Best twin engine dogfighter
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It may be no more crack than some of the people who post on this forum
Which plane sank the greatest number of ships with torpedoes (of course this brings the torpedo into the equation)
Which plane sank the most tonnage " " " "
Which plane had the highest hit rate, number of torpedoes dropped vs hits?
Which plane sank the most for the least losses?
For comparison:
which fighter plane shot down the most enemy planes?
Which fighter shot down the most enemy fighters? (if different)
Which fighter had the best kill to loss ratio?
The planes that best answer the last three questions are not really the "best" fighter/s of WW II (Brewster Buffalo on the last one)
But often crop as as such.
It depends on your criteria and the Swordfish did have 'results' all out of proportion to it's actual flight performance, in part due to having a torpedo that worked and in part due to a lot of it's opposition.
Does Brown explain his criteria?
Where it operated and the conditions it operated from can be 90% of an aircrafts success. Obviously, if the Swordfish would have had to operate in an area of contested air filled with Zero's, it would have made the Devastator look great by comparison.
Altsym, bias doesn't mean 'like', it means a demonstration of favouritism and lack of objectivity, just for kicks.
Why is it so outrageous? My understanding is that the Swordfish sank a greater tonnage of enemy shipping than any other type in the war, that would make it rank higher than the Avenger then, wouldn't it? Again, what is the criteria by which this list is compiled?
And every other torpedo bomber operated by the Allies would fare differently in this scenario, because...
Why is it so outrageous? My understanding is that the Swordfish sank a greater tonnage of enemy shipping than any other type in the war, that would make it rank higher than the Avenger then, wouldn't it? Again, what is the criteria by which this list is compiled?
And every other torpedo bomber operated by the Allies would fare differently in this scenario, because...
Last edited:
Your making a torpedo run on a carrier, you have a choice between a 90 mph biplane with a 30 caliber machine gun and a bolt of cloth between you and the Zero coming up behind you OR a modern 270 mph aircraft with a 50 Browning in a power turret and some armor plate with a Zero coming up behind you. Which would you choose?
I think the Swordfish was a beautiful plane and it did an amazing job, but to rank it as the BEST TORPEDO BOMBER OF THE WAR is crazy. Thats like saying the Hellcat was the best fighter of WW2 because it shot down so many Japanese planes. It may have had the highest kill ratio of all time, but it wasn't as good a fighter as a Spitfire, Mustang, Corsair, FW190 and so on. It simply was in a theater where it thrived, same with the Swordfish.
Sinking unarmed freighters one at a time or making suprise night raids on ships at anchor is alot different than a daylight attack on a Japanese Carrier Task Force with a full CAP in the air waiting on your arrival. The Swordfish could not have survived in the Pacific.
Last edited:
bi·as:
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
Like I said, he's a little bias. Nobody who read his works would deny that. Its only natural.
It ISN'T crazy. If you compare the highest tonnage of enemy shipping sunk, the Swordfish WAS the best because it sank a greater tonnage than any other. Once again, Pinsog; here is a man who has flown both the Avenger and Swordfish and has a pretty good understanding of carrier aviation, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of his findings. You have every right to disagree with him, but on what basis do you have to make your assertion?
I think there are a few on this forum who would state that it was, based solely on this exact criteria. Show us the actual context in which that poll was made and the criteria by which he judges it, then. Scan the pages and put it up here so we can read it.
Last edited:
Attacking a Japanese Carrier Task Force in broad daylight, which would you rather be in? And yes, it is still a rediculous statement I don't care how many airplanes he has flown.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
So it's settled then, we all agree that the Swordfish was the best twin engine dogfighter.....
I have noticed in some forums that many people pick the most obvious choice, at least to them, and never do any original thinking. Clearly vikingBerserker is not one of these people! I applaud your brave choice, sir!
So it's settled then, we all agree that the Swordfish was the best twin engine dogfighter.....
It is clear to me that you all can think well above my level of comprehension, so I will just keep my mouth (keyboard?) shut.
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
If you think of it in purely conceptional terms (sort of the way economists think), we can assume that it really is a twin engined plane ... with one engine permanently taken out for maintenance
Glider
Captain
A Torbeau
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Its funny but when you got through the WW2 twins you can see the failures, the also rans and the successes.
But there is also a group I classify as "what were they thinking of", or perhaps, more accurately "what were they on"?
Where the designs are just so silly and/or inappropriate that you just wonder.
