What WW2 fighters should be compared?

Kevin J said:

So what did the Germans do with the Bf 109F because its armament was ineffective against bombers? They slung a couple of gondolas with 20 mm cannon under their wings. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Case closed?
Afraid not.
The Germans had 2 1/2 years of war experience to decide that more than one 20mm cannon was needed against bombers by the average pilot.
The 109F-4 first got the underwing guns in the Spring of 1942 (May?)

The Russians were able to take that information from 1942 and apply it how in the winter of 1940/41 when the Lagg and Yak fighters were entering production?

Now please consider that the Russian cowl mounted 7.62 guns fired about 50% faster than the German cowl mounted 7.92mm guns, the Russian 20mm cannon had about a 20% advantage over the weight of shells fired per second by the 20mm MG/FF cannon in the 109F-1 and about a 75% advantage in weight of shells fired by the MG 151/15 in the 109F-2. The Russian gun used belt feed with 120-150 rounds compared to the 55-60 drums of the 109Es and F-1.

The Russians did have combat experience against the Finns and could read about the French and British experience although direct sharing may have been limited due to the Soviet occupation of Poland and the winter war against Finland. Russia not becoming an ally of Britain until Germany invaded. The Russian 20mm was worth about 5 British .303 Brownings in weight of fire and the British guns didn't fire exploding projectiles so maybe the Russians figured they were already ahead of the British 8 gun fighters?

And it doesn't really matter what the Russians thought they needed for guns in 1940/41. With the M-105 engine offering only about 1050hp and with their overweight structures(a Yak-1 tested in Feb 1941 weighed 6300lbs and a Lagg-2 with one 20mm gun and one 12.7mm gun weighed 6,790lbs in Oct 1941) they simply couldn't carry the desired armament and still keep the needed performance. The 1180hp M-105PF doesn't show up until later and the 1240hp M-105PF-2 is even later.

The weapons carried depended on the enemy.you were going to face. It's worth noting that every nation that went up against heavy bombers moved to multiple cannons normally four. Had the Russians and American airforces faced B17 type bombers they.would have done the same.

There.is.nothing that I can think of which could be used against the P38. The only twin engined fighters,designed for air to air combat against fighters I can think of are the Me110, Whirlwind, P38.
The Beaufighter is a potential contender in theory only as the RAF realised this was a non starter and the only area of operations where it was used as a day fighter was over the Bay of Biscay where they wouldn't meet single engined fighters.

You could go with the Fokker G1 and Potez 630 if so inclined.

Don't forget that the IJA had the KI-45 Type 2 twin-engined fighter (aka long range bomber escort), too.

Your both correct but we are still talking about pre war fighters who didn't stand much of a chance against early fighters (P40, Hurricane, Me109E et al) and to compare against a P38 would be pointless

Not necessarily - the Dragon Slayer (Toryu) had a good top speed, solid rate of climb, excellent service ceiling and was well armed.

It was not properly flown against single-engined fighters early on, but they learned the lesson that most twins did and changed their engagement philosophy to reflect that.

And by "pre-war" - which theater?
The KI-45 was conceived in the late 30's, the PTO hadn't begun in earnest when it was accepted into service.

Here are some comparisons that I come across in my capacity as an amateur reseracher and writer of articles. Some of these are comparisons I've been asked about:

Spitfire I versus Hurricane I (Battle of Britain era,) Spitfire I versus Bf 109E (again BoB), Spitfire IX versus P-51D Mustang, Spitfire XIV versus Tempest V, Spitfire V versus Fw 190A, P-40E versus A6M2, Defiant versus Bf 110, Yak-3 versus Bf 109F or 'G, P-47 versus Typhoon, F4F-4 versus A6M2, Gladiator versus CR-42 and so on. Other comparisons not restricted to fighters include Lancaster versus Halifax, B-17 versus B-24, Wellington versus He 111 etc etc.

michael rauls said:

Imho the fighters that should be compared given the extremely accelerated pace of development durring the pre-war and ww2 years would be those that first flew within a limited time frame of each other. A year and a half sounds about right to me although I recognize there is no" right" time frame for fair comparison.
This would nix pointless comparisons that we sometimes see between early war planes like say the p40 and late ones like the p51.
It also occures to me that this comparison without regard to timeframe is something fairly unique to aircraft that served within the time confines of ww2. That is many compair like in the previous example the p40 to the 51 but I have never seen the p51 compaired to its next-generation of fighters like the p80 which would seem to be just as fair a comparison as p40/p51.
My thoughts on it anyway.

