Most successful fighter in WWII

[westwall]

Unless you were Pappy Boyington.

Of course, he was not a great example as he was ultimately shot down.

Yes, that is true, however that was on a fighter sweep over Rabaul. So he wasn't flying solo.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes, that is true, however that was on a fighter sweep over Rabaul. So he wasn't flying solo.

I was actually thinking of his famous attack at Kahili, where he and his force circled the field in order to goad the Japanese into sending up planes against them. And letting them get airborne before shooting them down rather than shooting them on the ground. The commonly accepted reason was that air to air kills are tracked differently, and he wanted to record air kills. In essence he was showboating, and should have taken the kills however he could have gotten them instead of waiting for the enemy to take to the skies so they would be recorded as air kills.

And he was not alone then either, but had his entire squadron orbit the field until the Japanese took off. Then he would lead each attack on them once they took to the air so he got most of the kills.

 

[westwall]

I was actually thinking of his famous attack at Kahili, where he and his force circled the field in order to goad the Japanese into sending up planes against them. And letting them get airborne before shooting them down rather than shooting them on the ground. The commonly accepted reason was that air to air kills are tracked differently, and he wanted to record air kills. In essence he was showboating, and should have taken the kills however he could have gotten them instead of waiting for the enemy to take to the skies so they would be recorded as air kills.

And he was not alone then either, but had his entire squadron orbit the field until the Japanese took off. Then he would lead each attack on them once they took to the air so he got most of the kills.

There is actually an argument that it was better to go for the air to air kills in that case because of the AAA which was pretty significant.

 

[Likkmee]

I feel like getting into a knock down and tumble fight. What long ranged fighter had the most affect for the Allies in WWII?

Pretty much, you can discount all British Fighters. Yes, even the coveted Mossie. If the Mossie found it's way into a one v one against a FW190, it was time to get the hell out of there using it's top speed. Therefore, Fighter Sweeps, Bomber Escorts and such were out of the question. And none of the fighters produced in a large quantity had the range to go very far into France much less Germany.

It brings it down to the big 3. The P-38, P-47 and P-51.

The first "Fighter" that was over Berlin ended up there by itself because it's bomber group turned back an no one told the fighters. That was 1943. So they turned it into something brand new, a Fighter sweep. Wonderful success. At that time, the only P-51 that was available was the Allisson Engined A model and it neither had the range nor the altitude to do the job. The A-36 Apache was just a P-51A depending what country was flying it. At that time, the only 400mph+ fighter was the Lightning and it had more than enough range to reach berlin, cause havoc and return. The problem is, starting in 1942 to the middle of 1943, they made the P-38 fly with the bombers. This resulted in the P-38 to be closer to his stall speed than his combat speed. No fighter could protect the bombers like that. Plus, all the mechanical problems that were completely ironed out by August 1943 and had the J models in the field. At the same time, they released the P-38 to fly ahead and above the fighters and ambush enemy fighter formation. This also allowed the P-47 to get a big string of air kills because they did this up to the German Border escorting bombers. The Luftwaffe was finally starting to lose in a big way and more and more bombers got through. Until then the P-38G and below had all sorts of problems not related to the Aircraft itself. The lack of training on twin engine Fighters (the P-38 was the only one in AAF and the 2 seater humpback wasn't introduced yet), the cockpit was below zero at 20K and higher and there was no heat. They did try and use Bomber Heated Flight Suits but that was just a stopgap. In 1942, until the middle of 1943, the Luftwaffe outnumbered the P-38 11 to 1 the the Luftwaffe had a 11 to one kill rate. From August 1943 to the end, the P-38s chalked up a 11 to 1 kill rate. Both the P-38 and P-47 would strafe on their way back and destroy a whole bunch of trains, trucks and other military targets all through the war.

The P-47 was introduced in numbers in 1942. But it had a range problem. As long as it was in range, it was a mighty fighter as long as you kept it off the deck. All the good things I said about the P-38 also goes for the P-47 except it didn't operate over Germany until the allies had bases in France. Without it, though, the allies would have run completely out of P-38s and daylight bombers.

