"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "

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

All of those links only link to one story.

Much as I loves me a Jug, I'm going with P-51 for mass-produced excellence, and Me-262 for simple aerial capability despite its low production numbers.

Here's an honest question: which American fighter did the Axis fear more? I'd think that would tell the truth about 'em.

ETA: Demerits for the lousy bastage answering "der Gabelschwanz Teuful".
 
A tie between the Spitfire and Me 109. Both fighters were there at the start and still there at the end, both were used in every theatre of WW2 including at sea in regards to the Spit, both were top tier throughout the war, again in the case of the Spit the design was adaptable enough to match it's adversaries as they appeared, all in all no other fighters can match them simply because there would have been no need for technological advancement in both fighter and aircraft development in general without them existing, especially fighters that entered service years after the war started.
 
Oh, you want "das verdammte Murmeltier"?
 
I've heard 10 people offer that same general opinion. All of them were WWII pilot vets and not all flew P-47s. 6 were Allied pilots and 4 were axis pilots (well, one was French and I'm not too sure if he was one one side or maybe both).

One was a U.S. pilot who flew both P-47s and P-51s. He preferred the P-47 to fight in, but felt the P-51 was a fine airplane, too.

The erstwhile"moral" of this is that by the time a fighter got into production, it wasn't a bad airplane. There were no real "loser" fighters out there in WWII except maybe the Boulton-Paul Defiant, and it was more of a flawed concept than a bad airplane. Perhaps the MS.406 was less than stellar in WWII, but wasn't at all bad when it came out in 1935. It just didn't have the growth potential of the Bf 109 and Spitfire.
 
Last edited:
Might be mid-war to some, but the actual war started in 1939 and went to 1945.

So, actual mid-war is 1942. Mid-war to the U.S.A. is in 1943.

Not really all that much different in time, but a year of aero development in WW2 was significant, considering we entered the war with 150 mph fabric biplanes in first-line service and ended 6 years later in 540 mph aluminum jets and 600+ mph rocket fighters.
 

The Spit is definitely in the conversation as it was so suitable for upgrades that it could stay relevant, but by '44-'45, even with the -K model I think the -109 is an also-ran. Certainly had a great run the first four years of the war, though.

You're right that both planes spurred progress, but by the end of the war, the Spit still had room for mods to expand its capabilities, while the basic design of the -109 limited its ability to take much further variation. Does that make sense?
 
You're right that both planes spurred progress, but by the end of the war, the Spit still had room for mods to expand its capabilities, while the basic design of the -109 limited its ability to take much further variation. Does that make sense?
I get what you are saying but Hurricanes and P40's were still fighting in may theatres and the A6M was widely used by the Japanese until the end, the 109 outclassed them all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread