What fighter of 1939-40 could compete with fighters of 1944-45?

[Admiral Beez]

So what does a military do with the older types as the newer ones are going into service, push them into the ocean?

Clearly, if you're the Japanese you use them as Kamikaze.

It is reported that in 1945, over Croatia, a Fiat CR-42 biplane flown by an unknown Luftwaffe pilot shot down a P-38 that, probably, took the engagement too ligthly..

Was Erich Hartmann flying that Falco?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, I guess it depends on what is meant by
What fighter of 1940 could compete with fighters of 1945.

Be used against them?
Have at least a even chance when flown by pilots of near equal skill/experience?
Perform similar missions? Not just get into the air near where the new fighters are?

 

[Shortround6]

Clearly, if you're the Japanese you use them as Kamikaze.

While useful that is hardly competitive or competing with 1945 fighters.

 

[drgondog]

A more precise question - Is there any fighter operational in 1940 that you would select as your fighter to equip your Fighter wing against any of a dozen 1945 fighters?

 

[GrauGeist]

Imagine the surprise of the Japanese when PAAF Capt. Villamor downed two A6Ms with his P-26 during the attack on the Philippines.

By 1941, the P-26 was nearly 10 years older than the Zero.

 

[Vincenzo]

Villamor claimed 2 Zero but there are not Zero loss in that days (12th and 23rd December)

 

[fastmongrel]

Strangely enough I think a 1936 Biplane would have a better chance than a 1940 monoplane if the pilot could tempt the 1945 pilot into a low level turning battle and the 1945 pilot was an utter moron.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A more precise question - Is there any fighter operational in 1940 that you would select as your fighter to equip your Fighter wing against any of a dozen 1945 fighters?

Keep the altitude to 15,000 feet or lower and a dozen Westland Whirlwinds have competitive odds against a dozen Kawasaki Ki-100 or Focke-Wulf Ta 152. Many of these 1945 fighters were optimized as high altitude interceptors, with long wingspans, pressurized cockpits, H-A superchargers and in the Ta 152's case requiring MW 50 methanol-water boost (in short bursts only) to exceed 350 mph at low level.

So, my choice is clear....

 

[GrauGeist]

The action occurred on the 10th and 12th, the PAAF 6th Pursuit Squadron downed 3 A6Ms and one G4M total before withdrawing.

 

[drgondog]

Keep the altitude to 15,000 feet or lower and a dozen Westland Whirlwinds have competitive odds against a dozen Kawasaki Ki-100 or Focke-Wulf Ta 152. Many of these 1945 fighters were optimized as high altitude interceptors, with long wingspans, pressurized cockpits, H-A superchargers and in the Ta 152's case requiring MW 50 methanol-water boost (in short bursts only) to exceed 350 mph at low level.

So, my choice is clear....

If Wikipedia was for once accurate regarding performance, The P-51A with WI and Allison V-1720-81 had better performance! And the statistics presented (350mph at 15K, 5 min climb to 15K) doesn't speak to GW at T.O. Why is it better than say 1942 vintage P-39Q, Bf 109G-1, Fw 190A-5 or Spit IX? You really want the Whirlwind to be the foundation of your fighter force against F4U-4, F6F-6, Ki 100, Fw 190D-9, Spit XIV, P-51D-20 w/75" or Yak-9 in 1944? Offhand is there one dimension of a.) range, ROC, speed - low to high, maneuverability at medium to high speed, range with bomb load? or 2.) operational flexibility of CAS, air superiority point defense, air superiority at long range, bomber escort at all altitudes?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You really want the Whirlwind to be the foundation of your fighter force against F4U-4, F6F-6, Ki 100, Fw 190D-9, Spit XIV, P-51D-20 w/75" or Yak-9 in 1944?

Ki 100 at 15,000 feet or lower, sure. The others, no. I chose my 1945 opponents listed above very carefully for a reason.

Outside of the P-38, I'd put the Whirlwind up against any twin-nacelle, twin- engined, piston-powered fighter 1944/45, such as the Kawasaki Ki-102.

 

[The Basket]

Top speed wise....
Me 262 v P-51D
Spitfire 1 v Spitfire 14.

Kinda 100mph different.

So even having a top notch 1945 prop fighter don't mean much in the jet age.

I would say there not much in it between the top fighter of 1940 which is either a Spitfire or 109 variant against the worst mass production fighter of 1945. Which is either the Ki-100 or Yak. Plenty times an air force has to choose something or nothing.

Buffalo against a Zero is better than no fighter against a Zero.