The P-51 was originally introduced as the A-36A or the P-51A. It used the Allisson Engine without the turbosupercharger. Meaning, it was pretty good from 15K and below but above that and it ran out of power fast. It wasn't much better than a P-40. But when it was married to the Packard Merlin with the 2 Speed 2 Stage Supercharger, it really woke up. While the first B flew in late 1942, it didn't go into full production until September 1943. By then, the P-38J-25 was already being used. The P-51C was produced starting in October 1943 and was the same as the B, just out of a different city. What the AAF had to look at is, the P-51B/C took half the training and cost half as much as a P-38J-25 even though the P-38 was the better overall fighter. What slowed the P-38 down for bomber escort was when lemay decided to do a test between the P-51B and P-47 to find out which one was the better Bomber Escort. He left out the P-38. The P-51B narrowly won as they had not completely figured out the proper way to distrubute the P-51 fuel load yet. Before they figured that out, there were still days when the p-38 was chosen for bomber escort when the B-24s went to eastern Germany which was beyond the range of the p-51 or when they ran out of P-51s. The P-51B didn't start to come into England until late December and early January. By then, the P-38 and the P-47 had severely cut down the Luftwaffe. Oh, there still were plenty to shoot at but not like it was. By the time the Mustang came in force, they were well into the fighter sweeps. BTW, the worst of the 3 for the ground fighter sweeps was the P-51.

Overall, I would have to pick the P-38 which would narrowly win out over the P-47 for the most affective WWII long ranged fighter. The P-51 had slightly more than a year of participation while the other two slugged it out all the way through.

This one

Desmond Doss - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh, I know what it was. And as I said, the Wildcats needed to stay closer together to implement it while the Zero's orbited out of reach. So long as the threat was there, the Wildcats couldn't take off after the bombers. That is a simple fact. Fortunately those situations rarely occurred. And, as the war continued, and the Japanese fuel situation worsened, they had fewer and fewer well trained pilots to counter us.

You’re wrong, to use the weave, wingmen had to fly further apart to allow room to maneuver. USAAF and Luftwaffe wingmen tended to fly much tighter formations with the leader doing the shooting and the wingman covering him from attack. In the weave either the leader or wingman could be the attacker depending on who the Japanese pilot attacked.

 

[westwall]

You’re wrong, to use the weave, wingmen had to fly further apart to allow room to maneuver. USAAF and Luftwaffe wingmen tended to fly much tighter formations with the leader doing the shooting and the wingman covering him from attack. In the weave either the leader or wingman could be the attacker depending on who the Japanese pilot attacked.

It is a variant of the finger four, which means they MUST stay within a practical distance otherwise the enemy does a Split S, zaps yous ass, and zooms back to altitude before you can get to your buddies side to help him.

I am a pilot, clearly you aren't.

I am rated to fly warbirds. Clearly you aren't.

I DO fly warbirds, clearly you don't.

 

[Kruska]

When the ETO ended, there were only two countries with over 500 mile per hour jet fighters and that was Germany (ME262) and the US (5 in Italy YP-80) I still believe the AR234 was the cause to place those 5 P-80s into Italy. It wasn't a coincidence that about that time the ARs ceased to operate over Italy. By the time VJ Day arrived, the P-80 exceeded 600mph which was about 100 mph faster than anything you could fly with a prop. Given a little more time and resources, the ME262 could have reached that speed as well.

Britain went through a small bubble on their leading. But by 1948 they had lost all to the US and it pretty well stayed that way for at least a decade. About the time Britain would come out with something good, the US or France would already have something as good or better already flying. Time to break out the conspiracy theories on this one.

It took Germany 30 years to get on track to become competitive.

Not wanting to make a big fuss about the P-80 - since it didn't contribute to WW2. Strange enough it also never saw action in the PTO - or am I missing something?

You state 5 P-80's were stationed in Italy - from sources that I know off, it is stated 2 P-80's were stationed in Italy and none saw combat action.
So I would rather tend to say that the ceased operations by the Ar's must have had a different reason - then due to 2 or 5 P-80's that never saw action.