Click to expand...

I like your idea but it may be inflexible. The Americans start with the Airacuda (13 built) as a bomber interceptor which is overly complex but settle in the Lightning which can eventually dogfight enemy single seat fighters. The British start with the Blenheim IF/IVF (260 conversions?) but settle on the Beaufighter which is derived from the Beaufort which was based on the Blenheim. The Germans start with the Me 110 which doesn't arrive until 1939 when sufficiently powerful Db 601 engines are available. In the interim the Fw 187 is built. Its certainly good enough to a competitor with the Lightning, but now the Germans have the Ju 88A bomber which can do 435 mph in a dive and 326 in level flight with its bombs dropped, so why build the Fw 187 when the Me 110 can perform so many tasks as its a two seat twin. Surely we are looking at Beaufighter vs Me 110 vs Lightning in the final run off. After all, once the designs have been finalised and sorted all three are in service and production until the end of the war. Plus the Ki-45 but its a late arrival.

I would still be reluctant to put the Beaufighter and the P-38 in the same category. Beaufighter and Bf 110 maybe, but not the P-38 with those two. You could place the P-38 with the Westland Whirlwind or even Fw 187, but not the two-seaters.

Let's compare the Beaufighter I and II with the P-38F in weights and performance since the first two Beaus were the fighter variants and the 'F was the first mass produced combat variant: empty weight BF: 13,800lb, P-38: 12,264lb, gross weight BF: 21,000lb, P-38: 18,000lb, max speed BF: 330mph, P-38: 395mph @ 25,000ft, ceiling BF: 29,000ft, P-38: 39,000ft, normal range BF: 1,500 miles, P-38, 500 miles. Figures from Bristol Aircraft since 1910 by C.H. Barnes and United States Military Aircraft since 1909 by E.G. Swanborough, both Putnam.

This is part of the official specification write up for the Beaufighter to F.17/39: "The Air Staff require a fixed gun fighter designed to carry a number of 20 mm shell firing guns. It is important that this type of fighter should be introduced into service as early as possible to meet the development of of defensive armament and armour protection of enemy bomber aircraft."

The Beaufighter was built as a bomber interceptor, as can be seen. It's worth noting that in the end the Beaufighter had very little in common with the Beaufort, virtually nothing structurally.

nuuumannn said:

I would still be reluctant to put the Beaufighter and the P-38 in the same category. Beaufighter and Bf 110 maybe, but not the P-38 with those two. You could place the P-38 with the Westland Whirlwind or even Fw 187, but not the two-seaters.

Let's compare the Beaufighter I and II with the P-38F in weights and performance since the first two Beaus were the fighter variants and the 'F was the first mass produced combat variant: empty weight BF: 13,800lb, P-38: 12,264lb, gross weight BF: 21,000lb, P-38: 18,000lb, max speed BF: 330mph, P-38: 395mph @ 25,000ft, ceiling BF: 29,000ft, P-38: 39,000ft, normal range BF: 1,500 miles, P-38, 500 miles. Figures from Bristol Aircraft since 1910 by C.H. Barnes and United States Military Aircraft since 1909 by E.G. Swanborough, both Putnam.

This is part of the official specification write up for the Beaufighter to F.17/39: "The Air Staff require a fixed gun fighter designed to carry a number of 20 mm shell firing guns. It is important that this type of fighter should be introduced into service as early as possible to meet the development of of defensive armament and armour protection of enemy bomber aircraft."

The Beaufighter was built as a bomber interceptor, as can be seen. It's worth noting that in the end the Beaufighter had very little in common with the Beaufort, virtually nothing structurally.

Click to expand...

