-38.

 

[Gemhorse]

Well, if we're gonna go through ''low-level ordanance-delivering attack aircraft'' again, I'll definately stick with my Mosquito !!! ...- And as much as I love the 'Tiffy', without that prop turning, they were a 7 ton brick...I know, because one of my ancestors flew one, rockets and all, into a German Radar Station in 1944....Radials did have that advantage though against enemy fire, but the inlines still went on and did their job anyway, they all had their cannons, bombs and rockets....Tactics to draw off flak were standard procedure in these attacks, based on intelligence and recce reports etc. The thing that worried me about Lightnings was those fragile twin booms, where flak or cannon could blast them apart, armour or not. As in reading of our NZ guys in Corsairs in the PTO, blasting the Japs in Rabaul Harbour which was full of flak, and all their other Operations, I would be much happier in a Corsair, especially after reading Crazy's post....which seemed to be like that item on the website LG posted before, a coupla pages back....Still think the Spitfire deserves the 'Big Gong' here though, it was on the Job the whole way through........

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire should get it, from 1939-1945 it fought. It was never out-classed either. The Spit' Mk. XVIII was probably the best dogfighter of the war. It's only true 'fault' was a lack of range but it wasn't that bad.

 

[johnny]

It must be a close call between the Spit and the Mustang.But the Spit was already busy when the Mustang was still in nappies.

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire Mk. XVIII would be able to beat a Mustang in a dogfight but the Mustang had the escort range.

 

[johnny]

Was that the one with the clipped wings?

 

[plan_D]

I don't believe any Mk. XVIII were converted to clipped-wing. Mk. XVIII were late in the war, I think late '44 until the end. Clipped wing Spitfires were for low level combat and ground attack.

 

[johnny]

Do you have a pic?

 

[plan_D]

Here's a Spitfire Mk. XVIII and a clipped-Spitfire Mk. XIV