The speed you mentioned e..g 600mph is probably a testing flight speed - not in a combat configuration - sources that I read upon mention a combat speed of around 500mph. at 40,000 feet or 550mph at sea-level. But it certainly was a promising aircraft. It would have been really interesting to see as to how it would have performed against the Me-262 or the Me-P1011.

Britain indeed lost it's edge after the war - I guess simply due to returning to peace and not having the $ to continue large scale developments. My favorite post-war British aircraft is the Hawker-Hunter. Love these New Zealanders for keeping it in action for so long. Luftwaffe ahh.. German government having bought the Gina instead - aaargh.
Germany as you know was left out in that regard for 10 years - aside from projects run by Kurt Tank - in e.g. India, Egypt and Argentina
From the 50's to 70's, Germany for some strange reason was almost entirely involved towards VTOL technology. Came up with some interesting aircraft's too.

As long as the EU can't collaborate or initiate a general fusion of it's aeronautic companies-know-how and therefore provide the financial backing - Europe will never be a match for the USA or China's aeronautic industry.

Aside from our above topic - what about a nomination for the Northrop P-61? It was a fighter-aircraft after-all - any specific reasons in view of its rather poor performance towards kill statistics? or why wasn't it used during day-light operations? - it's radar could see further then the normal eye.
Quote:
American pilots loved their P-61s. They praised its handling qualities as it could perform all sorts of aerobatics and it had a gentle stall behavior. Full control could be maintained on one engine—even when fully loaded. It could be slow-rolled into a dead engine, a maneuver that was devastating on the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.4 Its turning radius was excellent, and it gave some single-engine fighters a good run for their money.

 

[Kruska]

You’re wrong, to use the weave, wingmen had to fly further apart to allow room to maneuver. USAAF and Luftwaffe wingmen tended to fly much tighter formations with the leader doing the shooting and the wingman covering him from attack. In the weave either the leader or wingman could be the attacker depending on who the Japanese pilot attacked.

Could it be that you are too much into a stereotype view regarding the wing-man? especially from movies - sorry no offense meant.
The "lookout" was done in general before the leader or his wing-man decided to go in for the kill off the chosen target. The average distance of a Luftwaffe wing-man flying in an offset position to his leader before maybe being jumped upon by an opponent was 150-200m. Only over controlled territory (known to contain no enemy) - the formation distance between two aircraft was around 50m-100m. Aside from those close distances due to propaganda shots.

During Luftwaffe runs onto Allied bomber pulks - the average distance was 200m+, because no one wanted to create a cluster - easy identifiable for the escorts or bomber crews.

The average distance of a Luftwaffe wing-man to his leader during a swoop in/sneak up was 500m+ (since one wouldn't want to enhance the discovery of the leader) During a controlled dogfight with FT relayed commands by his leader it was 300m+

What m distance number would you regard to be a "tighter formation"?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Could it be that you are too much into a stereotype view regarding the wing-man? especially from movies - sorry no offense meant.
The "lookout" was done in general before the leader or his wing-man decided to go in for the kill off the chosen target. The average distance of a Luftwaffe wing-man flying in an offset position to his leader before maybe being jumped upon by an opponent was 150-200m. Only over controlled territory (known to contain no enemy) - the formation distance between two aircraft was around 50m-100m. Aside from those close distances due to propaganda shots.

During Luftwaffe runs onto Allied bomber pulks - the average distance was 200m+, because no one wanted to create a cluster - easy identifiable for the escorts or bomber crews.

The average distance of a Luftwaffe wing-man to his leader during a swoop in/sneak up was 500m+ (since one wouldn't want to enhance the discovery of the leader) During a controlled dogfight with FT relayed commands by his leader it was 300m+

What m distance number would you regard to be a "tighter formation"?

That's actually wider spacing than I thought weas happening. I thought a hundred meters was wide spacing for the Luftwaffe.

 

[Vrenn]

Not wanting to make a big fuss about the P-80 - since it didn't contribute to WW2. Strange enough it also never saw action in the PTO - or am I missing something?

