Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fighter to fighter the P-51. The F6F Hellcat which isn't mentioned is neck and neck with the P-51. The Hellcat had a kill ratio of 19-1 in WW2, best of any fighter. When it showed up in the Pacific in 1943 the Japanese pilots quickly figured out the Hellcat was now king of the hill where the Jap Zero had dominated the feckless F4F Wildcat.
The P-38 was great for the Pacific war as it afforded better ability to return and long legs for open stretches of ocean. It was very fast and could carry a cannon as noted, giving it great punch. If I were flying in the Pacific I'd want the P-38.
The P-47 was a ground pounder though it faired pretty well in dogfights as well. But it was huge and very heavy and its strength was not dogfighting. It could shred ground targets though. US fighters were almost all heavy well armored aircraft designed to allow the pilot a good chance to survive with things like self-sealing fuel tanks.
The Zero was designed to be very light and maneuverable and gave little notice to the pilot's life. The Zero was in fact a paper kite. Hit it at the wing root and a wing would snap off or put an incendiary round into a fuel tank and it would catch fire or explode.
Each US fighter had its roll and each filled its niche. Even the P-40 played its role early on in the war. Using boom and zoom tactics against the Japanese in India and Thailand the Flying Tigers shot down 300 Japanese planes with the loss of about 20.
Like the F-4U, the range that the F-6F meant you had to get the boat close. Long before the F6F showed up and it was safe to get the boat closer, the P-38 was flying long range over the water flights. And the F4F was doing it's bit in destroying things closer to the boat. But it was a willy come lately bird. By late 43, the Japanese were already hurting badly and were being driven back hard.The Air Power was almost gone. We kept telling the Japanese this but the way they fought, they never believed it so we showed them. The ONLY reason I list the P-51 at all is the long range it had. Otherwise, it would be listed with the Supermarine. You had to get it over the enemy and then you can fight. Ask the Luftwaffe how the BoB worked out for them fighting above some elses property.
You mentioned how the Japanese were rolling over the F-4F. Noper. If it was left to the P-39s, more of the larger islands all the way to Australia would have been lost. The P-39 was a clay pigeon. Those attacks were finally stopped by using the F-4F which could zoom and climb. The poor P-39 could do neither.
The Flying Tigers originally flew the Brewster and then upgraded to the Warhawk. They were flying against Nates (and that was the best that Japan had at that time). Both the Brewster and the Warhawk had a higher top speed than the Nates. In fact, it was Chennault that invented the dive, hit and climb zoom attack. Neither the Brewster or the Warhawk could turn, dive or anything against the lowly Nate, much less the Zero later on.
The AVG never flew the Brewster. They started with 100 P-40B's and after one of them got dropped in New York harbor while loading, they sailed with 99 of them. They were flown by the Brits in Singapore and the Dutch had some as well. I think the only air arm that actually like them were the Finns who actually built some to make up for their losses against the Soviets. You are correct about the Japanese using the Nates over China, they also flew the Oscars later when the P-40's showed how superior to the Nate they were. The P-40 could easily out dive both the Nate and the Zero. That was one thing that American fighters almost universally could do better than the Japanese planes. About the only thing in the early war period.
There is no such thing as a "long range fighter". The Brits made fuel bags of paper that were attached to the American fighters.I chose the P-38 due to it being the most versatile of the 3.
The P-51 is slightly better at high altitudes as a pure fighter, second comes the P-38 as long as the altitude is below 20,000 feet. Below 20,000 feet, the P-38 rarely gets into the compression ability problem. Above that, it can get a newbie pilot killed fast in a dive. But above 25K, the P-47 is far superior to the other 3.
As for claiming the P-51 was the "Only" long ranged fighter, the P-38J+ had a much longer range. The first fighters above Berlin were P-38G models. They were supposed to escort bombers but the bombers were scrubbed. Since the P-38s were already over Germany, they proceeded to Berlin and did strafing runs. This was mid 1943.
If you are doing Recon, the P-38 wins hands down. It's counter rotating props made it very, very smooth in comparison (the P-47 was the rough one). It meant the pictures could be taken at a higher altitude and be clearer due to the lack of motion on the camera. Even so, there was a 75% loss on the P-38 recon birds since they were not armed and had to fly at specific altitudes without changing their altitude or direction while filming. And they were 2000 lbs lighter with all the armor removed. They relied on speed but still.....
