Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

GregP · May 23, 2012

I re-read Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky" and found the end to not be what has been posted in the past in several forums, includign this one. I confess I merely perused it before and never read the final chapter … to my loss.

At the end of the book he picks the greatest single fighters of WW II to be:

1. Supermarine Spitfire and Fw 190 as tied for first place.
2. Grumman Hellcat. My personal pick as top or very near the top.
3. North American Mustang IV.
4. Mitsubishi Zeke.
5. Hawker Tempest V.
6. Kawanishi George 21.

He takes into account the basic quality of design, development potential, combat success rate, and the aircraft's influence on the conduct and outcome of various operations. In the Pacific, the Hellcat almost single-handedly turned defeat into victory. The Mustang, though technically superior, never made such an impact in any theater of operations.

He picks the greatest Naval fighters of WW II to be:

1. Grumman Hellcat.
2. Mitsubishi Zeke.
3. Grumman Wildcat.
4. Chance Vought Corsair: Rejected for carrier use at first, it was powerful in the air but never as fit as the Hellcat for carrier duty. A dog on the carrier deck. The rate of climb was never very good in early models and was overstated in later models.
5. Hawker Sea Hurricane.
6. Supermarine Seafire: Short range and very poor deck handling that probably resulted in more operational losses than combat successes.

He picks the most effective dive bomber to be:

1. Junkers Ju 87.
2. Douglas Dauntless and Aichi Val as tied for second place.
3. Blackburn Skua.
4. Curtiss Helldiver.

He picks the best torpedo bomber of WW II to be:

1. Fairey Swordfish.
2. Grumman Avenger.
3. Nakajima Kate.
4. Nakajima Jill.

He says the Swordfish was in action sooner than the Avenger, obtained better torpedo results, and suffered fewer losses. Of course, the "fewer losses" part could easily be due to the fact that the Avenger was used much more in a more hostile sky, but these were Eric's picks.

I'd reverse #1 and #2, not for nationalism but more for performance. The Swordfish was good but obsolete. The Avenger was more modern but suffered from vulnerability due to 3 crew, its payload, and low speed versus a single-seat fighter. The Swordfish was worse in this regard, but the Japanese carriers were MUCH more present than were German carriers … as Germany never had one. If they had, the Swordfish would have died quickly or, at the very least, would have suffered losses similar to or greater than the Avengers since they were largely shot down by carrier fighters out of land-based fighter range. The Swordfish lived due to German inability to field a carrier force. Just my opinion.

Any comments? I respect Eric Brown a lot, but do not necessarily agree with his every choice. Still, he DID fly the aircraft in question and I did not. Makes me want to side with Eric regardless of my own feelings ... mostly ...

Tante Ju · May 23, 2012

I agree about the Swordfish. If we talk about the best plane, the plane's qualities should be looked at, not operational record, which is effected by mostly other factor than plane quality. Otherwise Brewster Buffalo is best fighter of WW2, because of Finn success...

The Swordfish was well obsolate by WW2, it was against this that success happened, credit to crews and generic lack of opposition, and often, luck. When fighters were around they suffered bad, like during Channel Dash.

Juha · May 23, 2012

Hello
IMHO Brown's background as a naval pilot always has some influence to his comments, he tended to put great weight to t/o and landing characteristics.

On Swordfish, I agree with You but one must remember, that much of Swordfish actions were in MTO, where land based fighters were a danger. FAA circumvented that by widespread use of night attacks, it had developed effective night attack tactics in pre-war years and Swordfish suited well to these tactics.

I'd also say that SB2C was better than Brown's evaluation reveals,probably because he only flew an early version a/c, later versions, from late -3 onwards, were much better dive-bombers, so IMHO late Beasts were at least better than Skua.

Juha

MikeGazdik · May 23, 2012

I have long thought that the Hellcat is always overlooked as possibly one of the very best. It is a perfect example of "stats" not telling the whole story. When you compare its performance on paper, it seems you can always find something that was faster, or better armed, or better range or whatever. But it fought better than it would suggest on paper. I cannot really think of reading an objective pilot report that damned its flight performance.

