Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

Renrich,

It all depends on wether the attacker is an experienced pilot or not, cause the experienced pilot will not allow himself to overshoot in the manner you suggest. If the P-51 pilot sees the Me262 coming in from behind and makes a sharp turn to evade, then he will give the Me262 a window in which to get a deflection shot. He can only avoid this by doing a half barrel roll, making a deflection shot almost impossible. Now if the Me262 pilot misses with his burst, then providing he knows what he's doing he will simply pull up and climb away to gain altitude for another pass. And the exact same was the case when the A6M Zero and F4U Corsair squared off against each other, the Corsair pilot wasn't going to try and match the Zero's turn, that would've been a dumb move.

Soren, Are you saying that an attacker in a pure pursuit in a ME262 with around 100 mph overtake speed can, if the defender in a P51 makes a hard turn, also turn hard enough to pull lead and take a tracking shot? A Meteor, with a lower wing loading than the ME262, could not turn with a P51 so I don't believe that a ME262 could either, especially going 100 mph faster.

The consensus during all of WW2 was that speed is more important than turning ability. How is it that this is not valid anymore now? Can, under the ideal circumstances you proposed, a Zero evade an attack by a Corsair? Likely. What was the reality? The Zeros got slaughtered.

riacrato said:

The consensus during all of WW2 was that speed is more important than turning ability. How is it that this is not valid anymore now? Can, under the ideal circumstances you proposed, a Zero evade an attack by a Corsair? Likely. What was the reality? The Zeros got slaughtered.

Click to expand...

I think it was somewhat more complicated actually. The big advantage of speed was to be able to engage and disengage at will, so only fight when the circumstances were favorable. But speed wasn't the only determinant of that. You mentioned the reality, which for P-51 v Me-262 was generally different from idealized one on one match up, where besides being generally idealized almost never consider the differing endurance of the two a/c. In a typical situation, 262, though greatly faster, was often fuel limited, even right near its bases, compared to much easier fuel situation of P-51's. So even if the 262 went on the offensive, the alert and reasonably skille P-51 pilot, also enjoying superb visibility in the P-51D could usally turn into the attack of a faster a/c and force a deflection shot few WWII pilots could make. The problem with such a tactic comes when the slower plane must disengage on account of fuel and numerous fast enemy are still around to chase it down, but that was seldom the case in 'the reality' between P-51's and Me-262's which is one reason the real kill ratio of P-51 v Me-262 was probably more favorable than F4U v Zero, actually.*

*I still haven't seen specific evidence contradicting Foreman/Harvey book data, plus our own poster Drgondog's specific data that quite few P-51's were actually downed by Me-262's perhaps less than 10, though 262's claimed a lot, German late WWII claims were generally quite exaggerated, while something like a 100 262's were downed by P-51's. But even quibbling with those numbers, the real kill ratio of F4U to Zero wasn't anywhere near that. The total claimed ratio of F4U's against all opponents for the war, not just fighters, was 11:1, but that's at least a 2:1 overstatement. In Solomons 1943 the real ratio was definely much less than half that, no way as high as P-51 v Me-262, though it was generally in favor of the F4U after a few early unsuccessful combats (for example the 'Valentines Day Massacre', Feb 14 1943, 4 P-38's, 2 P-40's, 2 F4U's, 2 PB4Y's lost v 1 Zero lost) and moreover would be compared to a 1:1 ratio at best that any Allied fighter managed v Zeroes in 1942 (any 1942 fighter with a lot of combats that is, P-38's did well against Zeroes in a handful of combats right at the end of '42); and it would also be compared to highly unfavorable ratio's of many Allied types in 1942 and even some in 1943 (like the Spitfire V) v Zeroes.

Joe

I was simplifying on purpose. Though I generally agree on your points, comparing kill ratios in this particular case is kind of futile due to the different missions of the two fighters (P-51 and Me 262), almost opposite mission profiles in fact.

I stand by my point that when pitted directly against each other, a squadron of Me 262s vs a squadron of late war piston fighters, all else being equal, my money is on the jets. It rarely (if ever) happened like that, yet I doubt that the 'laws' established by the leading air forces and more or less proven during the years before for piston-vs-piston aircraft and later for jet-vs-piston and finally jet-vs-jet aircraft are somehow not applicable here: And that is that speed, climb and ceiling are more important than turning circle and maneuverability.

renrich said:

Soren, Are you saying that an attacker in a pure pursuit in a ME262 with around 100 mph overtake speed can, if the defender in a P51 makes a hard turn, also turn hard enough to pull lead and take a tracking shot? A Meteor, with a lower wing loading than the ME262, could not turn with a P51 so I don't believe that a ME262 could either, especially going 100 mph faster.