You state 5 P-80's were stationed in Italy - from sources that I know off, it is stated 2 P-80's were stationed in Italy and none saw combat action.
So I would rather tend to say that the ceased operations by the Ar's must have had a different reason - then due to 2 or 5 P-80's that never saw action.

It could be a coincidence or a plan. I hate coincidences, myself.

The speed you mentioned e..g 600mph is probably a testing flight speed - not in a combat configuration - sources that I read upon mention a combat speed of around 500mph. at 40,000 feet or 550mph at sea-level. But it certainly was a promising aircraft. It would have been really interesting to see as to how it would have performed against the Me-262 or the Me-P1011.

The XP and YP-80 had a top speed of 520 and 540 which is exactly what the ME262 had. Between the two, it would have come down to the pilot. And the 262 likely would have the more senior pilot in it. Right after VG Day, the P-80C was introduced with it's 600 mph top speed and it's 50,000 foot service. The US was very busy stea.....er..... barrowing from the Brits for engines. Until the day that the US starting putting out it's Axial Flow which German stole blind in the late 30s. But in the many, many decades, the P-80 and T-33 still used the centrifuge engine line the whittle.

Britain indeed lost it's edge after the war - I guess simply due to returning to peace and not having the $ to continue large scale developments. My favorite post-war British aircraft is the Hawker-Hunter. Love these New Zealanders for keeping it in action for so long. Luftwaffe ahh.. German government having bought the Gina instead - aaargh.
Germany as you know was left out in that regard for 10 years - aside from projects run by Kurt Tank - in e.g. India, Egypt and Argentina
From the 50's to 70's, Germany for some strange reason was almost entirely involved towards VTOL technology. Came up with some interesting aircraft's too.

My favorite was the VFW VAK 191B based on the German Built Lockheed F-104 Lightning.

As long as the EU can't collaborate or initiate a general fusion of it's aeronautic companies-know-how and therefore provide the financial backing - Europe will never be a match for the USA or China's aeronautic industry.

Yah, but German can build one hell of a Tank even today. Please send another 100 to Ukraine.

Aside from our above topic - what about a nomination for the Northrop P-61? It was a fighter-aircraft after-all - any specific reasons in view of its rather poor performance towards kill statistics? or why wasn't it used during day-light operations? - it's radar could see further then the normal eye.
Quote:
American pilots loved their P-61s. They praised its handling qualities as it could perform all sorts of aerobatics and it had a gentle stall behavior. Full control could be maintained on one engine—even when fully loaded. It could be slow-rolled into a dead engine, a maneuver that was devastating on the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.4 Its turning radius was excellent, and it gave some single-engine fighters a good run for their money.

The problem is, right after that kind of move, it lost all it's energy and would become helpless to almost any fighter. So they kept it out of that situation. It was a hit and run bird. You can't hit what you can't see.

 

[whitehall]

The Japanese Zero racked up a score against U.S. fighters early in the war. They were light weight and maneuverable but lacked armor.

 

[Mushroom]

The Japanese Zero racked up a score against U.S. fighters early in the war. They were light weight and maneuverable but lacked armor.

Or puncture sealing fuel tanks.

One of the most effective tactics after that was discovered was simply shooting the wings until they saw fuel spilling out. At that point they could break off, confident that the odds were slim it could even return to base even if it did not go down right away. And most times the pilot would try to quickly break contact and escape, in the hopes they could return before they lost all their fuel.

 

[Kruska]

That's actually wider spacing than I thought weas happening. I thought a hundred meters was wide spacing for the Luftwaffe.

It depends on the situation, e.g. type of enemy aircraft, altitude, surrounding situation, etc. and most importantly what instructions or purpose the Schwarm or Wing-leader had in mind. The distances I forwarded to you are just exemplary - again due to respective conditions.
No other enemy aircraft around - and the Wing-leader might take this opportunity to teach/instruct an inexperienced wing-man. In such a scenario the Wing-man would follow in a very close proximity of 20-30m, not offset but commonly in line with the Wing-leader. In such a scenario the Wing-man would not be able to execute a weave.