As for strafing, the P-47 barely edges out the P-38. The P-47 packed 8 50 cals and could take severe damage from the the ground forces. Meanwhile, the P-38 carried 4 50 cals and was the only WWII Usaf fighter to carry a cannon. The P-47 used convergent fire meaning the bullet paths crossed at about 250 yards. But if you are operating at less than that in ground attack, it doesn't mean a thing. The P-38 had straight trajectories meaning all guns were aimed directly forward including the cannon. At longer Ranges the P-38 was superior but a closer range (due to the rugged construction) the P-47 gets the nod. The P-51 was also used for ground attack but it wasn't nearly as effective as the other 2 due it only having 6 50 cals and it's inability to absorb damage.
Now, let's go onto being able to absorb punishment and still get home. The King is the P-47 with it's radial engine and heavy armor hands down. Hitting his engine may reduce his power but he can be flinging oil with a couple of jug blown off and still get home. The P-38 has two engines. The only way to get him not to come home due to engines is to take out both since he is still very flight worthy on only one (find a cloud bank and boogie home). The worst is the P-51 since he has only one engine. He can be taken out just by hitting his radiator. To give you an idea, more P-51s were lost due to this than either the P-38 or the P-47 combined.
You also have to look at the period of the War. Until the P-47 arrived in mass in early 1943, the only long ranged fighter was the P-38. In 1942, the P-38 faced experienced Luftaffe Pilots at a 11-1 rate. And they tried to use the P-38 by having him fly with the bombers. Here the P-38 is flying in a zig zag formation with the bombers at 200 kts when they are jumped by the 109 doing a dive zoom at 320 kts. The P-38 has to spool up to get up to speed. During that time, bombers are lost and so are the lumbering P-38s. Same goes for the P-47 flying the same mission. Early 1944, that doctrine was changed and allowed the fighters to fly ahead of the bombers and disrupt Luftwaffen Fighters. Early 1944 was when the bulk of the P-51s came into service. And you have to know that the flight training of a P-38 pilot was extremely poor until 1944. By the time the P-51B/C showed up, the heavy lifting was already done and the Luftwaffen was running low on experienced pilots and had a shortage of fuel. Not having the P-51 at all would have changed nothing except a lot of P-38 and P-47 pilots lives.
There is no such thing as a "long range fighter". The Brits made fuel bags of paper that were attached to the American fighters.I chose the P-38 due to it being the most versatile of the 3.
The P-51 is slightly better at high altitudes as a pure fighter, second comes the P-38 as long as the altitude is below 20,000 feet. Below 20,000 feet, the P-38 rarely gets into the compression ability problem. Above that, it can get a newbie pilot killed fast in a dive. But above 25K, the P-47 is far superior to the other 3.
As for claiming the P-51 was the "Only" long ranged fighter, the P-38J+ had a much longer range. The first fighters above Berlin were P-38G models. They were supposed to escort bombers but the bombers were scrubbed. Since the P-38s were already over Germany, they proceeded to Berlin and did strafing runs. This was mid 1943.
If you are doing Recon, the P-38 wins hands down. It's counter rotating props made it very, very smooth in comparison (the P-47 was the rough one). It meant the pictures could be taken at a higher altitude and be clearer due to the lack of motion on the camera. Even so, there was a 75% loss on the P-38 recon birds since they were not armed and had to fly at specific altitudes without changing their altitude or direction while filming. And they were 2000 lbs lighter with all the armor removed. They relied on speed but still.....
As for strafing, the P-47 barely edges out the P-38. The P-47 packed 8 50 cals and could take severe damage from the the ground forces. Meanwhile, the P-38 carried 4 50 cals and was the only WWII Usaf fighter to carry a cannon. The P-47 used convergent fire meaning the bullet paths crossed at about 250 yards. But if you are operating at less than that in ground attack, it doesn't mean a thing. The P-38 had straight trajectories meaning all guns were aimed directly forward including the cannon. At longer Ranges the P-38 was superior but a closer range (due to the rugged construction) the P-47 gets the nod. The P-51 was also used for ground attack but it wasn't nearly as effective as the other 2 due it only having 6 50 cals and it's inability to absorb damage.
Now, let's go onto being able to absorb punishment and still get home. The King is the P-47 with it's radial engine and heavy armor hands down. Hitting his engine may reduce his power but he can be flinging oil with a couple of jug blown off and still get home. The P-38 has two engines. The only way to get him not to come home due to engines is to take out both since he is still very flight worthy on only one (find a cloud bank and boogie home). The worst is the P-51 since he has only one engine. He can be taken out just by hitting his radiator. To give you an idea, more P-51s were lost due to this than either the P-38 or the P-47 combined.
