Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Do you want them for 1939, 1940,1941,1942, 1943, 1944 or 1945, would a summary do? Of course the purely PR Spitfires didn't shoot any down, but it was one of the best A/C in the role throughout the war.Think the most over rated aircraft was the Spitfire. Find for home defense just could not stay in the air more than an hour. Was not as rugged or versatile as the P40. Its main issues was it lacked range and second ruggedness. It was an expensive time consuming plane to build. Could it fight yeah.. like to know the shoot down numbers of the Spit.
Strangely, though, the Spitfire wasn't gradually phased out and replaced by newer fighters by the RAF unlike a certain more 'rugged or versatile' fighter was by the USAAF.
Unlike the P51 the P38 and P47 were large easier targets to identify.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion....The P47 could barely get into France without turning back due to poor fuel range, just like the Spit. They could not reach the Fighters and Germans knew it...
Both the P-51 and P-47 had recognition stripes added because they could be mistaken for Bf109s and Fw190s.
Realistic? I have no problems with Yak-3 and La-5FN and -7, even if the latter had its engine problems, but during the war in 1944-45 Soviets manufactured 1,700 more Yak-9Ms than -9Us. And VK-107A engine was problematic most of 1944, especially anoing was its tendency to overhear even in level flight with combat power, speaking nothing on climbing. So during the summer 1944 it was recommended that the use of combat power setting be avoided. Engine problems were mostly solved in late 1944 and during the test at the end of 44 and the beginning of 45 -9U was able to reach speeds you mentioned.
Lets be real though AAA gunners could mistake a 747 for a Bf 109. Weren't all the Anglo-American aircraft from D-Day wearing those stripes?
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
The P-47's combat range was 800 miles without droptanks, which was almost twice that of the Spit. It was also nearly double that of contemporary Axis fighters.
There was no problem for it to cross the channel, get savage on Axis fighters and targets then return home.
Respectfully disagree on a couple of points.NOT TRUE
Two Issues.. The P38 had the range but painful problematic tuning issues that caused a lot of turn backs. They never fully fixed them either. The P47 could barely get into France without turning back due to poor fuel range, just like the Spit. They could not reach the Fighters and Germans knew it. Only after Allied Troops landed in Europe and P47 range was not an issue could it contribute. However the P38 despite its issues had the range and shot down more Axis planes per sortie than the Thunderbolt. It was a far more maneuverable plane to take a shot at their prey. However the P47 was more survivable because it could roll and dive quickly like the P40.
Unlike the P51 the P38 and P47 were large easier targets to identify. These allied planes were picked off by the experienced Axis planes and AAA.
Most every Fighter Plane had comparable tools to shoot the other sides plane down. What made the difference was having the fuel and range and still have the competitive combat ability to shot down the other plane. This is what made the Zero so damn dangerous. Like the P51 raided your territory and the other side could not get to theirs.
In Africa the Range of the P40 allowed deep interdiction strikes on Rommel and German Airbases. A key issues the Axis single engine planes lacked. One of the understated features of the longer range US planes, by the time they got into enemy territory they were about 1000 lbs. lighter making very nimble fighters.
The P51 shoot down almost twice as many planes as the P47 its closest rival and flew less missions doing it.
I forget who it was that said but the beautiful planes usually (not always but usually) were the ones that were the most successful.
A picture is worth a thounsand words!
What I had in mind. Just didn't state it very well...What fuel differences? German late war C3 was appr 95+/130 PN. Fuel shortage was the main problem
In the air size doesn't matter...
I was thinking of putting (darling) as I wrote that.I'll have to take my wife flying more often!!!!
Great post Schweik, as you say all aircraft are superseded, however the Spitfire was a frontline competitive aircraft at the start of WW2 Sept 1939 and at the end Aug 1945. There were times when it was down against the opposition but not by much. Wars are won by crucial battles, the Spitfire won two, the BoB and the Malta, and played a major part in many others if not to win then to avert disaster. I am constantly perplexed by the argument about range. Apparently being able to fight 200 miles away is much more important than being able to fight at 20,000 ft. That is an attitude of someone who certainly wasn't a resident of Kent's airfields in 1940. From first to last the Spitfire series were almost completely changed, but so were the P-51 and P-47. Some events like the Spitfire intercepting German recon planes above 40,000 ft may seem inconsequential. However in the run up to D-Day German Recon could only be allowed where the allies wanted.Wow you can sense a little sparkle of malice there lol.
