pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I just read an article about ferrying Spits from the Uk direct Gibraltar now all I have to do is refind the the article .
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
Hi Glider,
Thanks for answering. I'm still wondering if there would have been enough late-model Spitfires to take over from the P-51 on escort duties, and I'm still wondering if teh British would have turned over defense of the homeland to the U.S.A. in order to field the Spitfire escorts.
I am assuming, of course, that were not enough Spitfires to both fly escort duties and defend the homeland.
In the event there WERE enough Siptfires, then we could have packed up and gone home and the war would still have been won?
Just speculating, not arguing.
In the real event, we know what happened. These things are, after all, only "what if" questions. In the real event, we combined efforts and had a profound effect on the war's outcome.
All might still have been for nothing if it weren't for the Soviet Union's war front where most of the German manpower and aircraft were stationed for most of the war.
Thanks for answering. I'm still wondering if there would have been enough late-model Spitfires to take over from the P-51 on escort duties, and I'm still wondering if teh British would have turned over defense of the homeland to the U.S.A. in order to field the Spitfire escorts.
I am assuming, of course, that were not enough Spitfires to both fly escort duties and defend the homeland.
In the event there WERE enough Siptfires, then we could have packed up and gone home and the war would still have been won?
Just speculating, not arguing.
In the real event, we know what happened. These things are, after all, only "what if" questions. In the real event, we combined efforts and had a profound effect on the war's outcome.
All might still have been for nothing if it weren't for the Soviet Union's war front where most of the German manpower and aircraft were stationed for most of the war.
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
HE SAVED THE FREE WORLD AND MADE IT RED, RED, RED!!! 
GregP
Major
Nice post! 
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Thanks.
But I don't like Stalin.
I still wonder why Hitler was chosen to be destroyed by the Allies, and that they let Stalin keep a bigger amount of territory than Hitler ever did. Not to mention that Communism spreads faster than Nazism and has a more appealing message.
Was it because Hitler was more aggressive and domineering in his "Blitzy" ways?
And what about Hirohito or Mussolini? They weren't any worse than Stalin.
But I don't like Stalin.
I still wonder why Hitler was chosen to be destroyed by the Allies, and that they let Stalin keep a bigger amount of territory than Hitler ever did. Not to mention that Communism spreads faster than Nazism and has a more appealing message.
Was it because Hitler was more aggressive and domineering in his "Blitzy" ways?
And what about Hirohito or Mussolini? They weren't any worse than Stalin.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Stalin didn't interfere with British or American interests. Hitler did.
Kris
Kris
GregP
Major
Hitler committed active aggression against the "Allies."
He annexed territory, committed submarine warfare against peoples against which he was not at war, persecuted peoples for their ancestry, disarmed his populace, abrogated the Treaty of Versailles (which, admittedly, was a STUPID treaty to start with), ignored the military armament rules that were put into place after WWI, and thumbed his nose at the world.
Stalin oppressed his own people and presented a political front to the world. Stalin was brutal, no doubt, and controlled avery large territory, but he did not antagonize the world in general, and he did not declare war on the world.
Hitler did and suffered the fate of being wrong in his estimation of his strength relative to the rest of the world, and the resolve of the world's peoples when their ire was aroused.
Stupid is as stupid does, and he WAS, even if charismatic and charming when he wanted to be so.
Of course, Mussolini had NO redeming qualities, and HE was in power, too.
What can you say?
He annexed territory, committed submarine warfare against peoples against which he was not at war, persecuted peoples for their ancestry, disarmed his populace, abrogated the Treaty of Versailles (which, admittedly, was a STUPID treaty to start with), ignored the military armament rules that were put into place after WWI, and thumbed his nose at the world.
Stalin oppressed his own people and presented a political front to the world. Stalin was brutal, no doubt, and controlled avery large territory, but he did not antagonize the world in general, and he did not declare war on the world.
Hitler did and suffered the fate of being wrong in his estimation of his strength relative to the rest of the world, and the resolve of the world's peoples when their ire was aroused.
Stupid is as stupid does, and he WAS, even if charismatic and charming when he wanted to be so.
Of course, Mussolini had NO redeming qualities, and HE was in power, too.
What can you say?
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Hitler was stupid and evil and Stalin was smart and brutal?
Anyway, good thing Hitler went first. If he had managed to get a nuke, he probably would have used it, even if we were on his doorstep. And then no Moscow, London, or Washington D.C.