Let's think about this. In terms of combat capability, the P-38E is the first combat capable Lightning, but rear area defence only. The first to be deployed, the P-38F/G in 1942/43, but only in the Med and the Pacific because of the reasons as stated in these documents P-38F Tactical Trials and P-38G Tactical Trials. The P-38F/G dive speed of 400 IAS at sea level is not going to get you out of trouble over Western Europe and this dive speed is no different to that of a Beaufighter! Granted, top speed is 10% higher than the Beaufighter at low and medium altitudes, even more at higher altitudes, but this is insignificant when it comes to aerial combat and it cannot be operated at high altitudes because of the problems that it encountered with the British fuels it was using. The key question is "can you set the terms for combat" and clearly the P-38F/G fails because like the Beaufighter it cannot dive to escape and later re-engage. So we should be comparing the P-38F/G with the Beaufighter VIC/F not I/II. Each plane has its own pluses and minuses. I would only give the P-38F/G & H a good chance of a victory against the Me 110.
From 1943 onward their paths digress, the Beaufighter TFX arrives, a low altitude torpedo bomber that can carry rockets or bombs instead of the torpedo. The Lightning in progressive stages through P-38H/J/L becomes a capable plane in a dogfight against the Bf 109G and Fw 190A which clearly the Beaufighter TFX isn't, but this is late in the war, like Spring 1944. The victory counts of the P-38J vs the P-51B/C reflect this and the plane is replaced by the P-51B/C/D/K in the bomber escort role.
I's still stick with my Beaufighter vs Me 110 vs Lightning comparison.

Kevin J said:

Let's think about this. In terms of combat capability, the P-38E is the first combat capable Lightning, but rear area defence only. The first to be deployed, the P-38F/G in 1942/43, but only in the Med and the Pacific because of the reasons as stated in these documents P-38F Tactical Trials and P-38G Tactical Trials. The P-38F/G dive speed of 400 IAS at sea level is not going to get you out of trouble over Western Europe and this dive speed is no different to that of a Beaufighter! Granted, top speed is 10% higher than the Beaufighter at low and medium altitudes, even more at higher altitudes, but this is insignificant when it comes to aerial combat and it cannot be operated at high altitudes because of the problems that it encountered with the British fuels it was using. The key question is "can you set the terms for combat" and clearly the P-38F/G fails because like the Beaufighter it cannot dive to escape and later re-engage. So we should be comparing the P-38F/G with the Beaufighter VIC/F not I/II. Each plane has its own pluses and minuses. I would only give the P-38F/G & H a good chance of a victory against the Me 110.
From 1943 onward their paths digress, the Beaufighter TFX arrives, a low altitude torpedo bomber that can carry rockets or bombs instead of the torpedo. The Lightning in progressive stages through P-38H/J/L becomes a capable plane in a dogfight against the Bf 109G and Fw 190A which clearly the Beaufighter TFX isn't, but this is late in the war, like Spring 1944. The victory counts of the P-38J vs the P-51B/C reflect this and the plane is replaced by the P-51B/C/D/K in the bomber escort role.
I's still stick with my Beaufighter vs Me 110 vs Lightning comparison.

Click to expand...

Oh boy..................
The reason they didn't use the P-38 in Europe in late 1942 and early 1943 had nothing to do with it's dive speed limits. There simply weren't enough to go around (supply all the theaters that wanted them). They were NOT shuffled off to North Africa to get them out of harms way. They were sent to North Africa because the US high command viewed them, rightly or wrongly, as the premier US fighter and the ONLY US fighter capable of meeting the Luftwaffe units in North Africa on an equal footing. Timing is everything.
IF you had delayed operation Torch from Nov 42 to March of 1943 you could have had three groups of P-47s. However...... the 4th fighter group went operational on March 10th with a fighter sweep of 14 P-47s and 12 Spitfires....... during the month there were crashes, dead stick landings, mid-air fires, bailouts, and landing collapses on the runway. oh yeah, the radios don't work.
The P-38s had difficulty in North Africa for a number of reasons. In part you had green pilots (and not enough time in twin engine planes) against veterans (usually doesn't work well regardless of aircraft types) but the US simply didn't have anything else in quantity at the time. The P-39s and Allison P-40s were NOT going to cut it and there were only so many Merlin P-40s available. The Merlin P-40s had yet to prove themselves when the planning for Torch was taking place, First seeing action on Aug 31st? 2 1/2 months is not enough time to establish a combat record/reputation, change production planning/allocations, change the type of fighters assigned to groups and transport them to the invasion sites/battle field.

The British fuel thing is a furphy. The British and Americans decided on a change in fuel specification (although it may have been more of an American decision) that allowed for an increase in aromatics of certain kinds in early 1943 in order to increase production of 100/130 fuel from available base stocks. Not all batches used the allowable limit of these aromatic compounds. This would have had NO effect on P-38s being used in Europe in late 1942 or early 1943 as the fuel had not been delivered yet. Engine makers were told of the change and samples were supplied and engine makers began running tests. Allison started working on a new intake manifold to solve some mixture distribution problems with the "new" fuel. Repeat that not ALL fuel had the amount of aromatics that caused problems. In the meantime Allison and Lockheed change the intercooler design on the P-38 to a more effective design. The USAAC also sticks their oar in the water and instructs P-38 pilots to "cruise" the P-38 in a manner that is the opposite of what both Allison and Lockheed are recommending.

The early P-38s had a problem at high altitude because the original intercooler setup and radiators were too small to handle the power of the newer (newer than 1150hp) engines. The late 1943 P-38s had problems because the new intercoolers over cooled the intake air in cruise settings. This could have been partially remedied by cruising at lower rpm and using more boost from the turbo which would have heated the intake air more before it hit the intercooler. The British had been using low rpm and high boost for quite some time, it was hardly a new technique. in Very late 1943/early 1944 Allison gets the new intake manifolds fitted to the new engines (and ships out manifolds for retrofitting old engines) some units adopt new cruise techniques (although that takes a bit longer) and the problem of "British fuel" (which may not have been British but was available in Britain) goes away.

GrauGeist said:

Not necessarily - the Dragon Slayer (Toryu) had a good top speed, solid rate of climb, excellent service ceiling and was well armed.

It was not properly flown against single-engined fighters early on, but they learned the lesson that most twins did and changed their engagement philosophy to reflect that.

And by "pre-war" - which theater?
The KI-45 was conceived in the late 30's, the PTO hadn't begun in earnest when it was accepted into service.

Click to expand...

Any theater. As you rightly point out they tended to be late 1930's designs which came unstuck against modern single engine fighters.

There seemed to be "class" of heavy fighters (twins) that had two or more crew and much longer range than single engine single seat fighters (of the time) that showed up in the late 30s or 1940/41 depending on country. The actual thinking may have been a bit fuzzy as depending on the country or the exact point in the development there were a variety of jobs they were supposed to be good for. An sometimes, like some warships, if the "Jones's" have got one then we need one theory came into play.
Not what a particular country may have actually needed given it's geography/circumstances. Actual combat experience being a bit lacking and even contradictory, people drawing different conclusions from the Spanish Civil war for instance. Procurement of different types was often dictated by theory in the absence of actual results.

Indeed...the KI-45, for example, was a result of Japan's observations of the Bf110.

The original theory for the KI-45 was to be a heavy fighter slash long-range bomber escort (sound familiar?)

However, theory versus practice soon changed the KI-45's primary mission.

Shortround6 said:

The P-38 was the eventual solution to a requirement that started out in 1936 asking for an interceptor with a minimum speed of 360mph at 20,000ft, 270mph at sea level, a climb to 20,000ft of 6 minutes and an endurance of 1 hour at operating speed.

Click to expand...

Actually, while they did want excellent rate of climb and speed, the fact was that the interceptor designation was basically a way to get around requirements that were imposed upon USAAC aircraft

• No more than 500 pounds of armament on an aircraft: Unsure if this is 500 pounds of guns & ammo, or 500 pounds of guns, and 500 pounds of ammo
• Twin-engines allowed only in pursuit planes with crews in excess of one

This idea was basically spearheaded by both (then) Lieutenants Ben Kelsey and Gordon Saville who had their own ideas on how fighter planes should be, since they couldn't tell a General "this isn't how you do it -- so haul off!" without getting in beacoup trouble, and didn't want to submit to the stipulations, they created a new designation for their fighter: An "interceptor".

Names have power: The criteria for interceptor was an aircraft designed for the tactical mission of intercepting aircraft at high altitudes. Which is just a fighter with a high altitude capability, but the designation change meant that if Kelsey and Saville wanted, for example more than 500 pounds of armament, they could add it; if they felt that two engines were needed: They could add an extra set of engines.

Of course, they weren't too cocky: They realized that there are limits as to what you can do, so they issued specifications for two aircraft. The design they seemed to really want had twin-engines because, but they weren't confident their superiors would accept it lying down... so they issued specifications for a design with a single and twin-engine.

They actually got lucky and both were clearly allowed...

By Feb of 1937 the USAAC was specifying that any proposal HAD to use turbocharged Allison engines.