Click to expand...

Renrich - strictly speaking the a/c overtaking from a high speed from 5-7 O'Clock WILL have a snap deflection shot available if the pursued sees him and times a hard break accordingly - the issue is that a very small window to shoot is available to a high deflection shot and no real opportunity to track the adversary with a pursuit curve.

A good analogy is combat film showing a Zero pull high G turn in front of a Hellcat or P-38 - then disappear from the film. If the rudder and stick input isn't perfect the pursuing fighter needs to just keep boring straight ahead.

Bill, you are making the point I have tried to make. Another example of that is Saburo's relating of his incident over, I think, Okinawa when his A6M was set upon by several Hellcats. He evaded them all until his arms were worn out and they finally gave up. He only had one eye also. I repeat again not verbatim from Shaw's book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering," that a well flown and aware defender can make it almost impossible for a gun's attacker to be successful. In trying to digest his book, which is highly technical and which forces the reader to think in three dimensions, I have come to realise how difficult it must have been in WW2 to actually make hits on another fighter. It makes one understand why Hartmann's tactics were to get so close that

the enemy AC filled his windshield before opening fire.

renrich said:

Bill, you are making the point I have tried to make. Another example of that is Saburo's relating of his incident over, I think, Okinawa when his A6M was set upon by several Hellcats. He evaded them all until his arms were worn out and they finally gave up. He only had one eye also. I repeat again not verbatim from Shaw's book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering," that a well flown and aware defender can make it almost impossible for a gun's attacker to be successful. In trying to digest his book, which is highly technical and which forces the reader to think in three dimensions, I have come to realise how difficult it must have been in WW2 to actually make hits on another fighter. It makes one understand why Hartmann's tactics were to get so close that

the enemy AC filled his windshield before opening fire.

Click to expand...

You made the point - I just amplified it a tad..

I would say the Me 262. It brought great secrets to life and surprised the enemy.

I know this thread has been pretty dead for almost a year, but I want to put in a case for the F6F Hellcat. The A6M Zero was the first naval air superiority fighter, but the F6F beat the Zero at its own game. From the beginning of the Hellcat era in the summer of 1943, the Americans only lost one fast carrier to air attack, and ththat was the light carrier Princeton which was the victim of a single lucky hit. The raids on Truk in February 1944 and the Marianas "Turkey Shoot" in June showed that the F6F could reign supreme over the best opposition the enemy could offer. From that point on the Pacific was an American lake. The US Navy could go where it wanted whenever it wanted.

One could argue that the F4U Corsair could have performed the same role. The Corsair was just as good a fighter plane as the F6F, but it wasn't as good a carrier plane. The Hellcat's low operational loss rate was as much a factor in its success as its kill ratio. That the F6F was ready to go when the new fast carriers were ready, and that it was available for carrier duty in the quantities needed at least until the major kamikaze attacks of 1945, is why I nominate the F6F as the fighter that gained the best new advantage when it was introduced.

The Me262 had more of a performance advantage, but it was an advantage that couldn't be exploited by the Germans. The P51B was important but it was only available in limited quantities until March 1944. In the meantime, the P-47 units had made a lot of headway in taking out the cream of the German pilots. The P-38 was also available for long-range escort about the same time as the P-51.

Nobody can deny that F6F was the great CV fighter, bringing in a combination of good handling, decent performance, useful punch and combat radius.
But it was not the F6F that turned Pacific into American lake, that would be F4F, P-38/-39/-40, along with SBD and other, not only US planes pilots, greatly aided by use of radar, and a bucket of luck. By the time F6F started to show in numbers, the Japanese best were not best anymore, not the pilots, nor the CV arcraft.

The P-51B have had an advantage in pursuing the LW deep into Germany, close to Polish border. Not even the flight schools were immune to P-51s. It took time for the P-47 to achieve that, by basing it on the Continent, but by then the LW presented no problems for Allied AFs.

Conslaw said:

The Me262 had more of a performance advantage, but it was an advantage that couldn't be exploited by the Germans. The P51B was important but it was only available in limited quantities until March 1944. In the meantime, the P-47 units had made a lot of headway in taking out the cream of the German pilots. The P-38 was also available for long-range escort about the same time as the P-51.

Click to expand...

Statistically, only two P-51B equipped Fighter Groups were operational in January 1944, namely the 354th (9AF) and 357th (8AF). Their impact however far exceeded their numerical strength versus the operational P-47 groups in the ETO (11). During Big week (2/20/44 to 2/25/44) the Mustangs destroyed 64.5 to 78 for the P-47 Groups despite comprising less than 13% of the escort fighters in the air.