That it ranked as the best Naval aircraft was not a surprise when I read the book years ago. That it rated so highly in the "best fighter" was surprising when I first read his book. I at first had doubts, but time has erased most of those really.

That being said, I do think that a large reason it out paced all other fighters in the Pacific with the amount of victories it had is largely due to the fact it was there. It was where the enemy was and it excelled. IF another one of the top allied fighters had been afforded the same opportunities, that nameless aircraft may very well have succeeded to the same degree.

drgondog · May 23, 2012

I had a long exchange with Brown in the 80's over his ranking, particularly regarding his ranking of the Mustang and the Hellcat... and Me 109

My points (after he wrote the book), which he conceeded, is that he could not properly place the Hellcat as The majorTheatre winner over the F4U or the P-38 in the Pacific. He Could properly state that the F6F was the most important for Naval Operations.

The Hellcat started ops at the same time as the Merlin Mustang, the P-51B was in a much tougher threat environment - flak, aircraft and pilots, in the highest priority theatre for the Allies.

The Mustang destroyed more aircraft in the air than the second ranking F6F -and when you consider the effect of 'in the air and on the ground' directive from Doolittle, the strafing credits placed the P-51 at the very top of enemy aircraft destroyed for the Allies -

While little thought has been given to ground destruction, consider: The LuftWaffe NEVER were fully equipped to the authorized levels for the TO&E in 1944 despite ramping production of aircraft by more than 2x over 1943 levels. An equal impact to the restriction of the 'on-hand' strength at Staffel/Gruppe level has to be assigned to strafing losses.

Further, there was no other aircraft (fighter aircraft) that had more of an impact (positive) on USAAF daylight bombing operations in ETO, as well as wresting control of the air from Germany, than the P-51B. To even separate the Mustang IV (which had very little 'impact') from the P-51D and P-51B was 'curious'. I pointed out to him (and he was surprised about these facts) that the P-51B in five months through May 30 killed more LW aircraft and pilots/crews than All the P-47s for All their sorties in the ETO from April 43 to May 30, 1944 - in the air and nearly the same amount on the ground. I did agree that the P-51D was a slightly better aircraft than the B, primarily for visibility and firepower, at a slight expense to manuevrability.

The other factors I pointed out included

1.) Neither the Spitfire nor the FW 190 ever 'controlled anything' over the enemy's territory, the F6F had no range, speed, firepower, acceleration, roll or even rate of climb in the later models - over the F4U. Neither the Spifire nor the FW 190 (nor the P-47 or Tempest) impacted their adversaries over the Homeland. The P38 and Zeke were close and the late model P-47 equalled the footprint after Germany surrendered.

2.) The P-51B was the single most important fighter for the Allies during the most critical phase of the war - namely the preparation for the Invasion and defeat of German forces in the West by winning control of the air over Germany and carving the heart of German reserves (LuftFlotte Reich) for the Invasion. (AFAIK there were zero P-51D kills before D-Day)... The Yak 3, Laag 7, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47, etc did not have the same impact. The only aircraft that had close to that distinction in my mind was the Hurricane during the BoB (pre "Allies") but even that was a one-two punch with the Spitfire.

My perception of Brown was a.) sharp, b.) biased toward Naval ops, c.) picking aircraft (Spit/FW 190 that were, and remained, in constant conflict far longer than any of the other aircraft in his top list - to which he lent great weight for his ranking.

bobbysocks · May 23, 2012

i was going to take exception to the comment "The Mustang, though technically superior, never made such an impact in any theater of operations." but drgondog said it way better than i could have...

davparlr · May 23, 2012

The 1944 joint fighter conference rated the tested aircraft as follows

Best above 25,000 ft.
P-47
P-51
F4U-1
F6F
F4U-4 (There was limited test on this aircraft)
Seafire
P-38

Best below 25,000 ft.
F8F
P-51
F4U-1
F7F
F6F

Typically these were flown by opposite military and contactors, i.e., F6F was flown mostly by AAF and contractors and P-51 by Navy and contractors. They didn't seem to rate the F6F particularly high.

