Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

Which fighter gave the best new advantage when introduced?

  • Total voters
    160

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Seems we're devolving into 2 camps here, the "biggest performance advantage" group and the "biggest operational benefit" group. Seems both can live side-by-side so long as we all understand what "advantage" we're talking about.

I'd tend to go with the Me262 in terms of outright performance potential - there really was nothing that could equal it at the time.

For the "operational benefit" group, I'm not so sure the P-51 brought such a great advantage when it was introduced (key word is "introduced" - although I accept this may be splitting hairs somehwat!) because the Allison engine performance was decidedly mediocre. It was the later versions, allying a great airframe with a superb engine (ahhhh, sigh for a Merlin) that made the P-51 into a war-winner. I know the list specifically calls out the P-51B but that was a development of an existing type - why not specify versions for the other aircraft like the MkIX Spit that was designed to counter the Fw190 threat?

Proving operational advantage is much more difficult than defining a performance advantage - subjectivity and local operational conditions impact the decision to a great extent. I think, on balance, I'd have to go with the Zero which really wiped the floor with pretty much all its opposition until superior numbers and tactics neutralized its performance advantage.

Just my two penn'orth!
 
Last edited:
Say you were an army without aircraft, and were confronted by an opposing army that did have aircraft, albeit of limited performance. Despite that caveat, the air supported army has an infinite advantage over its opponents.

Technologically I cannot argue with the 262 being a huge advance. But operationally it was a near washout, because of the unresolved technical difficulties it faced. For reasons not all of which relate directly to the aircraft the operational readiness rate for the 262 was kept very low.....I have read that of the 1300 produced, perhaps 100 actually flew with perhaps 25 operational at any given time. But as an aerial performer, the 262 probably held a performance advantage few other situations could match, before or after its debut.

So the issue gets down to how you define advantage....do you compare theoretical performance, or do you rate operational advantage....thats why I supprted the Zero.....it contributed materially to the early Japanese run of success that had impacts that are still evident, in a political sense today.....the Japanese victories shattered the myth of white supremacy that led to the rise of non-european nationalism in the post war era.....thats a considerable impact in my opinion.
 
somehow I feel that the P-38 would have done the very same thing. Its range was also sufficient.
Click to expand...
Its reliability was insufficient and its cost was more than sufficient.

The Me 262 simply came too late and couldn't achieve anything. But it did "bring the biggest new advantage when introduced".
Click to expand...
It may have promised an advantage but it didn't actually create one. To bring an advantage it should have some effect towards some goal. Think about this sequence:

"We now have a tremendous advantage!"
"Excellent, Can we achieve air superiority?"
"No."
"Can we inflict heavy losses on their bombers?"
"No."
"What can we do that we couldn't do yesterday?"
"Not a bloody thing sir, but we can brag about designing it after we lose."
"Not very advantageous, is it?"
 
But operationally it was a near washout, because of the unresolved technical difficulties it faced.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would exclude it from being an advantage. Those technical difficulties were engine life, pilot training, and failure to realize the potential in a timely manner - obstacles to be overcome just as the P-51B evolved into the 'D'. I would think with the mentioned criteria, then we need to discount the P-51B as it seems anything related would ultimatley be based on the performance of the 'D' model irregardless. The 262 was, on its own, a major slap in the face to every SOP.
 
parsifal said:
So the issue gets down to how you define advantage....do you compare theoretical performance, or do you rate operational advantage.
Click to expand...

Parsifal, we are in complete agreement. Per my preceding post, there is a performance advantage and an operational advantage but the two are not necessarily synonymous. From the sounds of things, Clay is actually in agreement - he's just stressing the operational advantage argument.
 
When you hear the numbers of craft produced vs. craft flow you mustn't forget that the larger part was assembled in '45 where there was little fuel or pilots left to fly them and the whole logistical infrastructure was a mess.

Anyways P-51 B takes the cake. The Me 109s over spain were mostly of the older B/C type, the performance advantage over the I-16 was there but the latter was still a contender. The E type came in only late and in few numbers iirc.
 
Last edited:
Well considering the difficulties facing the LW in late 1944 to 45, both in terms of crew training, lack of fuel, complete lack of airspace security and the massive bombing of German industry citys. Then the fact that roughly 100 Me262's were to account for roughly 600 Allied aircraft during the period late 44 to 45 is a big testament to how excellent a machine the Me262 truly was. It was way ahead of its time, something which was confirmed by everyone who flew it.

