"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (3 Viewers)

[Admiral Beez]

The top fighter of the entire war was the Spitfire. The p47 was an excellent fighter, especially after mid 1943. It performed better in some roles than the Spitfire but it was more expensive, huge fuel consumption, and in the most crucial role of the air superiority, the Spitfire was always superior. A spitfire ix would outfly a p47c, a spit xiv would outfly a P47d-25,
a spit 21 would outfly p47N. Except in extreme altitudes

Agreed. And not bad for an aircraft that first flew in March 1936, three years before Republic Aviation existed and when the best aircraft Seversky, its pre-1939 predecessor could design and launch was the P-35. I'd not want to take the latter up against any Mk of Spitfire.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Start date of WWII? July 1937, September 1939, June 1941, December 1941, other?

End date of WWII? May 1945, August 1945, other?

Date of operation in question?

Criteria for inclusion in WWII. On drawing board? Prototype flown? Production started? At least X combat sorties? Other minimum length of service?

Day or night operation?

Good or bad weather?

Carrier or land based?

Short, medium, long or very long range?

Low, medium, high or very high altitude?

Interception, escort, patrol, ground attack, anti shipping, reconnaissance?

Type of enemy aircraft expected, fighter/bomber and their characteristics?

Type of ship/ground target expected?

Answer these and the "best" fighter will usually fall out. As a basic rule the 1945 production designs had 2 to 3 times the power of the 1937/39 production designs, plus the accumulated experience, so they have the better performance figures.

 

[PAT303]

Eric Brown rated the FW-190 as the best all round fighter of the war so you could be on to something there.

Low to medium altitude yes but only until the MkIX LF appeared.

 

[WARSPITER]

Low to medium altitude yes but only until the MkIX LF appeared.

Yes. I think Brown meant in terms of versatility - ground attack etc.

I have lost count of the number of pilots from all sides who rated the Spitfire as far and away the best interceptor of the war.

 

[Shortround6]

in the most crucial role of the air superiority, the Spitfire was always superior.

That kind of depends on where you need the air superiority?

A spitfire ix would outfly a p47c, a spit xiv would outfly a P47d-25,
a spit 21 would outfly p47N. Except in extreme altitudes

And at what ranges?

And not bad for an aircraft that first flew in March 1936, three years before Republic Aviation existed and when the best aircraft Seversky, its pre-1939 predecessor could design and launch was the P-35. I'd not want to take the latter up against any Mk of Spitfire.

The Spitfire was fast and it turned well. the 1930s version had a bit of a problem with climb.
BTW the last P-35 was delivered before the 1st Spitfire squadron became operational.
The P-35A was not ordered by the USAAC, They were embargoed Swedish ordered aircraft and show up about 2 years late.
The YP-43 in limited production spanned the fall/winter of 1940/41 and production of the Spitfire II and V.

And we are back to range. The early P-35 was rated at 1050 miles. the P-35A was rated at 950 miles (?) and the YP-43 was rated at 800 miles.
Even if these were the "magic" levitate the plane to cruising altitude with full fuel ranges they still were going to out range the Spitfire.
First 70 something Spits had fixed pitch props and climbed like crap. P-35s had constant speed props which compensated for their low powered engines.

It would be nice were there to be an agreed definition of the 'greatest' 'best' etc words. For example one could choose some barely in service before the end of the war aeroplane just for performance or the Hawker Hurricane for winning the Battle of Britain which kept the Commonwealth in the war and was the base for all further events.

This is (and the rest of the post) is quite right. If we judge the "best" fighter as an air superiority fighter at a limited distance from it's own airfield then it is very hard to top the Spitfire.
Once we ask other things from it, like somewhat longer range, or ground attack things get a lot fuzzier.

P-47s wound up doing a lot things. And most of the time they just took standard P-47s of the time and hung stuff of the bottom and used them for whatever they were trying to do. No clipped wings, no extended wings, no low attitude engines, no high altitude engines. No extra armor packages.
Standard wing, standard engine (water injection added to existing ones, all production after a certain point had it). Same aircraft were doing everything, not saying the same squadrons did everything (different training/experience) but the same aircraft did.