I would weight this report pretty high considering the numbers that participated in the evaluation.

jim · May 23, 2012

drgondog said:
I had a long exchange with Brown in the 80's over his ranking, particularly regarding his ranking of the Mustang and the Hellcat... and Me 109

My points (after he wrote the book), which he conceeded, is that he could not properly place the Hellcat as The majorTheatre winner over the F4U or the P-38 in the Pacific. He Could properly state that the F6F was the most important for Naval Operations.

The Hellcat started ops at the same time as the Merlin Mustang, the P-51B was in a much tougher threat environment - flak, aircraft and pilots, in the highest priority theatre for the Allies.

The Mustang destroyed more aircraft in the air than the second ranking F6F -and when you consider the effect of 'in the air and on the ground' directive from Doolittle, the strafing credits placed the P-51 at the very top of enemy aircraft destroyed for the Allies -

While little thought has been given to ground destruction, consider: The LuftWaffe NEVER were fully equipped to the authorized levels for the TO&E in 1944 despite ramping production of aircraft by more than 2x over 1943 levels. An equal impact to the restriction of the 'on-hand' strength at Staffel/Gruppe level has to be assigned to strafing losses.

Further, there was no other aircraft (fighter aircraft) that had more of an impact (positive) on USAAF daylight bombing operations in ETO, as well as wresting control of the air from Germany, than the P-51B. To even separate the Mustang IV (which had very little 'impact') from the P-51D and P-51B was 'curious'. I pointed out to him (and he was surprised about these facts) that the P-51B in five months through May 30 killed more LW aircraft and pilots/crews than All the P-47s for All their sorties in the ETO from April 43 to May 30, 1944 - in the air and nearly the same amount on the ground. I did agree that the P-51D was a slightly better aircraft than the B, primarily for visibility and firepower, at a slight expense to manuevrability.

The other factors I pointed out included

1.) Neither the Spitfire nor the FW 190 ever 'controlled anything' over the enemy's territory, the F6F had no range, speed, firepower, acceleration, roll or even rate of climb in the later models - over the F4U. Neither the Spifire nor the FW 190 (nor the P-47 or Tempest) impacted their adversaries over the Homeland. The P38 and Zeke were close and the late model P-47 equalled the footprint after Germany surrendered.

2.) The P-51B was the single most important fighter for the Allies during the most critical phase of the war - namely the preparation for the Invasion and defeat of German forces in the West by winning control of the air over Germany and carving the heart of German reserves (LuftFlotte Reich) for the Invasion. (AFAIK there were zero P-51D kills before D-Day)... The Yak 3, Laag 7, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47, etc did not have the same impact. The only aircraft that had close to that distinction in my mind was the Hurricane during the BoB (pre "Allies") but even that was a one-two punch with the Spitfire.

My perception of Brown was a.) sharp, b.) biased toward Naval ops, c.) picking aircraft (Spit/FW 190 that were, and remained, in constant conflict far longer than any of the other aircraft in his top list - to which he lent great weight for his ranking.

So P51 was the best because of his performance in Spring 44?
The fact that all circumstances were in its favor means nothing?
a) It escorted a massive ,unique in aviation history ,bomber force that attracted the attention of the defenders
b) Faced an exausted ,overdeployed , hugely outnumbered enemy ,who faced fuel and raw materials limitations.
c) An enemy that in the same theater faced P38s, P47s, Spits,Typhonns etc.
d) That period by coincidence was at the same time that german fighters were less competitive during the entire war
e) the levels of gruppe strength were low because of bombing losses and lack of fighter pilots replacements. Not because of strafing
f) The total alleid victory in ULTRA operation gave additional advantage to alleid units
g) It was produced by a raech, industry , unbothered by the enemy, allowing exceptional construction quality
h) Superior fuel unavailable to the enemy.
k)Nothing would have been diferent in spring 44 without the existence of P51s .Siply the american would have solved sooner the problems of P38, and long range versions of P47 and Spit would have been produced sooner, true with greater cost
About the other aircrafts
FW 190 could not dominate over England .True .There were 2 german fighter wings against thousands enemy fighters. Clear Fw190 short coming .However if war conditions were diferent could fly missions with 2 or even 3 external tanks. As for the Spitfire ,according to Parsifal, you are wrong! He dominated luftwaffe in 41/42/43 over France! Ask him, he has nentioned this on several posts! Who is wright?
P51,without its numerical superiority and height advantage because of the bomber presence , could be outfought by late Spitfires,Tempests,Yak 3s,post spring 44 109s and 190s, F4U,. True its package of exceptional range , high speed in horizontal flight, good communication equipment was very valuable. So third place given by Brown sounds reasonable. Spitfire is far the most important and generaly more capable fighter of WW2 and second place in my opinion goes to 109. Last years 190 has lost points in my opinion.
Brown judged the aircrafts flying them on equal conditions, without operational advantages and disadvantages created by the general war situations . Thats the proper way to judge them, historical results while indicative, may be misleading as in P51s case.

