Best Fighter

[GermansRGeniuses]

The worst thing was that it had tricycle undercarraige...which isnt terribly good with a mid mounted engine

On Pacific fighters flying the P-39 is a nightmare, i could get more kills flying a Komet

You'll quit thinking that once you get AEP...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with Udet. All planes had there strong points and there week points. The P-1 was a great aircraft but the later Me-109 like the G and K and even the Fw-190D were just as good. I would even go to say that the Dornier Do-335 Pfeil was better then the P-51 it was just to late for the war.

 

[cheddar cheese]

not the IL-2 though, which happened to be precisely a piece of crap

I cant disagree more, it was one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war, if not THE best.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah I dont know how you can say it was a piece of crap. It was quite good. The only disadvantage it had was speed because it was so armored.

 

[cheddar cheese]

And even then it could go the same speed as the Stuka, and it could carry a lot more armament.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it was impressive

 

[Udet]

Hello DerAdler and Cheddar!

Yes. The dogfighting variants of the Bf109 G and K were in equal terms with the P-51.

The Fw190 D "Dora" was perhaps superior to the P51, and not to mention the Ta152. Yes, the latest variants of the Fw190´s saw service in small numbers, but they had striking performance records and a certain number of P-51 pilots did not live to tell the story when they encountered some of those few German machines.

Now, regarding the IL-2M, I do think I have sound arguments to affirm it was a piece of crap.

I do not think comparing the Shturmovik with the Stuka will bring clear conclusions. When you affirm the two aircraft had the same speed (which is correct) you are not taking into account one important fact: the IL-2 had a retractable undercarriage while the Stuka´s was a fixed one.

A non-retractable undercarriage will cause drag, so a bad point for the IL-2 in the speed department.

The IL-2 indeed caused important damage to the German ground positions, and perhaps that sole fact makes it a succesful ground attack machine, yet I do not think it achieved the magnitude of destruction the Stuka did during the glorious days of Barbarossa.

The swarms of IL-2´s perhaps killed as much of their fellow soldier comrades than they killed German troops, especially during Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944.

I do think its battle record was more the product of very high numbers sent to the battle rather than quality of the machine.

I have several hours on video showing Luftwaffe guncamera footage in the eastern front.

I assume most of the German kills shown came from a wide variety of German fighters: Bf109 F´s, G´s and K´s, Bf110, Fw190´s...

You can not understand the word clumsy until you see the IL-2M in the air.
Its maneuverability was virtually zero. The USAAF´s B-26 is a hummingbird compared to the IL-2.

In several shots, the Germans score some hits in certain parts of the plane which appear to absorb some level of damage. But in many many others, the view is even disturbing: the IL-2M´s getting virtually pulverized by the German guns, you can clearly see the bodies of the rear gunners falling down with limbs horribly twisted like rag dolls.

It appears like the first target was the rear gunner, which could be taken out without extreme trouble, then the German fighter would virtually place itself a few dozens of meters away from the IL-2 tail and then proceed to chew it.

That the IL-2M included a rear gunner as new feature has been totally overrated. The defensive machine gun doctrine practiced by all air forces during WWII proved to be a failure.

While all planes, you name it, fighters and bombers (Stuka, Bf110, IL-2M, B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Stirling, He111, Do17, Do217, Pe-2, etc.) which carried defensive machine guns would eventually shoot down a certain number of enemy interceptors, the concept itself was proved wrong.

No matter how heavily packed with defensive machine gun fire your plane is if it can not manouver with ease. Your less armed, but very fast and manouverable enemy will bring you down in bigger numbers.

From some conversation I have had with Russian veterans: the vast majority of the IL-2 crews were hastily trained, and there were many many cases when the rear gunners could hardly operate de 12.7 machine gun.

The high command of the VVS couldn´t care less: their sole concern was to push the German west as fast as possible with utter disregard of human cost.

They told me the IL-2 was the aerial version of the soviet infantry, pressed into service to endure frightful losses yet managing to achieve the task.

I was also told, Germans captured intact IL-2M´s by the hundreds, and sent them back to Germany for further testing, and their conclusion was they could not believe such a piece of crap had been put into massive production.

The Germans were very objective about soviet armament and when they liked some of the soviet toys, they said it crystal clear and even pressed such captured weaponry into service in the German army.

The funny thing here is that only soviet airplane of the war which is famous and considered a brilliant machine for western guys happenes to be a armored flying turkey, while many of the indeed excellent planes such as the La-7 are frequently underrated.

Cheers!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it was one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war, if not THE best.

in no way was it one of the best ground attack aircraft, it was comfortably the best tank buster, but many aircraft were better in the ground attack role, they were very different............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think one can argue it was the best tank buster, no one said that it flew the best and as for the Stuka it was far from the best aircraft also.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I think one can argue it was the best tank buster

go on, it what ways wasn't the IL-2 the best tank-buster??

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It could carry an impressive aray of armament and it was quite armored. The aircraft was itself a flying tank. I dont think it was the best aircraft but I think it was the best tank killer. I hate to say it for I am traditionally a Luftwaffe aircraft fan but I can not argue for the Stuka, it was simply outclassed but I think the Il-2 was the best all around tank killer and nothing more.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sorry i think there's been allot of confusion, i was quoting CC then...........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No prob thats what forums are for.

 

[cheddar cheese]

IL2: Best tank Buster and cetrtainly better than the Stuka.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree as I said, I think this discussion will just go back and forth and bach and forth with no it isn't and yet it is! Fun aint it?

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yup. How did we get on to this anyway, its supposed to be about fighters

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont know one thing leads to another and then it just goes.

 

[Udet]

I am aware the IL-2M does not belong in this thread. I simply wanted to answer the question I was asked. 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i don't think we were every gonna agree on the best fighter anyway..............

 

[cheddar cheese]

Nope, dont think we ever will either.

Dont worry about it Udet, were very laid back about rule on this site