"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
You might just be right.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-40 may not be in the pantheon of greatest fighter of the war, but it is certainly at the top of the workhorse list.
If the P-40 were a vehicle, it would be a Willy's Jeep.
If the P-40 were a vehicle, it would be a Willy's Jeep.
GregP
Major
Edsel.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Reliant Robin...
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
OK Bluto!
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
Before you can pick the "greatest" fighter of the war, you need to define great.
Best performing fighter that set the direction for post-war design and impacted fighter development for decades? ME-262 of course. But built in too low a number and too late in the war to have a major impact (and range limited).
Mustang? Great aircraft, great range, very good all-around fighter. But the B model with the 2-speed/2 stage Merlin didn't see combat until December '43, and the earlier versions with the single-stage Allisons were useless at altitude. The war was largely over by then. It never played a major role in the Pacific or N. Africa.
Spitfire? Probably the best point defense fighter of the war, and in service from start to finish. But too range limited to carry out any form of deep offensive attacks or long range bomber escort. Same could be said for the '109 and FW-190.
Thunderbolt? Fastest piston engined fighter of the war, rugged, great firepower and available fairly early in the war, through the end. But, once again, range limited, at least until the N model (and even slow to get large drop tanks on earlier versions). So again, limited use for long-range bomber escort. Plenty were available by early '43...but the bombers suffered big losses because they couldn't go the distance. General Kinney didn't want them in the Pacific because of the lack of range (and slow climb rate of early models).
Lightning? Yes, had some issues, but in service since the time the US entered the war to the end, with high altitude performance and range right from the beginning to the end of the war. Not as fast as the Thunderbolt (especially in a dive) and had some teething problems to work out in N. Europe conditions but still contributed in all theaters and always in demand.
But wait-we didn't define "greatest". What if that includes naval fighters? None of the above (except some versions of the Spit) could fly from a carrier (or to be more accurate land on one). Corsair is the obvious pick-but not carrier certified until fairly late in the war. Hellcat? Great aircraft, but didn't have the speed of the Corsair, let alone the Thunderbolt or Lightning. Even if available it perhaps couldn't have performed as a high altitude escort fighter over N. Europe.
What mission? Long range bomber escort? Point defense/interception? Close air support? Dive bombing/anti shipping attacks? And again-when in the war? Does volume of production and impact on the outcome of the war matter, or just the performance of the aircraft?
The good point of all that? We can all be fanboys for our favorite aircraft and select our criteria to make a case for that bird.
Best performing fighter that set the direction for post-war design and impacted fighter development for decades? ME-262 of course. But built in too low a number and too late in the war to have a major impact (and range limited).
Mustang? Great aircraft, great range, very good all-around fighter. But the B model with the 2-speed/2 stage Merlin didn't see combat until December '43, and the earlier versions with the single-stage Allisons were useless at altitude. The war was largely over by then. It never played a major role in the Pacific or N. Africa.
Spitfire? Probably the best point defense fighter of the war, and in service from start to finish. But too range limited to carry out any form of deep offensive attacks or long range bomber escort. Same could be said for the '109 and FW-190.
Thunderbolt? Fastest piston engined fighter of the war, rugged, great firepower and available fairly early in the war, through the end. But, once again, range limited, at least until the N model (and even slow to get large drop tanks on earlier versions). So again, limited use for long-range bomber escort. Plenty were available by early '43...but the bombers suffered big losses because they couldn't go the distance. General Kinney didn't want them in the Pacific because of the lack of range (and slow climb rate of early models).
Lightning? Yes, had some issues, but in service since the time the US entered the war to the end, with high altitude performance and range right from the beginning to the end of the war. Not as fast as the Thunderbolt (especially in a dive) and had some teething problems to work out in N. Europe conditions but still contributed in all theaters and always in demand.
But wait-we didn't define "greatest". What if that includes naval fighters? None of the above (except some versions of the Spit) could fly from a carrier (or to be more accurate land on one). Corsair is the obvious pick-but not carrier certified until fairly late in the war. Hellcat? Great aircraft, but didn't have the speed of the Corsair, let alone the Thunderbolt or Lightning. Even if available it perhaps couldn't have performed as a high altitude escort fighter over N. Europe.
What mission? Long range bomber escort? Point defense/interception? Close air support? Dive bombing/anti shipping attacks? And again-when in the war? Does volume of production and impact on the outcome of the war matter, or just the performance of the aircraft?
The good point of all that? We can all be fanboys for our favorite aircraft and select our criteria to make a case for that bird.
Last edited:
That's a damn good analogy
Ah but the racing version was a joy to behold (I actually owned one)
I took it up and down here which was an experience
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
buffnut453
Captain
In a word....WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
There was no synchromesh between first and decond gear and reverse is alongside first gear on the gear lever. Going up one of those hills, I crunched it into reverse instead of first gear. I nearly reversed straight off the hillside down a 100 to 200 yard drop. Drum brakes dont work well going backwards was one of many things I learned inn a few seconds. My GF wasnt pregnant but almost gave birth lol.
buffnut453
Captain
Ok...not so much WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! but more WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
When you are 18-19 years old everything is a laugh, I get cold sweats thinking about stuff like that now. You are basically strapped in a fibreglass box with an engine between you and the passenger.
So it had the greatest weight - fair enough.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Sticking with the Buffalo.
8