Hop · May 23, 2012

The Mustang destroyed more aircraft in the air than the second ranking F6F -and when you consider the effect of 'in the air and on the ground' directive from Doolittle, the strafing credits placed the P-51 at the very top of enemy aircraft destroyed for the Allies -

Half of all US strafing credits in the ETO came in a single month, April 1945. These were aircraft being abandoned on their airfields by a Luftwaffe that barely functioned.

Neither the Spitfire nor the FW 190 ever 'controlled anything' over the enemy's territory,

Spitfires didn't control anything over Germany in 1944/45? The number of sorties, the tiny number of interceptions by the Luftwaffe suggest otherwise.

The P-51B was the single most important fighter for the Allies during the most critical phase of the war

The first half of 1944 was the most critical phase of the war? I don't think many outside the US would agree.

I know the Mustang has the reputation in the US as the aircraft that "turned the tide", but the truth is the tide turned in 1942. By 1943 the outcome was no longer in doubt. By 1944 it was just a question of whether or not the war truly would be over by Christmas.

The most critical phase of the war was in 1940 or 1941, possibly even 1942. But the Mustang certainly played no part in it.

The Yak 3, Laag 7, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47, etc did not have the same impact.

Of those aircraft, only the Spitfire was involved in action in the decisive phase of the war. By the time the others scored their first kills the ultimate result was beyond doubt.

bobbysocks · May 23, 2012

when did the LW lose all its pilots? i keep hearing this over and over and i am trying to pin point just when it happened. in nov 43 they were experienced enough and had the strength and resources to batter the 8th bomber groups to the point where daylight bombing was halted. i never hear one complaint about lack of anything up to this point. between then and spring of 44 how did they lose that much strength? how? because long range escort were able to meet the LW on its home turf and all of its turf. prior to that the LW could dictate the engagement. if they didnt wish to engage they headed back to germany where the allied planes couldnt touch them. once the 51 came on the scene that safe haven and option was removed. there was no place to run and no place to hide. daylight bombing was only able to resume because of the long range 51s...where before the LW had pushed the allied out of the daylight the allies pushed back...i would pretty much call that turning the tide. in the beginning escorts were glued to the boxes so the LW could then again disengage and go home to relative safety. once doolittle gave the ok to have part of the group leave the bombers and go hunting the loses for the LW compounded. the straffing began and planes on the ground were taken...and the loses to the 51 groups as well. they lost a hefty amount of pilots to flak. haydon got nowotny but the flak got haydon. and that is a typical example of where the reiches planes and aces were lost. yeah at the end of the war they were shooting up everything they could see but the LW had taken heavy losses on the ground prior to that. it just amazes me how there are no complaints about anything until you mention the 51...then its no plane, pilots, fuel,and outnumbered. the VSS out numbered the LW ( iirc by double or more ) at the beginning of the invasion but no complant is ever uttered about that either.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 23, 2012

I have nothing but respect for Eric Brown, but I do have some issues with his rankings. I too feel his rankings are based off of a nationalist and naval bias.

As much as I love the Spitfire and Fw 190 more than the P-51, I find it really hard to rank them above the P-51. Lets face it, it probably had the biggest impact on the ETO. It was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the Germans. The Spitfire certainly was not able to do that. How can anyone argue with that? Don't take me wrong. I don't think the P-51 was an "Ueber Fighter" like some people tend to believe (Just like some people think that anything with a black cross on it was "Ueber" than anything ever built. I find it overrated in that sense because so many people forget about the other fighters that contributed to the war.) It is just really hard to argue that any fighter made more of an impact. The P-51 was good to great in every category and could take the fight to the Germans. Period...