 

[GregP]

Might be worth remembering the Erich Hartmann, the most prolific fighter pilot the world has ever seen, stuck with his Bf 109F until it was no longer possible to keep it serviceable. In his memoirs, he says words to the effect that a man completely familiar with his airplane in a fight is much better than the same man who is in the same fight learning the quirks of a new airplane. If I were to disagree with a fighter pilot about a basic philosophy in aerial warfare, I would not likely choose Herr Hartmann to disagree with. Just sayin'.

The Finns had pretty good results with the decidedly 1930s Brewster Buffalo. It certainly wasn't due to the Buffalo being a good fighter (apologies to BuffNut). It was due much more to the quality (or lack thereof) of the opposition. The Finns had veteran fighter pilots who had good training fighting a defensive war over their own territory (surviving pilots went back to their units) against opposition who basically wired Moscow for instructions before going to the latrine, and took all air fighting instructions from ground controllers.

So, I think a 1940 fighter could be just fine one-on-one in 1945 unless it was matched up against a well-trained veteran pilot in the more modern fighter who wasn't taking chances with the older airplane. Then the extra performance of the 1945 fighter would likely show up rather quickly. That assumes the guy flying the older fighter didn't have a choice to fly a newer airplane. If he did, he likely would choose the better aircraft and get familiar with it quickly in mock dogfights / positive g aerobatics.

 

[drgondog]

Ki 100 at 15,000 feet or lower, sure. The others, no. I chose my 1945 opponents listed above very carefully for a reason.

Outside of the P-38, I'd put the Whirlwind up against any twin-nacelle, twin- engined, piston-powered fighter 1944/45, such as the Kawasaki Ki-102.

I'm still curious - they would be lucky to ever intercept a Mosquito or B-29. They would be very limited in tactical footprint. Haven't seen the data but curious regarding acceleration and SL speed if only 350mh max at 15K

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm still curious - they would be lucky to ever intercept a Mosquito or B-29.

Well yes, that's why 1940's fighters weren't on the front line in 1944/45, or 1942 for that matter.... In this thread we're considering fighter on fighter, 1940 vs. 1945. No one is suggesting a 1940 fighter will make a good interceptor of 1945's strategic bombers, or even a Mosquito for that matter.

Just to change things a little, beyond swapping out the engine (IIRC, many Spitfire Mk II/III were make into Spitfire Mk V through an engine swap), I wonder could we modify a 1940 fighter to better compete? For example, higher compression heads and pistons on my Whirlwinds to make better use of 1945's high octane fuels.

 

[Dimlee]

Can we consider P-63 as a "1945 fighter"?
When Soviet forces landed on Shumshu island on Aug 18th, 1945 they were supported by 128th Air Division which operated P-63 Kingcobras.
I can not find a detailed description of IJAAF in Kurils in the summer of 1945, but some sources claimed that there were early Ki-43 (I or II) fighters there. One recent expedition has found A6M2 with production date 1942. I saw Japanese photos of Shumshu with A6M2-N in the coastal waters.
According to Wiki and to Russian author Yefim Gordon, the first official Soviet P-63 victory was against Ki-43 off the coast of North Korea. But, again, the version of Ki-43 remains unknown.
Bell P-63 Kingcobra - Wikipedia

 

[Vincenzo]

The action occurred on the 10th and 12th, the PAAF 6th Pursuit Squadron downed 3 A6Ms and one G4M total before withdrawing.

Maybe JoeB, my source was a post of, checked the wrong day but on the 12th there were not A6M loss, and the bomber loss was a G3M

 

[The Basket]

Gotta see this as numbers.

Let's do stupid.

100 Spitfire mk 1 or 2 v 100 P-51D in all out massive dogfight battle royale.

Mustangs going to go down. Bad luck, engine failures, collisions, bad tactics

But the P-51 should be able to statistically get the win on the Mk 1. And every time

Like getting aces....the stats say you're going to win but bad luck and bad tactics can say otherwise.

So can a 1940 fighter beat a 1945 fighter?

Yeah. Anything can happen in a 2 horse race. But can it do that a hundred times? To win a war or win a battle? That's where the doubt is.

 

[GrauGeist]

Maybe JoeB, my source was a post of, checked the wrong day but on the 12th there were not A6M loss, and the bomber loss was a G3M

Typo on my part regarding the G3M, however, I'm glad you mentioned Joe Baugher.

In his own words:

Despite their total obsolescence, the Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack. One of the Philippine P-26s is credited with shooting down the first Japanese plane destroyed during the early attacks on the islands. The best-known action took place on December 12, 1942, then a group of six Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s.

Operational History of Boeing P-26

 

[Admiral Beez]

What's the worst single seat, single engined piston-powered fighter that entered service in 1944/45?

The CAC Boomerang was produced until Feb 1945. Would a Spitfire Mk.II be entirely outclassed?