You also have to look at the period of the War. Until the P-47 arrived in mass in early 1943, the only long ranged fighter was the P-38. In 1942, the P-38 faced experienced Luftaffe Pilots at a 11-1 rate. And they tried to use the P-38 by having him fly with the bombers. Here the P-38 is flying in a zig zag formation with the bombers at 200 kts when they are jumped by the 109 doing a dive zoom at 320 kts. The P-38 has to spool up to get up to speed. During that time, bombers are lost and so are the lumbering P-38s. Same goes for the P-47 flying the same mission. Early 1944, that doctrine was changed and allowed the fighters to fly ahead of the bombers and disrupt Luftwaffen Fighters. Early 1944 was when the bulk of the P-51s came into service. And you have to know that the flight training of a P-38 pilot was extremely poor until 1944. By the time the P-51B/C showed up, the heavy lifting was already done and the Luftwaffen was running low on experienced pilots and had a shortage of fuel. Not having the P-51 at all would have changed nothing except a lot of P-38 and P-47 pilots lives.
The Spitfire was a superb plane, I'd say if the Brits didn't have them they would have lost the Battle of Britain as the Hurricane wasn't maneuverable enough compared to the 109 or 190. The Brits also produced the Mosquito and the Hornet, similar design idea to the P-38 but I think one or both of the British planes were made of plywood. The Mosquito was so fast with its two engines the first models were built without guns as it was just used as a fast recon aircraft.
I agree that the P-51 is one the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It was a superb dog-fighter and ground pounder. An all around best war fighter for sure. And the F6F came into the war in November 1943. The F4F Wildcat was outclassed hands down by the Zero. The 6 .50 caliber guns on the Wildcat if brought to bear on an enemy plane would make short work of it but the Zero could easily outmaneuver and outclimb it. Even with tactics like the Thach Weave and others the F4F merely held the line until the US navy was rebuilt and ready to rock. In Novermber 1943 a US carrier fleet now equipped with the Hellcat headed to Wake Island to test its effectiveness in battle. Wake was left a smoldering ruin, the Hellcat swept away everything before it, and the US navy then started raiding Japanese bases down the middle of the Pacific. In February 1944 a US navy task force of 5 large carriers and 3 smaller carriers with nearly 600 aircraft sailed to within 100 miles of Truk Atoll, the main Japanese base and anchorage in the Pacific, the Japanese 'Pearl Harbor' in the Pacific that was heavily armed with anti-aircraft guns and hundreds of planes. A huge flight of Hellcats swept in to clear out any enemy aircraft before the bombers on the carriers went in and they did just that. After the air was cleared the bombers and torpedo planes attacked and Truk also was reduced to a burning pyre.
Such a raid was never attempted with the F4F Wildcat because it was obsolete and not up to the job. The destruction was so complete the Japanese moved their main headquarters much further west I believe to Palau. The large garrison of Japanese troops on Truk were bypassed and Truk was used for practice for B24s and B29 bombers.
WW2 was on such a huge scale and was really one of the few wars that was purely good against evil that it is endlessly fascinating to me.
My plane is not on the list!
F4u
I loved the Spit, I actually got to poke around the cockpit of Spitfire back in 1987. This pic was MK T9 or some such, This plane was used in the movie" Battle of Britain" in 68'.I talked to the owner- operator, a canuk, I forgot his name. Unfortunately TE308 was lost, if I understand correctly, in a runway collision.
View attachment 140221
The Hurricane was the original ugly ducking, But it was effective. We all have to acknowledge the Hurricane.I loved the Spit, I actually got to poke around the cockpit of Spitfire back in 1987. This pic was MK T9 or some such, This plane was used in the movie" Battle of Britain" in 68'.I talked to the owner- operator, a canuk, I forgot his name. Unfortunately TE308 was lost, if I understand correctly, in a runway collision.
View attachment 140221
In the B0B, the most effective fighter is over looked. More Luftwaffen AC were downed by the Hurricane. But, let's face it, the Hurricane is about as pretty as an ugly duckling. The same goes for the African area. While the Spit looks better in newsreels and movies, I rate the Hurricane above the Spit for wartime effect.
