Best (single engined) fighters of WWII
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
you're right 
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Im goining with AH-64 Apache.
drgondog
Major
The low relative angle (if taken from a/c rather than an observing designator/shooter) suggests you might be right but that concentration looks like 30mm HEI
I did not get to see the avatar, but the AH-64 uses 30mm HEI.
Hughes M230 Chain Gun can use 3 different kinds of rounds:
-M788 Target Practice (TP)
-M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP)
-M799 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI)
Believe it or not, I actually saw an Apache that was giving us fire support on an air assault open up on a moving target (a motor boat in the water) with his 30mm and completely miss the target.
Sorry to keep this offtopic, carry on with the original discussion...
drgondog
Major
I did not get to see the avatar, but the AH-64 uses 30mm HEI.
Hughes M230 Chain Gun can use 3 different kinds of rounds:
-M788 Target Practice (TP)
-M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP)
-M799 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI)
Believe it or not, I actually saw an Apache that was giving us fire support on an air assault open up on a moving target (a motor boat in the water) with his 30mm and completely miss the target.
Sorry to keep this offtopic, carry on with the original discussion...
Chris - good info. I actually thought the AH-64 had a 25mm Chain Gun. That chin mount, however, like the Cobra, is not the most stable base for precision fire - in comparison to A-10.
I fired the 20mm on the AH-1J chin mount and was unimpressed with inherent accuracy... and suspect the AH-64 not much better.
It is actually very very accurate (I think the case I was talking about was a fluke). I sent you a PM though, since I do not want to continue to derail this thread.
drgondog
Major
over an Fw 190A8?
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I could never vote for the 109. Everything I've read about the landings is borne out watching oen take off and land. It would scare the crap out of me. That sadly goes for the F4U as well.
I think most of the problems with the 109's accidents are due to operation from unimproved runways when they weren't meant to be, but if I want to talk about the greatest fighter, I want one that can be operated anywhere.
I have more emotional connection to a half dozen fighters than I have to this one, but time after time the P-51 comes at me as all around good in every prossible category. As much as I hate the concensus in anything, it's just the runaway best. It had the ceiling, speed, range, firepower, durability, turning ability, mass-production readiness, climb rate and lack fo bad habits that made it ridiculously well balanced.
Of all the things that impress me about the Mustang though, as an enemy commander I would most fear its' range. It could show up anywhere and give you hell and make it home with a few gallons left in the tank as it taxied in. That is devastating.
I think most of the problems with the 109's accidents are due to operation from unimproved runways when they weren't meant to be, but if I want to talk about the greatest fighter, I want one that can be operated anywhere.
I have more emotional connection to a half dozen fighters than I have to this one, but time after time the P-51 comes at me as all around good in every prossible category. As much as I hate the concensus in anything, it's just the runaway best. It had the ceiling, speed, range, firepower, durability, turning ability, mass-production readiness, climb rate and lack fo bad habits that made it ridiculously well balanced.
Of all the things that impress me about the Mustang though, as an enemy commander I would most fear its' range. It could show up anywhere and give you hell and make it home with a few gallons left in the tank as it taxied in. That is devastating.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Very well put. Your point about trying to be on the other side, and defend against the P-51 is a neat way to look at it. I wonder what the Germans could have come up with if the shoe was on the other foot, and they had heavy bombers and they developed a fighter that could perform escort dutys and still fight with the Spitfires or Mustangs or whatever would have been defending the Allied territory. Which leads me to another thought. Lend lease P-38's (with full turbocharging) used as bomber defense over Brittain. That would have put the Lightning in the role it was built for. I think it would have been a devastating bomber interceptor.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
It would have also been a good escort fighter if used in that role since it had good range and great high-alt performance. The problem was that it wasn't well suited to mass production and we never had as many as we wanted.
The best what-if regarding the P-38 is "What if we had declined the P-39 entirely and had Bell making P-38s as well?" With twice as many to play with, we could have had a pretty decent all around high-altitude fighter as we waited for the P-47 and P-51.
HellToupee
Banned
- 90
- May 30, 2007
Well they did come up with a long range 190 the 190G series, not for escort tho but for attack.
Best single engine fighter IMO was spit, served beginning to end easy to fly adapted to large varity of roles and for the first half of the war the only competitive allied fighter.
claidemore
Senior Airman
The deficiency of the Spitfire that gets pointed out in these 'best fighter' discussions is generally it's lack of range. Were it not for that it would get a lot more votes as it's other qualities: climb/turn/armament/pilot confidence/safety record/speed/pilot view (even better in late Mks with bubble canopy) and reputation were pretty hard to beat.
PR Spitfires had a range of between 1360 and 2000 miles with the extra fuselage tank (which some Mk IXs had as well) and the wing tanks.
WC Johnny Johnson pointed out that all the Spitfire needed was a decent drop tank and it could have done long range escort duties. The Mustang filled that role already, so it wasn't developed further on the Spitfire.
PR Spitfires had a range of between 1360 and 2000 miles with the extra fuselage tank (which some Mk IXs had as well) and the wing tanks.
WC Johnny Johnson pointed out that all the Spitfire needed was a decent drop tank and it could have done long range escort duties. The Mustang filled that role already, so it wasn't developed further on the Spitfire.
Glider
Captain
Re the Long Range potential of the Spitfire, in Oct 1944 two Mk IXe's were fitted with 2 x 60 gallon drop tanks from a Mustang as well as the optional additional tanks behind the pilots seat. These then flew from St John in Newfoundland to N Ireland non stop, so it shows what could have been done.
The Spitfire was developed as a short range interceptor for home defence so its a bit unfair to penalise it for not having the range it was never meant to have.
Longer range models were developed and flown, but there was little point in duplicating what the Mustang was doing so it was a matter of choice, not a deficiency.
Someone once said to me, "whats the point of having the best fighter if you can't get to the fight".
Well, when you are defending your homeland you are IN the fight even when parked on the ground.
Longer range models were developed and flown, but there was little point in duplicating what the Mustang was doing so it was a matter of choice, not a deficiency.
Someone once said to me, "whats the point of having the best fighter if you can't get to the fight".
Well, when you are defending your homeland you are IN the fight even when parked on the ground.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
when you are deciding "the best" versatility should come into play. The Spit was great, but it wasn't versatile.
Oh I dunno. Interceptor, Photo Recce, Ground attack, Trainer, carrier fighter, there's surely not much more that you could ask of it. From the first model flown in 1936, to the last in 1949 the Spitfire underwent more development and achieved a greater performance and capability growth than any other fighter, still matching the Bearcats and Sea Furies for performance in 1950 like it did with the Bf109 in 1936 . To me that makes it the greatest of them all.
Catch22
Major
Yeah, but compare that to the F4U.
Interceptor - Yup, maybe not as much in the early versions, but -4s certainly.
Photo Recce - Yes, not as exstemsively used as Spit PR, but still quite capable, and they were fully functioning combat aircraft.
Ground Attack - Here it really puts the Spit to shame, as an overloaded -4 could carry 6 000lbs. They couldn't take off of carriers like that, but they could do it, and did, in Korea.
Trainer - Well, no. There was a single trainer made, but it never went into production.
Carrier Fighter - Once again, beats out the Spit here.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
My only gripe with the F4U is it was hard to take off and land. I can't really give the "best ever" vote to a "widowmaker".
I'm not down on the Spitfire, It is tied for second place in my book with the P-47, but the fact that it was very hard to deploy offensively compared to the P-51 just makes me feel like it's a great plane with limitations. For its era, for the time it was designed, it was awesome though. Best plane of 1940 bar none.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