And then no Berlin.
Something Stalin was wise and scared enough not to do.
Anyway, good thing Hitler went first. If he had managed to get a nuke, he probably would have used it, even if we were on his doorstep. And then no Moscow, London, or Washington D.C.
And then no Berlin.
Something Stalin was wise and scared enough not to do.
drgondog
Major
The Mustang may not be the 'Best' air to air fighter and that debate can go as long as anyone has an opinion.
I will submit that it was the Most Important simply because it did have exceptional performance and it's strategic footprint was critical to the prime Mission - namely make Airpower and Daylight Strategic Bombing work. And despite the short interval in which it fought compared to 38s and 47s it destroyed more German a/c than all the other USAAF fighters combined - (air and ground) and nearly that same ratio for air to air alone
The P-38 with more reliable engines and the dive brake of the P-38J could have been that fighter but lost far too many ships up through point of receiving the J and, by that time, the 8th AF had had enough - and picked the Mustang as the long range escort. If only B-24s were flown by USAAF then the 38 would be more highly regarded... as the altitudes would have been below 22,000 feet for normal raids.
The P-47 was formidable at the altitudes that B-17s and B-24's operated and where the performance of the Fw190s and Me 109s fell off - so they were very dangerous to the Luftwaffe as far as they could escort the bombers, but until the 56th got water injection and Paddle blades even they did not want a fight with the 190 and 109s from middle altitude to deck because the 47 was a pig on the deck in accleration, climb and turn.
The P-38 was extremely tough below 20,000 feet because it could do everything a Mustang could do and out turn a 51 and had great range but the high altitude cold blew up too many Allisons and w/o dive breaks couldn't dive with 109s and 190s.The LW simply retreated and attacked when the 47s had to tune back - but they could not do that with the Mustang and there was no place in Germany where they could 'hide and form up in peace'
After the 51's equipped the first 4 Groups (357, 355, 352 and 4FG) in the 8th plus the 354th FG on loan from the 9th - the game was over for 47's being the prime contributor to air battles over Germany - they were basically relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal support for deep penetrations until the summer of 44 when the -25's combined with longer range tanks enabled the 56th to play over the Berlins and Regensburg's and Posnan and Leipzig's but by then the LW had truly been decimated of the Experten and experienced pilots.... and the 8th was committed to replacing the 47's with 51's.
Daylight bombardment and Strategic campaigns against the critical Oil targets were only possible because the 51 thrived at high altitudes, could go all the way and fight as well or better from the deck all the way up with the Fw 190 and the 109. You can argue all day long about performance of Spitfires and Tempests, etc but they were irrelevant to Strategic Bombing campaigns and results.
When the argument gets around to 'Best all Around', the F4U-4, the P-47 and even the P-38 (and Fw190) are candidates because of their TacAir combined with air to air capabilities were formidable and they were more durable in high intensity flak... a lot more Mustangs were lost to flak than fighters. In my father's group - the 355th FG - they lost twice as many 51's to flak as fighters and had an 8:1 air to air ratio but only 4:1 for a/c destroyed on ground.
To the point that P-47s 'broke the back' of the Luftwaffe before the Mustang B's got to ETO in late December, it simply ain't so. The 8th was so bloodied so badly between August through October, 1943 that they quit deep penetrations until Big Week in late February, 1944 when the combined strength of the P-38 and 51 groups were sufficient to go all the way to the aircraft factories at Brunswick and Regensburg and Augsburg and Munich.. the 47's had done a good job but did not wrest air superiority from LW - whereas the Mustang did!
The 47's were relegated to Penetration (to Dummer Lake area) and Withdrawal Support while the 51's were mixing it up and shooting down LW s/e fighters and twins in droves. The 38's were important but operating at close to 1:1 air to air ratio.
If anyone doesn't think that destroying German Oil and Luftwaffe were the most important factors in destroying German war capability then maybe you can downgrade its (P-51) importance...but you won't find any B-17 or B-24 crews talking about it being over rated.
Long winded - apologise
Bill Marshall
I will submit that it was the Most Important simply because it did have exceptional performance and it's strategic footprint was critical to the prime Mission - namely make Airpower and Daylight Strategic Bombing work. And despite the short interval in which it fought compared to 38s and 47s it destroyed more German a/c than all the other USAAF fighters combined - (air and ground) and nearly that same ratio for air to air alone
The P-38 with more reliable engines and the dive brake of the P-38J could have been that fighter but lost far too many ships up through point of receiving the J and, by that time, the 8th AF had had enough - and picked the Mustang as the long range escort. If only B-24s were flown by USAAF then the 38 would be more highly regarded... as the altitudes would have been below 22,000 feet for normal raids.
The P-47 was formidable at the altitudes that B-17s and B-24's operated and where the performance of the Fw190s and Me 109s fell off - so they were very dangerous to the Luftwaffe as far as they could escort the bombers, but until the 56th got water injection and Paddle blades even they did not want a fight with the 190 and 109s from middle altitude to deck because the 47 was a pig on the deck in accleration, climb and turn.
The P-38 was extremely tough below 20,000 feet because it could do everything a Mustang could do and out turn a 51 and had great range but the high altitude cold blew up too many Allisons and w/o dive breaks couldn't dive with 109s and 190s.The LW simply retreated and attacked when the 47s had to tune back - but they could not do that with the Mustang and there was no place in Germany where they could 'hide and form up in peace'
After the 51's equipped the first 4 Groups (357, 355, 352 and 4FG) in the 8th plus the 354th FG on loan from the 9th - the game was over for 47's being the prime contributor to air battles over Germany - they were basically relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal support for deep penetrations until the summer of 44 when the -25's combined with longer range tanks enabled the 56th to play over the Berlins and Regensburg's and Posnan and Leipzig's but by then the LW had truly been decimated of the Experten and experienced pilots.... and the 8th was committed to replacing the 47's with 51's.
Daylight bombardment and Strategic campaigns against the critical Oil targets were only possible because the 51 thrived at high altitudes, could go all the way and fight as well or better from the deck all the way up with the Fw 190 and the 109. You can argue all day long about performance of Spitfires and Tempests, etc but they were irrelevant to Strategic Bombing campaigns and results.
When the argument gets around to 'Best all Around', the F4U-4, the P-47 and even the P-38 (and Fw190) are candidates because of their TacAir combined with air to air capabilities were formidable and they were more durable in high intensity flak... a lot more Mustangs were lost to flak than fighters. In my father's group - the 355th FG - they lost twice as many 51's to flak as fighters and had an 8:1 air to air ratio but only 4:1 for a/c destroyed on ground.
To the point that P-47s 'broke the back' of the Luftwaffe before the Mustang B's got to ETO in late December, it simply ain't so. The 8th was so bloodied so badly between August through October, 1943 that they quit deep penetrations until Big Week in late February, 1944 when the combined strength of the P-38 and 51 groups were sufficient to go all the way to the aircraft factories at Brunswick and Regensburg and Augsburg and Munich.. the 47's had done a good job but did not wrest air superiority from LW - whereas the Mustang did!
The 47's were relegated to Penetration (to Dummer Lake area) and Withdrawal Support while the 51's were mixing it up and shooting down LW s/e fighters and twins in droves. The 38's were important but operating at close to 1:1 air to air ratio.
If anyone doesn't think that destroying German Oil and Luftwaffe were the most important factors in destroying German war capability then maybe you can downgrade its (P-51) importance...but you won't find any B-17 or B-24 crews talking about it being over rated.
Long winded - apologise
Bill Marshall
That is untrue however.
The P-51 needed to be at high alt for it to have an advantage, at mid alt and esp. down on the deck it was at a disadvantage against the new FW-190's and Bf-109's.
That sounds far fetched.
And as to kill ratio's, well they're much overblown.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I don't know where this high altitude performance for the P51 comes from but maybe it is a function of definition of high altitude. If you look at a performance graph of the P51D it had a Vmax w/combat power at sea level of about 360 mph which climbed to about 415 mph at 11000 ft, then dropped off to 405 at 15000 feet and back up to about 435 mph at 24000 ft where it starts really dropping off where at 35000 feet it only gets about 385 mph. The P47D had much better high speed above 25000 ft than the Mustang so I would not rate the P51 as a premier high altitude fighter. Of course I doubt if much ACM took place above 25000 ft so the Mustand had plenty of tactical speed for most encounters.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
???
The main foe/threat of the P-51D for most of the war was the Fw-190A-8 and Bf-109G.