By the end of March, the three P-51B Groups destroyed more German aircraft in the air than all the P-47 victory credits for 1944 Jan-March,
By the end of May the six operational P-51B groups had destroyed more in the air (and far more on the ground) than ALL the P-47 Victory credits Mar 1943 through May 30 1944 in the ETO for both 8th and 9th AF combined.

There were no P51D victory credits until June 1944 so the air war victory over the LW in 1st half of 1944 belonged to the P-51B.

The P-38 was important but not as significant in any respect (air combat or strafing) as the P-51 and P-47 by a very wide margin.

Having said that I voted for the 262 as the most dramatic capability leap during WWII.

Having said that I voted for the 262 as the most dramatic capability leap during WWII.

Click to expand...

End of discussion.

As much as the P-51 brought to the table in WWII (which was tremendous), I agree that the 262 brought the best "new" advantage.

What did the p51b 'give' exactly? Except the better wing design.

It give plenty. If we talk about technicalities:
The wing itself was not only of low drag (due to shape exceptional finish), but also featuring enough of space to contain plenty of fuel, armament, ammo, along with space for the U/C to retract flush. Since all of that was located in the wing, it was no hassle to install an additional fuel tank in fuselage.
The design of radiator cmpartment was maybe the best of all inline-engined planes that saw combat in ww2, almost nullifyin the cooling drag.
Once the low-drag, plenty-of-fuel aircraft was mated with 2 stage engine, you have a great fighter. Compared with other planes that were offering performance combat range in the same time, it was far cheaper to produce operate.

Those technicalities tuned into great strategical advantages: the low drag and competent engines allowed the plane to out pace anything Axis had, by a wide margin (an odd jet excluded), great fuel tankage allowed bringing the war deep into enemy-held airspace. The uncomplicated concept allowed to the production to ramp up, a great thing in a major war, that enabled both USAF Allied airforces to field it in good numbers.

Looking at it from a different angle. I think the Fokker Eindecker deserves a mention. It wasn't a great airframe but it did bring the forward firing gun into the front line using interupter gear and it dominated the sky for a while until the allies caught up. The forward firing gun has stayed from then until now with few exceptions, The Defiant/Roc debacle and the early F4's who soon realised the error of the ways.

So there it is, I believe the Eindecker deserves a nod.

tomo pauk said:

It give plenty. If we talk about technicalities:
The wing itself was not only of low drag (due to shape exceptional finish), but also featuring enough of space to contain plenty of fuel, armament, ammo, along with space for the U/C to retract flush. Since all of that was located in the wing, it was no hassle to install an additional fuel tank in fuselage.
The design of radiator cmpartment was maybe the best of all inline-engined planes that saw combat in ww2, almost nullifyin the cooling drag.
Once the low-drag, plenty-of-fuel aircraft was mated with 2 stage engine, you have a great fighter. Compared with other planes that were offering performance combat range in the same time, it was far cheaper to produce operate.

Those technicalities tuned into great strategical advantages: the low drag and competent engines allowed the plane to out pace anything Axis had, by a wide margin (an odd jet excluded), great fuel tankage allowed bringing the war deep into enemy-held airspace. The uncomplicated concept allowed to the production to ramp up, a great thing in a major war, that enabled both USAF Allied airforces to field it in good numbers.

Click to expand...

That's actually what i ment it was a very good design and also clever but there was already a plane with a big range, wich means you don't realy can call that a best "new" advantage.

AirWolf said:

That's actually what i ment it was a very good design and also clever but there was already a plane with a big range, wich means you don't realy can call that a best "new" advantage.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant - you were pointing into one item from the whole aircraft, in a vague terminology ("the better wing design" - that meaning what?).
Also, in my post I've mentioned some other plane's qualities, not only the great combat range (plus the lack of detrimental compressibility effects, due to the very wing), that other long range planes lacked, be that Bf-110, P-38 or Zero. That giving the answer to your "What did the p51b 'give' exactly?" question.

With the better wing disign, I ment the thing you sad about having 'everything' put in to it and the lesser drag it had compared to other planes than. The 'only'thing that it 'gave' was a way to be everything in one, and in my book that isn't really a reason to name it the best 'new advantage if it was there already, the only thing that was done from my point of view was making the concept better. instead of making something new like the first real monoplane fighter or the first long range fighter.
Having said that I get your point of being the first that putted all those things good together.
But that still doesn't make it the best 'new' advantage for me.

magnocain said:

The Me262 by far.

Click to expand...

Agreed