Fighter to fighter the P-51. The F6F Hellcat which isn't mentioned is neck and neck with the P-51. The Hellcat had a kill ratio of 19-1 in WW2, best of any fighter. When it showed up in the Pacific in 1943 the Japanese pilots quickly figured out the Hellcat was now king of the hill where the Jap Zero had dominated the feckless F4F Wildcat.
The P-38 was great for the Pacific war as it afforded better ability to return and long legs for open stretches of ocean. It was very fast and could carry a cannon as noted, giving it great punch. If I were flying in the Pacific I'd want the P-38.
The P-47 was a ground pounder though it faired pretty well in dogfights as well. But it was huge and very heavy and its strength was not dogfighting. It could shred ground targets though. US fighters were almost all heavy well armored aircraft designed to allow the pilot a good chance to survive with things like self-sealing fuel tanks.
The Zero was designed to be very light and maneuverable and gave little notice to the pilot's life. The Zero was in fact a paper kite. Hit it at the wing root and a wing would snap off or put an incendiary round into a fuel tank and it would catch fire or explode.
Each US fighter had its roll and each filled its niche. Even the P-40 played its role early on in the war. Using boom and zoom tactics against the Japanese in India and Thailand the Flying Tigers shot down 300 Japanese planes with the loss of about 20.
Like the F-4U, the range that the F-6F meant you had to get the boat close. Long before the F6F showed up and it was safe to get the boat closer, the P-38 was flying long range over the water flights. And the F4F was doing it's bit in destroying things closer to the boat. But it was a willy come lately bird. By late 43, the Japanese were already hurting badly and were being driven back hard.The Air Power was almost gone. We kept telling the Japanese this but the way they fought, they never believed it so we showed them. The ONLY reason I list the P-51 at all is the long range it had. Otherwise, it would be listed with the Supermarine. You had to get it over the enemy and then you can fight. Ask the Luftwaffe how the BoB worked out for them fighting above some elses property.
You mentioned how the Japanese were rolling over the F-4F. Noper. If it was left to the P-39s, more of the larger islands all the way to Australia would have been lost. The P-39 was a clay pigeon. Those attacks were finally stopped by using the F-4F which could zoom and climb. The poor P-39 could do neither.
The Flying Tigers originally flew the Brewster and then upgraded to the Warhawk. They were flying against Nates (and that was the best that Japan had at that time). Both the Brewster and the Warhawk had a higher top speed than the Nates. In fact, it was Chennault that invented the dive, hit and climb zoom attack. Neither the Brewster or the Warhawk could turn, dive or anything against the lowly Nate, much less the Zero later on.
The AVG never flew the Brewster. They started with 100 P-40B's and after one of them got dropped in New York harbor while loading, they sailed with 99 of them. They were flown by the Brits in Singapore and the Dutch had some as well. I think the only air arm that actually like them were the Finns who actually built some to make up for their losses against the Soviets. You are correct about the Japanese using the Nates over China, they also flew the Oscars later when the P-40's showed how superior to the Nate they were. The P-40 could easily out dive both the Nate and the Zero. That was one thing that American fighters almost universally could do better than the Japanese planes. About the only thing in the early war period.
No, but they shared the same airspace with the RAF doing exactly the same job. Channault was considering procuring a few by trading a handful of P-40s. His Pilots did fly the Brewster Buffalo in combat evaluating them. Chanault opted to remain with the P-40.
But the Buffalo was doing the job before the P-40 showed up.
I loved the Spit, I actually got to poke around the cockpit of Spitfire back in 1987. This pic was MK T9 or some such, This plane was used in the movie" Battle of Britain" in 68'.I talked to the owner- operator, a canuk, I forgot his name. Unfortunately TE308 was lost, if I understand correctly, in a runway collision.
View attachment 140221
I loved the Spit, I actually got to poke around the cockpit of Spitfire back in 1987. This pic was MK T9 or some such, This plane was used in the movie" Battle of Britain" in 68'.I talked to the owner- operator, a canuk, I forgot his name. Unfortunately TE308 was lost, if I understand correctly, in a runway collision.
View attachment 140221
In the B0B, the most effective fighter is over looked. More Luftwaffen AC were downed by the Hurricane. But, let's face it, the Hurricane is about as pretty as an ugly duckling. The same goes for the African area. While the Spit looks better in newsreels and movies, I rate the Hurricane above the Spit for wartime effect.
The three aircraft mentioned were not all fighters alone. The 51 was closest to a pure fighter the 38 was close too but had a strong ground attack and the 47 was almost never used as a fighter it was close air support.