On the other hand however, I did not fly these aircraft. Brown did, so my hat is off to him. He certainly knows more than I do.

Juha · May 23, 2012

While winter 43/44 was important for air situation, war had became unwinable for Germany in late summer/early Autumn 42, when it began to look that the 42 Summer Offensive would not gain the oil fields of Baku and SU would not been knocked out of war in 42 and that Japanese onslaught in Asia was running out of steam.

And on complains, DAK from Rommel downwards was complaining loudly on Allied air attacks on it at least from late summer 42 and also on inability of LW, KM and the Italian Navy to protect its supply lines to Europe, KM complained lack of air support in Channel and in Bay of Biscay. Heer thought that during the 2nd week of Operation Zitadelle VVS was gaining upper hand over the battlefield. Saying nothing on situation over Sicily and Italy in later part of 43. That all before P-51B arrived. P-51 clearly made things easier to Allied but it did not change the outcome.

Juha

Hop · May 23, 2012

when did the LW lose all its pilots?

Between 1 September 1939 and 8 May 1945.

If you look at fighter losses, the Luftwaffe lost 80% of their front line strength May - December 1940.

They 46% in the first half of 1941, 63% in the second half of the year.

In the first half of 1942 they lost 54%, in the second half 83%

In 1943 losses were 164% in the first half of the year, 175% in the second half.

In 1944 250% in the first half, I don't have numbers for the second half, but they were even higher.

in nov 43 they were experienced enough and had the strength and resources to batter the 8th bomber groups to the point where daylight bombing was halted.

Defeating unescorted bombers wasn't that difficult.

The truth is the Luftwaffe suffered a decline in quality as the war went on. Losses in 1940 were largely amongst the highly trained pre war pilots. By 1943 losses were largely amongst the hastily trained replacements.

From Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:

By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent. For the
remainder of the war, the percentage of fully operational fighter and bomber pilots
available, with few exceptions, remained below, and at many times substantially
below, the 70 percent level. Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet .

prior to that the LW could dictate the engagement. if they didnt wish to engage they headed back to germany where the allied planes couldnt touch them.

You think Goering and Hitler would let their air force sit idly by whilst the German army did all the fighting? The truth is the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses on offensive and defensive operations, from the start of the war to the end. As the strength of the allies increased Luftwaffe losses soared.

where before the LW had pushed the allied out of the daylight the allies pushed back...i would pretty much call that turning the tide.

The Mustang certainly turned the tide for the 8th AF bomber campaign. But the tide of war had turned long before.

Hop · May 23, 2012

It was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the Germans. The Spitfire certainly was not able to do that. How can anyone argue with that?

Until the end of 1943 the Spitfire was unquestionably more important to the allies.

For the first 5 months of 1944 the P-51 was unquestionably more important than the Spitfire.

For the last 7 months of 1944, and the first 4 of 1945, the Spitfire and P-51 were both important.

Only if you take those first 5 months of 1944 as the most important part of the war can you argue the Mustang was the most important fighter. I know there's a tendency to do that in the US. The US contribution in the ETO only really got off the ground in the summer of 1943, and things didn't go well until the Mustang came along at the start of 1944. So from the US point of view the Mustang was all important. But there was so much more to the war against Germany than the US bombing offensive. Indeed, the Germans already knew the war was lost before the USAAF started bombing Germany in earnest.

TheMustangRider · May 23, 2012

Hop said:
The Mustang certainly turned the tide for the 8th AF bomber campaign. But the tide of war had turned long before.

Let's take into account that it was the 8th AF strategic bombing campaign over much of Nazi-occupied Europe and Nazi Germany itself that achieved the air superiority necessary for a cross-channel invasion.
No long-range fighters, no air superiority; no air superiority, a doubtful cross-channel invasion; no invasion at all, a very different outcome of the war in Europe.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 23, 2012

Hop said:
So from the US point of view the Mustang was all important. But there was so much more to the war against Germany than the US bombing offensive.