Bombs, rockets and drop tank meant it could operate at a greater distance from the airfield in the ground attack role than the Spitfire.
Or carry a lot more "stuff" at the same distance. Does that make it "great"?

And from 1943 on very few planes could deal with a P-47 at over 30,000ft. Other planes got better but P-47s got better too.
P-47s used 3/4 different engine set ups.
Early P-47s
Early P-47s with water injection (and new props)
Later P-47s with new turbos, (and still with water injection)
Engines were pretty much the the same.

P-47M & N with new "C" series engines.

This "standardization" is one reason that they made so many P-47s. They improved them with dash numbers but they weren't swapping engines in and out or even changing guns (perhaps they should have?). They just made a crapload of them and sent overseas and let the squadrons get on with it.

 

[buffnut453]

This is (and the rest of the post) is quite right. If we judge the "best" fighter as an air superiority fighter at a limited distance from it's own airfield then it is very hard to top the Spitfire.
Once we ask other things from it, like somewhat longer range, or ground attack things get a lot fuzzier.

Agree, SR6. We also need to bound the timeframe. An amazing fighter that becomes available in 1943 doesn't do you a lick of good in 1942.

Given the rate of fighter development and the manner in which roles evolved from 1936-1945, I still find it pretty remarkable that the Spit was still in the fight. The Mustang was absolutely outstanding. I love the Jug just because it looks fantastic. The Hellcat and Corsair were incredibly capable airframes....but none of them were present in 1940 when the entire world needed the Hurricane and the Spitfire to do what they did.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Start date of WWII? July 1937, September 1939, June 1941, December 1941, other?

I think it has been well established that WWII started September 1939, when it became a true global conflict. And it ended September 1945, with the paper scribbling on that big metal boat in Tokyo bay.

Criteria for inclusion in WWII. On drawing board? Prototype flown? Production started? At least X combat sorties? Other minimum length of service?

Spitfire was in production and service for that entire timeframe

Carrier or land based?

Spitfire did both

Short, medium, long or very long range?

Spitfire excelled at short ranges as a combat aircraft, and was capable of long ranges with modification, or as a recce bird.

Low, medium, high or very high altitude?

Spitfire was capable across the board. Right at sea level with LF models, or shooting down Ju 86's at 49000 ft.

Interception, escort, patrol, ground attack, anti shipping, reconnaissance?

Not sure about anti-shipping, but otherwise, Spitfire was involved in the rest

Type of enemy aircraft expected, fighter/bomber and their characteristics?

Spitfires destroyed basically every type of aircraft deployed by the Axis

 

[SaparotRob]

The Spitfire was the better fighter over London. The P-47 was the better fighter over Berlin.

I read that somewhere on the Forum.

 

[Shortround6]

Agree, SR6. We also need to bound the timeframe. An amazing fighter that becomes available in 1943 doesn't do you a lick of good in 1942.

Given the rate of fighter development and the manner in which roles evolved from 1936-1945, I still find it pretty remarkable that the Spit was still in the fight. The Mustang was absolutely outstanding. I love the Jug just because it looks fantastic. The Hellcat and Corsair were incredibly capable airframes....but none of them were present in 1940 when the entire world needed the Hurricane and the Spitfire to do what they did.

That is true but a 1940 fighter needed changes to remain in the fight. The Hawk 75 (P-36) was the best the French had in the spring of 1940 and held it's own or better. But Hawk 75s in 1942/43 would have been a disaster.
Same for the Hurricane I. It did the job in 1940 but even with the Merlin XX engine the 109F meant it was passed it's prime as an air superiority fighter. It helped hold the line in 1941/42 but better fighters were needed. Is the Hurricane great for what it did in 1940/41? yes, but it is not great for the whole war.

The Spit stayed in the war because it had the aerodynamics to stay in the war (low drag and thin wings that did not suffer from compressibility.) It had the size (that 242 sq ft wing) that allowed upgrading without a big change in wing loading/ maneuverability and increased size guns. And RR was able to up grade the engines and/or introduce a new one with much more power without a huge (even though sizable) increase in weight and perhaps even more importantly, volume.