At sea level, the P-51D had a 16 mph speed advantage over the Fw-190A-8. Not significant. At 5k ft, the speed advantage increased to 28 mph, and at 10k ft, it was 56 mph. Both are a significant advantage.
At sea level, the P-51D had a 49 mph speed advantage over the Bf-109G, at 5k ft, the speed advantage is also 49 mph, and at 10k ft, this advantage is 54 mph. All these speeds provide a big advantage to the P-51D.
And this is not even talking about the P-51B, a better performer still (with upgraded gas).
So, against the, by far, most significant number of German aircraft, the P-51D was going to control the energy level of the fight.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I just looked at the poll and I was surprised, especially looking at people who voted for the P-51. How can one of the most successful aircraft of WWII be considered the most overrated. Even the statistics reflect incredible performance and effectiveness.
The P-51 was a superb aircraft, and the jump from superb to best fighter, while maybe not correct, is still a small jump.
I wonder which made the bigger impact on WWII. The fact that the P-51 was overrated, or whether the Bf-110 was overrated.
The P-51 was a superb aircraft, and the jump from superb to best fighter, while maybe not correct, is still a small jump.
I wonder which made the bigger impact on WWII. The fact that the P-51 was overrated, or whether the Bf-110 was overrated.
I did vote for the P-51D. I certainly however would not say that it was not a great aircraft. It was a great aircraft and one of the best piston fighters ever built.
The reason I voted for it was purely based off of the fact that people assume automatically that it was the greatest thing since bread and butter and nothing could compare to it.
The reason I voted for it was purely based off of the fact that people assume automatically that it was the greatest thing since bread and butter and nothing could compare to it.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
How are your plans for moving to Alaska coming? I think we are going back to visit next year.
Well we researching where we want to live and I am looking at Aviation companies where I would like to work and started my wifes Green Card paperwork and all the immigration stuff because she is German.
We will not be moving though for a while until she is done with her college though.
We will not be moving though for a while until she is done with her college though.
- Thread starter
- #98
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Good luck Adler!
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
drgondog
Major
For the purposes of the Mustang's prime mission - namely long range escort of daylight Strategic Bombing - High altitude definitons should be framed around the escort levels of the B-17 and B-24 - namely 20,000 to 26,000 feet plus another 3-5K to engage LW fighters entering with an altitude advantage. The later model 109G/K's and Fw190Ds were designed to perform much better in this arena... but were at extreme disadvantage in early 1944 through end of year at these altitudes.
For the purposes of Interceptor Mission of Recon ships - then 38,000 - 45,000 is "High Altitude". That isn't where the Mustang played but is where the 109G, the Fw190 had to play if they wanted to try to stop daylight recon.
Frequently the excellent performance of the Fw190D9 thru 12's are cited at the higher altitudes, and when the 3 stage supercharger actually worked on the Jumo 213's, their speed was exceptionally close to 51's at the 51B/C/D best altitudes, and slightly higher at 35,000 feet - but irrelevant to stoppping B-17s and Mustangs and Thunderbolts from hammering Germany
Here are the late Brit comparisons found on Williams' website for the Mustang, Tempest, Typhoon, Spit IX, Spit XII, Meteor and P47D for your consideration - you have to be careful on all judgements because the 'controls' for the tests are not well presented per altitude, loads, fuel used, condition of a/c blowers, etc.
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft
As for the 47D trials for USAAF
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
You'll notice that at the war emergency HP the max speed for the 47D-26 was 357mph at 5,000 ft and 425mph at 30,000
For the 51B/C and D
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
the corresponding war emergergency HP the max speed for the 51D-15 was 375mph at SL and 430mph at 30,000 feet. 51 still faster basically across the board, turn much better, accelerate faster, initial climb better, slower roll and slightly slower dive..
Point to note - the 47 had to carry much more fuel to go the same distance on a medium to long range escort, making the Jug much more sluggish in acceleration and climb both on the deck, in middle altitudes and at high altitudes.
Point to note - in the first link, the Brit Report, you will note that the Jug was by far worst turning ship in the comparisons but the 51D was beaten only by Spit IX while the 51D beat the Spit XXII..
And the 51H had better actual speed performance at high altitude than both the P-47N and M (and much better than the D) - you will have to look further in Mike Williams site to dig out the details
Take what you want out of this - just food for thought on the most over rated fighter of WWII.
Regards,
Bill
