The 3 Fighters

Which one would rule?

  • Total voters
    40

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

PeanutNavy said:
I always did think the p-51 was the best wwii aircraft in the world, is it? And the spitfire is my favorite, but i'm still going for the p-51.
Click to expand...

It was in Europe,if you needed to fly a long way and have a decent fighter. If you got involved in a turning fight with either of the other two you would probably be glad of a parachute! All three machines had strengths and weaknesses.
It's horses for courses.

Timewise it's fair to compare them. They are all 1930s,pre war,designs,The P-51 is only three years younger than the Spitfire.

If I was going into a dogfight I'd take the Spitfire. If I took my Spitfire on an escort mission I'd run out of fuel before I got to the fight! I'd be happy to take on a P-51 in a Bf109........you can see what's happening here.

Cheers
Steve
 
The NA-73X flew for the first time in octobre 1940, more than 4 years after the K5054 and more than 5 years after the first Bf 109. 5 years was a lot back then.
 
Anybody that chooses the P-51B/C/D automatically compliments their respective Bomber Command forces in daylight. Far superior choice due to the tactical footprint and equal/near equal performance at all altitudes..
 
I chose P-51 and I don't compliment the respective bomber force. I base my choice solely on performance and cost effectiveness.
 
Short range. Me-109.
The Me-109 and Spitfire are about evenly matched if you pick models produced during the same time frame. Both aircraft are overall superior to the P-51 in aerial combat at most altitudes. Production cost breaks the tie. The Me-109 was dirt cheap to mass produce.


Long Range. P-51.
No contest as the Me-109 and Spitfire were both short range aircraft.

This category means more then bomber escort. The P-51 had enough endurance that it could loiter over an area using only internal fuel. Once the drop tanks were gone Spitfires and Me-109s had to complete the task at hand and then return to base.
 
The other obvious advantage the Mustang had over the other two - related to range - was the ability to travel anywhere in Germany on a tactical basis and raise havoc over rear area airfields, rail and barge traffic. No lw pilot could feel truly secure taking off and landing - ditto for relative security of locomotives and barges in the logistics chain.
 
RNZAF P-51D, because the war was over by then and boy, those young guys had a lot of fun blatting round the vast empty New Zealand skies.

 
Last edited:
I would suggest that few people in 1943 knew how the war would be resolved, only that Gerrmany wouldn't take the UK. A solution similar to China/Taiwan was more than possible, with Germany hanging on to Europe (China), the UK staying free (Taiwan) and Russia at a stalemate, i,e a draw. Remember that we are looking back with far more accurate information than the people had at the time.

I would argue that it was the 1943/44 period that decided the outcome of the war so the importance of the P51 is still valid
 
I agree the P-51 was important. So was the Fw-190D9 and many other late war aircraft. However their importance pales in comparison to aircraft such as the Me-109 and Spitfire which fought the war from beginnng to end and in ever increasing numbers.
 
Its only my view but in terms of importance to the ending of the war no fighter could match the importance of the Mustang. In many ways it was a major influence, if only for its range which gave it a unique strategic edge.

Don't get me wrong, if I knew I was going into a battle with these aircraft I would happily fly the Spitfire, but if I was commanding a battle I would go for the Mustang. Its range gave it far more options from a strategic perspective than the others.
 
Difficult to see how fighters were critical to the outcome of the war, except with one or two exceptioons. Spits contributed to the critical victory in 1940, whilst P-51s achieved a further victory in 1944. What battle of strategic significance did the Me 109 win in the interim? They lost (despite inflicting heavy losses) over france in 1941-2, lost over Africa and the med, lost in the East (to the extent of being unable to stop the Russians), were withdrawn from Italy in 1943, did not make any showing of importance over france in 1944, and lost over germany in 1944-5. Whats significant about anything they did after 1940????????
 
They covered the Balkan campaign fairly well in 1941. Even when pitted against other 109s.

They won the first year or so over Russia. At least until 1942.
 
Lost '41 in the west? Hardly.Moreover they won 1940 over the whole west of Europe and 1939 over Poland didn't they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
  • Poll
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35
Replies
5
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
5K
GrauGeist
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
39K
Dimlee
Low Altitude Combat: Maybe Spitfire Mk. XVI, Tempest V, La-7, Yak-3?....
Replies
1
Views
4K
METTATON6662
M
Menu
Log in
Register