Number one on my list just just has to be The Blohm Voss BV 141, though strictly not a twin engined plane, it sort of looks like one (so I'm giving it an honorary 'twin' placing). I mean were these people on drugs? This is a sort of hallucinogenic nightmare. Sort of the thing you might have nightmares about after far too many banned substances. Most people simply forget it once the hangover disappears. But these people actually built it!
My second is the Do-335 (you might have guessed that from my comments earlier).
I always think of this as a perfect case of monomania. The concept obviously was to reduce the drag from the engines and nacelles that many of the twins of the day suffered from.
But in doing so they created many other (and in many ways far more serious) problems. And that was just in building it. Operating and maintaining it would have have seasoned Luftwaffe engineers and fitters signing up for the Russian front in droves (actually quite a few pilots might have done the same, their survival rates would have been better).
My third is the P-61. This one I never understood, even as a vague concept. The US had operated Beaufighters and Mosquitos. They had a lot of operational experience and therefore knew what a good night fighter should be like .. then they built the P-61. They could have built an 'uber' Mosquito type, or converted one of their fairly fast twin bombers, or (quite sensibly) converted the p-38 into a twin seater with all the gubbbins, even accelerated the Tigercat development (or something like that). They had all these options, ranging from 'very good' to 'fairly good' to 'acceptable', but no they went to the time and effort to build a bomber (fairly big bomber too) sized 'something' that was barely acceptable.
The US's Do-335 I think.
The British are not on this list, mainly because they never really built anything totally absurd, instead in that time honoured way that they have: they just built an awful lot of rubbish.
See I'm an equal opportunity 'insulter'.
For the satirically challenged out there (and sadly there are so many of you): Warning Will Robinson: some of this is 'dark' humour.
But there is also a group I classify as "what were they thinking of", or perhaps, more accurately "what were they on"?
Where the designs are just so silly and/or inappropriate that you just wonder.
Number one on my list just just has to be The Blohm Voss BV 141, though strictly not a twin engined plane, it sort of looks like one (so I'm giving it an honorary 'twin' placing). I mean were these people on drugs? This is a sort of hallucinogenic nightmare. Sort of the thing you might have nightmares about after far too many banned substances. Most people simply forget it once the hangover disappears. But these people actually built it!
My second is the Do-335 (you might have guessed that from my comments earlier).
I always think of this as a perfect case of monomania. The concept obviously was to reduce the drag from the engines and nacelles that many of the twins of the day suffered from.
But in doing so they created many other (and in many ways far more serious) problems. And that was just in building it. Operating and maintaining it would have have seasoned Luftwaffe engineers and fitters signing up for the Russian front in droves (actually quite a few pilots might have done the same, their survival rates would have been better).
My third is the P-61. This one I never understood, even as a vague concept. The US had operated Beaufighters and Mosquitos. They had a lot of operational experience and therefore knew what a good night fighter should be like .. then they built the P-61. They could have built an 'uber' Mosquito type, or converted one of their fairly fast twin bombers, or (quite sensibly) converted the p-38 into a twin seater with all the gubbbins, even accelerated the Tigercat development (or something like that). They had all these options, ranging from 'very good' to 'fairly good' to 'acceptable', but no they went to the time and effort to build a bomber (fairly big bomber too) sized 'something' that was barely acceptable.
The US's Do-335 I think.
The British are not on this list, mainly because they never really built anything totally absurd, instead in that time honoured way that they have: they just built an awful lot of rubbish.
See I'm an equal opportunity 'insulter'.
For the satirically challenged out there (and sadly there are so many of you): Warning Will Robinson: some of this is 'dark' humour.
drgondog
Major
The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..
wuzak
Captain
wuzak
Captain
Personally, I think that the P-61E would have made a better basis for a night fighter.
Only fixed guns. Pilot and radar operator, under a bubble canopy. 4 x 20mm cannon only, but that was more than sufficient, I would think.
Only fixed guns. Pilot and radar operator, under a bubble canopy. 4 x 20mm cannon only, but that was more than sufficient, I would think.
drgondog
Major
Wuzak - I agree on both counts. My father had the 318th FG after the war. It was a P-61B eqipped outfit but he got a chance to fly the C and had fun twice dogfighting with P-51D's. Much better acceleration and climb. He said the B could turn with a D for about 360 but lost too much energy to hang in that manuever for much longer..
I really don't know much about the E.
I really don't know much about the E.