The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service.
 
Soren said:
Then the fact that roughly 100 Me262's were to account for roughly 600 Allied aircraft during the period late 44 to 45 is a big testament to how excellent a machine the Me262 truly was. .
Click to expand...
Luftwaffe claims late in the war were highly exaggerated (the same issue we run across with claims by late war piston LW fighters, LW claims were pretty accurate in some phases of the war, but 'out to lunch' near the end of the war). Me 262's didn't down anywhere near as many Allied a/c as they claimed, and Allied fighters downed over 100 Me-262's that are documented in German accounts (compared to quite few Allied piston fighter losses to 262's). So a lot more than 100 Me 262's saw action; many were lost to other causes as well.

To understand that the 262 *promised* a great advantage, but didn't achieve one in practice, you have to use the real numbers for its successes and losses. As basic reference I'd consult "Me 262 Combat Diary" by Foreman and Harvey, which documents most Me 262 actions from both sides.

Joe
 
Last edited:

I totally agree with that statement Soren. Very simple, straightforward way to phrase it.
 
Soren, please provide your sources to show that each 262 brought down an average of 60 allied aircraft. The top 262 ace had 17 kills. Were there 1000 different pilots flying the 100 or so fielded at any given time 262s???? Do the math....

I think August 1944 was the Me-262's best month at least as claims go - 19 allied aircraft "claimed." I think the most 262s ever used in one mission was just under 40 and that was in March 1945. From memory I think the 262s brought down 13 aircraft for the loss of three of their own.

I believe in reality the 262 shot down about 150 allied aircraft for a loss of about 100 of their own. I believe this is even mentioned in the book "Arrow to the Future" be Walter Boyne

There is no doubt the Me 262 changed the face of aerial combat but no way did 100 Me 262s bring down 600 allied aircraft.......
 
Last edited:
I believe that there is a difference between

a) Fighter that brought the biggest performance advantage when introduced
b) Fighter that brought the Biigest advantage when introduced

If its (a) that your after, then the 262 is the runaway winner
If its (b) that your after, then it isn't the 262

The 262 didn't change anything, it had the potential to had it been 6-9 months earlier, but it wasn't earlier and didn't change anything.

The P51B did change something, it allowed the USAAF to undertake long range missions over enemy held areas, a huge advantage and most importantly, an advantage that it never lost. The Zero had the same advantage early on in the Pacific War but it lost the edge and the advantage was lost. A number of the aircraft on the list such as the Fw190 gained a temporary advantage but lost it, the P51 however never lost the advantage it gained and for that reason had my vote.
 
~150 were the numbers I heard as well.

The 262 "promised" an advantage but it did not truly deliver more than a very small one (150 aircraft out of how many?). It did not turn the tide or even cause a ripple in it. It was a deck chair on the titanic that affected the future but did not affect the war. If the money on the entire project had been spent on buying more Bf-109Zs, it wouldn't have made any difference to anybody prior to May 1945.
 
the 354th FG, 352nd, 357th, 355th and 4th FG - between March 1 through May 30, 1944 - destroyed a total of 900 German fighters in P-51B's during that 90 day period - and for the 352 and 355 that wasn't a full 90 days in 51s as they were converting from P-47s.

That would be ~ 250 fighters operational over Germany. Contrast the Me 262 record despite exceptional performance and firepower advantage.
 


60 or 6?
 
Vincenzo said:
60 or 6?
Click to expand...

Sixty - 60 - Six-Zero.

It would of meant that at any given time the 100 or so operational Me 262s would have had to shoot down SIXTY (60) allied aircraft per operational Me 262 - that would have been 600 allied aircraft downed by 262s as Soren claims.
 
Last edited:
JV 44 shot down 47 aircraft April/ May of 1945 They operated from March to May. The 8th AF claimed 1233 encounters with the 262 and or Me 163 and claimed 146 kills, 11 probables and 150 damaged - the 8th admitted the loss of 10 fighters and 52 bombers to "jets." (Toliver)
 
The ratio of kills by 262s has been discuss at length in another thread and Erich and others gave the sources. I go with Joe on the numbers.

Bill, those FGs were flying 'B' models that late in the war?
 
To be fair, the allies did take exceptional steps to keep the 262 formations suppressed....things like constant air patrols over their known bases, and absolute trolloping of their logistic tails like fuel supplies and the like.

Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register