Click to expand...

It kind of does reflect the desire for high altitude capability, as well as the USAAC's hard-on for turbochargers. Ironically, it did not stop Seversky/Republic from building the XP-41 (which had a twin-stage supercharger).

swampyankee said:

Which WWII fighters should be compared?

Click to expand...

I would go by era because technology tends to advance with time. That said, I would look at what each plane was designed for, and how it performed the roles it was actually used for.

Zipper730, the only restriction on comparisons I would consider inarguable would be between aircraft that don't have combat service that overlaps in time.

Zipper730 said:

Actually, while they did want excellent rate of climb and speed, the fact was that the interceptor designation was basically a way to get around requirements that were imposed upon USAAC aircraft

• No more than 500 pounds of armament on an aircraft: Unsure if this is 500 pounds of guns & ammo, or 500 pounds of guns, and 500 pounds of ammo
• Twin-engines allowed only in pursuit planes with crews in excess of one

This idea was basically spearheaded by both (then) Lieutenants Ben Kelsey and Gordon Saville who had their own ideas on how fighter planes should be, since they couldn't tell a General "this isn't how you do it -- so haul off!" without getting in beacoup trouble, and didn't want to submit to the stipulations, they created a new designation for their fighter: An "interceptor".

Names have power: The criteria for interceptor was an aircraft designed for the tactical mission of intercepting aircraft at high altitudes. Which is just a fighter with a high altitude capability, but the designation change meant that if Kelsey and Saville wanted, for example more than 500 pounds of armament, they could add it; if they felt that two engines were needed: They could add an extra set of engines.

Of course, they weren't too cocky: They realized that there are limits as to what you can do, so they issued specifications for two aircraft. The design they seemed to really want had twin-engines because, but they weren't confident their superiors would accept it lying down... so they issued specifications for a design with a single and twin-engine.

They actually got lucky and both were clearly allowed...
It kind of does reflect the desire for high altitude capability, as well as the USAAC's hard-on for turbochargers. Ironically, it did not stop Seversky/Republic from building the XP-41 (which had a twin-stage supercharger).

I would go by era because technology tends to advance with time. That said, I would look at what each plane was designed for, and how it performed the roles it was actually used for.

Click to expand...

This is definitely a different definition of an interceptor and different development path. The Defiant, Hurricane and Spitfire were all designed for day and night interception with the Spitfire clearly unsuited for the night interception role with its narrow undercarriage. During the BoB the Defiant was withdrawn from day time ops because of its vulnerability to enemy fighters and during the Blitz was out best night fighter as two sets of eyes are better than one, radar being added later and being operated by the gunner. During the Blitz, the Hurricane was our most numerous night fighter.
As for twins, they were required because the Air Ministry thought a twin essential to carry cannon. Westland won the competition with their Whirlwind. For the intruder role the Blenheim I was converted to the IF and a few IVF's operated. Likewise the Mosquito started off as a light bomber and arrived as an intruder in 1943 as the FBVI. In the interim period there were Havocs and Hurricane IIC's used. Specialist night fighting was first the Beaufighter derived from the Beaufort, then the Mosquito. Coastal Command got a Beaufighter variant for patrol duties.
So the reality of war dictated improvisation. The same with the Germans. Once they have the Atlantic coasts of Norway and France, they need a long range patrol fighter which they get in the shape of the Ju 88. Their Destroyer fighter, the Me 110, eventually gets adapted to night fighting.
So only the Beaufighter, Black Widow and He 219 start off as night fighters and get into production and service.
Us Europeans had an entirely different concept of what a twin should be and what it should be used for.
As for the pursuit fighter concept of a fighter to support the army in the field, only the Hurricane was suitable for this role between 1939 and 1942. The Spitfire only arrives on the scene to do this with the Spitfire Vc in mid 1942.
IIRC the Lightning ends up being used as what I would call an Intruder in the ETO.

I don't think the Beaufighter started out as a nightfighter. The nightfighter version came out a month or so later

fubar57 said:

I don't think the Beaufighter started out as a nightfighter. The nightfighter version came out a month or so later

Click to expand...

Quite correct, developed as a heavy fighter, first deployed as a night fighter. I stand corrected.

Meeserschmitt Bf 109 vs Supermarine Spitfire. Every variant by years. Perfect rival ever.

No doubt.