Where did I say anything to the contrary? Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the US was the sole reason the war was won, nor do I believe that...

drgondog · May 23, 2012

jim said:
So P51 was the best because of his performance in Spring 44?

Yes, and No. It was for the purposes of ensuring that the Luftwaffe was unable to re-inforce the air over Normandy in sufficient numbers as to prevent logistical re-supply of the troops that landed on D-Day. The Luftwaffe drew 50% of the Ost and Sud Fronts to re-inforce LuftReich from July of 1943 through March 1944. That force stopped the USAAF in the ETO by the end of October 1943 was significantly re-inforced by March 1944. The P-47 and Spitfire achieved local air superiority over France, Belguim, The Netherlands and Western Germany within the range of the P-47 - but adapted new lethal tactices which required the P-51B to defeat. In the period Jan1 - May 30 the Mustang destroyed more LW aircraft in the air than all the P-47 sorties flown in the ETO from its inception in April 1943. Thereafter till the end of the war the Mustang destroyed more aircraft than any Allied Fighter (or any TWO Allied fighters combined) despite the ability of 9th AF and RAF to move to continental airfields after D-Day for the rest of the war.

My judgment, based on the importance to the US, was that the Mustang permitted 8th AF to make a major strategic contribution, including oil and chemical manufacturing which were the two single most strategic resources (fuel, gunpowder, fertilizer, chemicals) which they could not replace. You may make your own judgments regarding the importance of the Spitfire or Hurricane or Me 109 or FW 190 or Yak or Laag - as you will.. so do so?

The fact that all circumstances were in its favor means nothing?

The Mustangs achieved the major blow to LuftFlotte Reich which was by far the most important concentration of day and night fighters for Germany - and did so from Big Week through May 30 when they inflicted more losses with a single aircraft than any other aircraft possessed by the Allies

Further the numbers of the Mustangs that achieved those results were less than 1/2 of the day fighter strength of LF Reich. - at the end of that period
a) It escorted a massive ,unique in aviation history ,bomber force that attracted the attention of the defenders

Yes, and? It also roamed throughout Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia shooting up rail, road, canal and airfield assets - on the deck in very vulnerable tactical scenarios. More than twice as many Mustangs were destroyed by flak as from German fighters.

b) Faced an exausted ,overdeployed , hugely outnumbered enemy ,who faced fuel and raw materials limitations.

No comment on exhausted, overdeployed - but the LW while 'outnumbered' in grand total, always had the opportunity to attack different formations with local superiority in that period
c) An enemy that in the same theater faced P38s, P47s, Spits,Typhonns etc.

LF Reich was largely out of range and un-engaged with P-47s, Spits, tempests, typhoons, Yaks, Laags, etc. They did have to face a maximum of 150 P-38s in the middle range escorts as far as Berlin - but the Mustang nearly (431 to 452 - by 21 less) shot down more German fighters in May 1944 than all the P-38s in all the 8th and 9th AF/ETO COMBINED

d) That period by coincidence was at the same time that german fighters were less competitive during the entire war

Certainly with respect to the P-51B with its puny battery of 4 x 50 caliber weapons - Agreed. It could be said that the late model Spit, Tempest, P-47 also achieved that capability - with one problem - They Couldn't Fly To The Fight !!

e) the levels of gruppe strength were low because of bombing losses and lack of fighter pilots replacements. Not because of strafing

It was all three causes - not just the one - but the LW had never been forced to contend with an Allied fighter that could range to central Poland and Czechoslovakia... and did not have an answer to the problem. If I disperse, I can't quickly assemble in Gruppe or larger size, if I concentrate I lose far more fighters in one pass, flak is not enough and there isn't fule enough to fly patrol.

f) The total alleid victory in ULTRA operation gave additional advantage to alleid units

True but irrelevant to Mustang air superiority over Germany
g) It was produced by a raech, industry , unbothered by the enemy, allowing exceptional construction quality
True but also true that the effect was to supply the USSR, the Commonwealth (all theatres) China, all theatres of WWII for combat ops - Imagine the 'problem' if US Only fighting Germany and could concentrate solely on defeating Germany, aligned with USSR and Great Britain?

h) Superior fuel unavailable to the enemy.