I just wanted to get an idea from you in regards to what you consider to be an appropriate distance to perform a weave. Therefore I tried to point out to you that a common flight executed formation based on a regular 4 finger or two man team (as described in my previous post) does not exclude or hinder a pilot from performing a Thach weave.

From descriptions I had gotten from former Luftwaffe pilots - the very close flight-formation usually applied by the US fighter-escorts during a pursuit did not permit for a weave maneuver - so the US close persuit formation (approx. 15-30m spacing) commonly executed in line, was usually deadly for an inexperienced Luftwaffe pilot - but a present from heaven for an experienced Luftwaffe pilot.

 

[Vrenn]

It depends on the situation, e.g. type of enemy aircraft, altitude, surrounding situation, etc. and most importantly what instructions or purpose the Schwarm or Wing-leader had in mind. The distances I forwarded to you are just exemplary - again due to respective conditions.
No other enemy aircraft around - and the Wing-leader might take this opportunity to teach/instruct an inexperienced wing-man. In such a scenario the Wing-man would follow in a very close proximity of 20-30m, not offset but commonly in line with the Wing-leader. In such a scenario the Wing-man would not be able to execute a weave.

I just wanted to get an idea from you in regards to what you consider to be an appropriate distance to perform a weave. Therefore I tried to point out to you that a common flight executed formation based on a regular 4 finger or two man team (as described in my previous post) does not exclude or hinder a pilot from performing a Thach weave.

From descriptions I had gotten from former Luftwaffe pilots - the very close flight-formation usually applied by the US fighter-escorts during a pursuit did not permit for a weave maneuver - so the US close persuit formation (approx. 15-30m spacing) commonly executed in line, was usually deadly for an inexperienced Luftwaffe pilot - but a present from heaven for an experienced Luftwaffe pilot.

I was not a pilot. I was a tactician. What I found was, pilots were more than a little arrogant. And if you played to that arrogance, a less talented pilot could defeat them. In real life, Maverick wouldn't last his first group mission.

 

[Kruska]

My favorite was the VFW VAK 191B based on the German Built Lockheed F-104 Lightning.

A great conceptional idea, but the practical performance data of the VAK-191B was - a joke.

Considering the cold-war scenario/conditions of the 60's - the START and ZELL project involving the F-104G was a very successful attempt, compared to VTOL/VSTOL ideas.
It was conducted on the airfield my father was stationed at the time - but he was already too old to participate as a pilot himself.

Yah, but German can build one hell of a Tank even today. Please send another 100 to Ukraine.

Nope - only manned with Bundeswehr crews and the respective Marder's/Puma's with Pz.Gren. involved. Anything else is just a waste of money and lives.

The problem is, right after that kind of move, it lost all it's energy and would become helpless to almost any fighter. So they kept it out of that situation. It was a hit and run bird. You can't hit what you can't see.

It had aside from the usual pilot's and copilot's eyes a radar tracking device. Perfect condition for a hit and run, or intercepting V-1's. Somehow it just wasn't really put into action.
Could it be that it was simply too expensive to operate - compared to a Tempest/Spit. or a P-38/P51?

 

[Kruska]

The Japanese Zero racked up a score against U.S. fighters early in the war. They were light weight and maneuverable but lacked armor.

I am not well versed in regards to the PTO, but it looks to me that the Zero was more or less the only capable fighter aircraft the Japanese had. As such the scores obtained by Zero pilots wouldn't come as a surprise. After the Zero they had nothing in the pipeline that could match any contemporary Allied aircraft.

BTW; what does Zero stand for - or why did the US/UK call it as such?

 

[Vrenn]

A great conceptional idea, but the practical performance data of the VAK-191B was - a joke.

Considering the cold-war scenario/conditions of the 60's - the START and ZELL project involving the F-104G was a very successful attempt, compared to VTOL/VSTOL ideas.
It was conducted on the airfield my father was stationed at the time - but he was already too old to participate as a pilot himself.

Nope - only manned with Bundeswehr crews and the respective Marder's/Puma's with Pz.Gren. involved. Anything else is just a waste of money and lives.