Sticking a DB 605 into a 109E airframe might have ended the war Early
Simply changing engines on a 1940 airframe may not give the results required.
And you have to keep changing the engines. The 1942 engines aren't going to do the job needed in 1944.

The Italian fighters were generally too small, and engine development crashed into a wall. Using Germany's last year engines, while an improvement, does not keep you in the top rank.
Being able to dog fight Hurricanes and P-40s doesn't mean you have a good bomber interceptor once the big 4 engined bombers show up.
Same for the Japanese. They shot down the big bombers but it took too many lightly armed fighters ganging up on a few victims. It was often a war of attrition and more heavily armed fighters could inflict greater losses per 100/0 sorties.

Spitfire was capable across the board. Right at sea level with LF models, or shooting down Ju 86's at 49000 ft.

And like I have said, there were no LF P-47s. Or HF P-47s.
P-47s did everything with the same engines and wings, right up until the P-47M.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Spitfire was the better fighter over London. The P-47 was the better fighter over Berlin.

Spitfire PR Mk.I was flying over Berlin six months before the first P-47 left the factory floor

 

[Greg Boeser]

How many bombers was it escorting?

 

[buffnut453]

How many bombers was it escorting?

Didn't need to escort bombers. They were all operating at night.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Didn't need to escort bombers. They were all operating at night.

 

[GregP]

Yes. I think Brown meant in terms of versatility - ground attack etc.

I have lost count of the number of pilots from all sides who rated the Spitfire as far and away the best interceptor of the war.

It's worth remembering that the Germans shot down a LOT of Spitfires. For most of the war, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 traded the title of "the best" back and forth, and the Spitfire was not always the top-rated fighter in the ETO. It was up near there, to be sure, but the Bf 109E and F matched up VERY evenly against contemporary model Spitfires, and outperformed them is a few areas for awhile. The British would naturally choose the Spitfire and the Germans would naturally choose the Bf 109.

I have a file with 63,324 German claims. The most-claimed victim was the Soviet Il-2 with 6,740 claims, or 10.6%. The second-most-claimed victim was the Spitfire with 4,997 claims (7.9%). Even allowing for overclaiming, being the second most-claimed victim means there were plenty of Spitfire fights when they didn't come out on top.

By the way, the total number of claimed P-51s was only 1,034 (1.6%). That doesn't mean much, but does give an indication. The P-51 was there for about 2 years, which is roughly 1/3 of the entire war. Coincidentally, the claims for P-51s are about 1/3 of the claims for Spitfires. Slightly less, but near enough.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My dander is elevating by the second!

They've got shampoos for that, you know.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Spitfire PR Mk.I was flying over Berlin six months before the first P-47 left the factory floor

... and a PR plane isn't a fighter, it's recce. To my knowledge, the only pics a Jug took were through gun-cameras.

 

[Greg Boeser]

... and a PR plane isn't a fighter, it's recce. To my knowledge, the only pics a Jug took were through gun-cameras.

That would be a wrecce mission.

 

[pbehn]

The Spitfire was the better fighter over London. The P-47 was the better fighter over Berlin.

I read that somewhere on the Forum.

"The Spitfire doesnt have the range of the Mustang", so what we have Mustangs.
The Mustang doesnt have the rate of climb of a Spitfire, so what? We have Spitfires.
They are both crap nightfighters!!!, so what we have Mosquitos.

It is an interesting and absorbing discussion about which was or wasn't the best overall fighter.in WW2, at the time there was great merit in having a range of aeroplanes and forces optimised to be good at most things but absolutely the best at one thing in particular. In the build up to D-Day, Eisenhower may have had concerns about the strength of the LW, he and all around him got cold sweats at the thought of the build up being photographed in detail.

 

[SaparotRob]

I learned the "which was better" questions really are just soap boxes for proving a personal favorite best.
Unless we're talking about the B-17.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I learned the "which was better" questions really are just soap boxes for proving a personal favorite best.
Unless we're talking about the B-17.