Yes
k)Nothing would have been diferent in spring 44 without the existence of P51s .Siply the american would have solved sooner the problems of P38, and long range versions of P47 and Spit would have been produced sooner, true with greater cost

I disagree for two reasons. 1. Politically the 8th and 15th AF would have ceased daylight strategic operations past Frankfurt/Hannover radius until July when enough P-38s and longer ranged P-47s could reach leipzig area - but not Poznan, Brux etc so much of Germany's synthetic refining capability would have remained untouched, and 2. LuftFlotte Reich would have been enormously stronger and in an effective reserve statust that escort, with heavy losses, would have been possible for german bombers over the beachead - with unknown consequences to the outcome of the Invasion.

About the other aircrafts
FW 190 could not dominate over England .True .There were 2 german fighter wings against thousands enemy fighters. Clear Fw190 short coming .However if war conditions were diferent could fly missions with 2 or even 3 external tanks. As for the Spitfire ,according to Parsifal, you are wrong! He dominated luftwaffe in 41/42/43 over France! Ask him, he has nentioned this on several posts! Who is wright?

Independent of who is 'right' the main antagonists were RAF and LuftFlotte 3 until USAAF and 8th AF, when first borrowed Spits, then P-47s battled LF3 and some of LF Reich on western German borders..

P51,without its numerical superiority and height advantage because of the bomber presence , could be outfought by late Spitfires,Tempests,Yak 3s,post spring 44 109s and 190s, F4U,. True its package of exceptional range
We have a saying in Texas that may lose in its translation. Simply "If a frog had a glass ass it would only hop once". If the Spit, the 47, the Tempest, the Yaks had enough range and numbers you are correct - but they didn't have enough legs for more than a one way/one day opportunity to fight over Berlin and that is where daylight air superiority was fought - not over Paris or Rome or Warsaw.

, high speed in horizontal flight, good communication equipment was very valuable. So third place given by Brown sounds reasonable. Spitfire is far the most important and generaly more capable fighter of WW2 and second place in my opinion goes to 109. Last years 190 has lost points in my opinion.
Brown judged the aircrafts flying them on equal conditions, without operational advantages and disadvantages created by the general war situations . Thats the proper way to judge them, historical results while indicative, may be misleading as in P51s case.

I have utmost respect for Brown - I publically posted my dialogue and disagreement fro the reasons stated. I also respect your views even when I disagree.

nuuumannn · May 23, 2012

The P-51 was good to great in every category and could take the fight to the Germans.

Another factor in favour of the Mustang was that it was available in huge numbers and although that might not have any bearing in such a poll, it certainly made a difference during the war.

This is what Max Hastings wrote about the P-51 (although the latter part is less specific about Allied aircraft types) in his book Overlord, about, well, "Overlord";

"by one of the most extraordinary paradoxes of the war, the bombing of the factories achieved only limited impact upon German aircraft production; but the coming of the marvellous P-51 Mustang long range fighter over the skies of Germany inflicted an irreverseable defeat upon the Luftwaffe, unquestionably decisive for Overlord. In January 1944 the Germans lost 1,311 aircraft from all causes. This figure rose to 2,121 in February and 2,115 in March. Even more disastrous than lost fighters, the Luftwaffe's trained pilots were being killed far more quickly than they could be replaced, with the direction of the air force in the enfeebled hands of Goering. By March the Americans were conciously attacking targets with the purpose of forcing the Germans to defend them. By June, the Germans no longer possessed sufficient pilots and aircraft to mount more than token resistance to the Allied invasion of France."

Have to agree about the Swordfish and although it was most certainly obsolete, as a weapon it did bloody well in the hands of some rather courageous individuals. Perhaps that's why there is so much respect for it in certain circles.

drgondog · May 23, 2012

Hop said:
Half of all US strafing credits in the ETO came in a single month, April 1945. These were aircraft being abandoned on their airfields by a Luftwaffe that barely functioned.

Nope but not terribly far off - For 8th AF the April 1945 credits for a/c - ground was 1715 of 4103 total. I agree that a lot were destroyed in the last month (42%) but over half were destroyed between March 1944 and September 1944 - a period before successful decentralization made such losses more critical.