It had aside from the usual pilot's and copilot's eyes a radar tracking device. Perfect condition for a hit and run, or intercepting V-1's. Somehow it just wasn't really put into action.
Could it be that it was simply too expensive to operate - compared to a Tempest/Spit. or a P-38/P51?

The problem in the ETO for the P-61 was it was way too slow. Something that it didn't have a problem with in the Pacific. But the P-61 was oftentimes put into action because the P-38 and Mossie were in short supply. In fact, it was almost impossible to get a p-38M at all since they were used in the PTO and there were just a few of them. And the Mossie was just too valuable for other missions.

Besides, by the time the P-61C was in service, it went from one of the fastest to one of the slowest very quickly. And the Mossie and the P-38s were no longer as fast as the other front line fighters. This is why the P-61 stayed in service until 1954 and flew throughout Korea. You can't shoot what you can't see. But he could shoot you. You see, most birds in the air were not Mig-15s

 

[westwall]

I am not well versed in regards to the PTO, but it looks to me that the Zero was more or less the only capable fighter aircraft the Japanese had. As such the scores obtained by Zero pilots wouldn't come as a surprise. After the Zero they had nothing in the pipeline that could match any contemporary Allied aircraft.

BTW; what does Zero stand for - or why did the US/UK call it as such?

Later on the Japanese developed the Raiden. That was a very capable fighter, but far too late to have any effect on the war.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It depends on the situation, e.g. type of enemy aircraft, altitude, surrounding situation, etc. and most importantly what instructions or purpose the Schwarm or Wing-leader had in mind. The distances I forwarded to you are just exemplary - again due to respective conditions.
No other enemy aircraft around - and the Wing-leader might take this opportunity to teach/instruct an inexperienced wing-man. In such a scenario the Wing-man would follow in a very close proximity of 20-30m, not offset but commonly in line with the Wing-leader. In such a scenario the Wing-man would not be able to execute a weave.

I just wanted to get an idea from you in regards to what you consider to be an appropriate distance to perform a weave. Therefore I tried to point out to you that a common flight executed formation based on a regular 4 finger or two man team (as described in my previous post) does not exclude or hinder a pilot from performing a Thach weave.

From descriptions I had gotten from former Luftwaffe pilots - the very close flight-formation usually applied by the US fighter-escorts during a pursuit did not permit for a weave maneuver - so the US close persuit formation (approx. 15-30m spacing) commonly executed in line, was usually deadly for an inexperienced Luftwaffe pilot - but a present from heaven for an experienced Luftwaffe pilot.

The weave was a navy maneuver developed to deal with an enemy fighter that could do everything better than a Wildcat except dive. USAAF fighters were usually pretty competitive with Luftwaffe fighters. The real exceptions were the poor altitude performance of the P-40s and P-51As, and the artificially limited diving ability of the P-38. American pilots developed tactics to overcome limitations, one example, every P-47 model could be out-turned by Me-109s and Fw-190s, but it had a very fast roll rate. Robert Johnson described the Thunderbolt’s counter to the German fighters was simply not to attempt to follow them in a turn, but to snap roll inside their turn radius. P-47s and P-51s would “boom and zoom” rather than dogfight.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I am not well versed in regards to the PTO, but it looks to me that the Zero was more or less the only capable fighter aircraft the Japanese had. As such the scores obtained by Zero pilots wouldn't come as a surprise. After the Zero they had nothing in the pipeline that could match any contemporary Allied aircraft.

BTW; what does Zero stand for - or why did the US/UK call it as such?

Type 0, the year in the Japanese calendar it was adopted. That’s how the Japanese Navy identified their weapons.
But the Japanese did have more successful planes. The Nakajima Hayabusa (Oscar) was more maneuverable, if much more lightly armed, than the Zero and very successful against the RAF fighters in the Burmese theater and against US fighters in the New Guinea area. The later Ki-61 Hein (Tony), Ki-84 Hayate (Frank), Ki-100 and Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Jack) all were competitive with the American fighters of their generations.