View attachment 492882 View attachment 492883
I do think that is true - the Spitfire was never replaced, though calling a Spit XIV the same aircraft as the Spit I is a bit of a stretch. But I wouldn't rate an aircraft by it's being great from beginning of the war through the end necessarily. For one thing, the changes that a plane goes through from beginning to end of the design life-cycle can be fairly extreme. Different guns, different engine, different fuselage, even different wings. Whether you still call it by the same model name or ID number is a bit arbitrary.
All of the aircraft from WW2 were ultimately replaced and / or are obsolete by today's standards but we still like them. Same for the WW1 aircraft before them. Just because a fighter was 'in the mix' for a while and then replaced by another doesn't make it inferior to me. Personally I really like some of the early-war WW2 fighters, even the Spanish Civil War era ones.
I am a big fan of the P-40 and appreciate most of the American kit but the P-40 did have a major issue with the performance ceiling and I don't think the Spit is overrated. It was a short range fighter and did best as an interceptor, but it's importance was real and critical to the War Effort. Even though the Hurricane shot down a lot of planes in the BoB, it was the parity or edge (depending on who you believe in the endless debates) that the Spitfire had over the Bf 109 that made the crucial difference in morale and gave the British planners a tool they could use to affect the outcomes (put the Spitfires where they most needed to blunt the enemy). The English needed a fighter that could best the opposition, that they could believe (rightly or wrongly) was superior to it. It just wasn't enough to have one that could win 2 out of 5 times.
Two very good points among several.Respectfully disagree on a couple of points.
1) The 51 was often mistake for 109s by BOTH sides.
2)P-47s did have the range all the way to parts of Germany with drop tanks. Not as far as 51s granted but still alot more that Spitfires.
3)the Zero wasn't so formidable after the basic built in flaws were discovered. A competant P-40/Wildcat pilot could beat it with the right tactics.
4) Flak shot at EVERTHING, even sometimes the German ones... They didn't pick and choose that way.
Have to agree about the survivabilty about the 47 though. A couple of 4th FG vets I knew wouldn't have survived otherwise.
Lastly, I didn't mean the 51 was crap, just not the be all and end all of WW2 fighters.
Great post Schweik, as you say all aircraft are superseded, however the Spitfire was a frontline competitive aircraft at the start of WW2 Sept 1939 and at the end Aug 1945. There were times when it was down against the opposition but not by much. Wars are won by crucial battles, the Spitfire won two, the BoB and the Malta, and played a major part in many others if not to win then to avert disaster. I am constantly perplexed by the argument about range. Apparently being able to fight 200 miles away is much more important than being able to fight at 20,000 ft. That is an attitude of someone who certainly wasn't a resident of Kent's airfields in 1940. From first to last the Spitfire series were almost completely changed, but so were the P-51 and P-47. Some events like the Spitfire intercepting German recon planes above 40,000 ft may seem inconsequential. However in the run up to D-Day German Recon could only be allowed where the allies wanted.
Apparently being able to fight 200 miles away is much more important than being able to fight at 20,000 ft.
Of course it would, but the allies in 1941 were officially UK and Russia and primarily concerned with defence. Nice to think about flying to Hamburg and Paris but you will meet Bf109sAnother thought on this.
I was reading recently (as the result of another conversation here) about the Japanese air attack on the Philippines, and was shocked to notice that they flew their raid from Formosa (Taiwan - can you still say that?). 950 km from Taiwan to Clark Field! Paris to London is 344 km by comparison. London to Hamburg is 720 km. Imagine if the Allies had a (really good) fighter that could fly that distance in 1941. Imagine if the Spitfire could do it!? Would that have helped the war effort?
S