Spitfires didn't control anything over Germany in 1944/45? The number of sorties, the tiny number of interceptions by the Luftwaffe suggest otherwise.

'Suggest' is less compelling than facts. Would you care to present your total for Spitfire ETO credits for a.) 1/1 - 5/44, then since bases on the continent enabled better perntration, the credits for 6/44 through 12/44? The comparable totals for US Mustangs was 1141 and 2082 respectively and does Not count RAF P-51 credits

The first half of 1944 was the most critical phase of the war? I don't think many outside the US would agree.

It was for 8th and 9th AF in context of Operation Pointblank which was deemed the most important assignment (after survival during BoB) for airpower for the Allies - without success the ability for the Allies to risk the invasion in May/Jume was problematical and definitely Not a sure thing. Eisenhower had to worry about a lot of things but air superiority wasn't one of them. I also know full well that the combined 8th/9th and RAF had the ability to inflict huge casualties on a fully re-inforced LF 3 via LF Reich but I don't believe anybody that remembered Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Malta had a warm fuzzy feeling that crital damage of reinforcements could be prevented.

Make your own decision regarding importance.

I know the Mustang has the reputation in the US as the aircraft that "turned the tide", but the truth is the tide turned in 1942. By 1943 the outcome was no longer in doubt. By 1944 it was just a question of whether or not the war truly would be over by Christmas.

BS flag on air superiority over the Continent. RAF was dying in droves at night and continued to a Greater degree after 1942. *th AF was stopped in October 1943. It isn't my thesis that the Mustang 'won the war' - I have never said that. I have said, and continue to do so, that the Mustang was the single fighter that pushed LW Defense of the Reich over the edge, permitted daylight strategic bombing to make an impact before D-Day, and continued to dominate the skies over Germany more than all the other air superiority fighters combined - if you wish to measure that by air and ground victory credits for the 1944 and 1945.

The most critical phase of the war was in 1940 or 1941, possibly even 1942. But the Mustang certainly played no part in it.

Yes -Critical part of war to save Great Britain, prevent the capture of the Suez Canal, and stopping Germany at Stalingrad,the Japanese at Midway - agreed. The 1941 -1942 period is characterized as 'stop the string of wins by Axis. Having said that, the Spitfire didn't impose great pressure on the Luftwaffe in 1943 in ETO, nor did the P-47 until the last several months - and it was limited. The LW held their own against the VVS with far fewer aircraft than in the West and that is why so many staffel/Gruppes were transferred to Germany and the LF Reich in that period.

Of those aircraft, only the Spitfire was involved in action in the decisive phase of the war. By the time the others scored their first kills the ultimate result was beyond doubt.

Clearly the Spitfire was of negligible importance at Stalingrad, or at Midway. It was of significance in the MTO over the battlefield and on medium bomber escort to RAF and USAAF MTO during 1942 through mid 1944. It had zero influence in the destruction of Ploesti, or other crital targets in Austria, Czechoslovakia when the 15th AF came into existence. It was of negligible importance against Japan.

It was a great airplane and I didn't quibble with Brown's position of the Spit, had some problems ranking the Fw 190 above the Mustang (or the 109) and had a problem with ranking the Hellcat over either the Mustang or the Me 109.

fastmongrel · May 24, 2012

I think the main problem with Brown is he disagrees with ME and he doesnt put MY favourite aircraft at number 1. When I say me and my I mean every armchair expert who is currently on this site. We werent there, we didnt fly the aircraft mores the pity but for some reason a man who flew more aircraft than most us have air miles is wrong with his personal opinion. It is a book of personal recollections taken from his contemporaneous notes, he never tried to say it was anything other than that but for some reason he gets more hate than any other figure in aviation history. Till the invention of the time machine when some flight sim experts can go back and refight history we have to respect the opinion of the people who were there. Get 10 veterans in a room get them talking and within minutes you will have 20 different opinions on the best plane of WWII.

So for all those who seem to take great pleasure in attacking Brown and denigrating his experiences and personal opinions, I say come back when you have flown every single plane he did and then I might give you the time of day.

Till then you aint fit to polish his shoes.

Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

Major

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Major

Major

1st Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads