bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

here's a little information for the 262 lovers out there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262 not as impressive as every one would make it out to be considering it's development started early in the war and didn't see limited service until 1944, if it looks cool and is fast doesn't make it the best, with short flight times lack of manuverability,acceleration issues, and vulnerability during TO and landing.

E-Merlin is obviously a engineer, historian,and now a WWII aircraft mechanic specialist in luftwaffa and allied planes LMBFAO .

I can tell you why there is a heavy slant to the allies and not to the axis with no needed explanation.
because we won! it says a statement in its self and stands alone as the answer to the question,WHO HAD THE BEST FIGHTER PLANES IN WWII.
who had the best tactics in WWII we did, because we won!
we had the best fighters because we won!
we had the best pilots,because we won!

merlin and the German apologist heir obherst, and a few others,I give you all the credit for tenacity, but the loudest argument doesn't make it the truth it becomes a mute point because they didn't win! if there equipment was so much better 33,000 ME/BF109's, and 20,000 FW190' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190 for example, and many axis allies willing to fill the cockpits,why didn't they win?

tactics and incompetence in the leadership role,that is a cop out diverting blame is a tool for excuses.

they killed our guys in the air and we kept on coming,including many of my family members some died some didn't determination to be victorious is what I would call it.

the 262 grasping at straws, desperation and hope that it could delay the inevitable,the plane couldn't be operational until it was because there was no reliable engine for it,even when there was, it wasn't that reliable, a engine designed to have 50 operational hours but most only went for 12,yes I can pull wikipedia information out of you know where, its not that hard.

I love the German planes for many reasons, looks, performance, just being different than a mustang, thanks to the brave souls who fought and died for us WE WON!!

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

BigTim, you are exactly what I was not asking for when I made this post. A Spock would say," Your answer is Illogical>" There is no logic in any thing you are saying. Your just as loud as Luftwaffe oberst but at least he is making a argument for his point. Go back to the original post and reread what the question to the masses is. Patriotism was not a prerequisite to the best. If we were to line up American planes with American pilots against German planes with American pilots and all with the same traiining....what would be the outcome?

hellcat56

My Feedback: (21)

It doesnt follow that we(US) had the best fighter planes, pilots, tatcis because we won.

There are many reasons why we won and they didnt
number ONE is we had such a great advantage in Men and Material we would eventually have won if we just gave everybody a stick
we like the russians just had so many more of everything they could not kill us all
The russians cleared mine field by marching soldiers in front of their tanks.

best example of this is our tanks acknodgled as inferior but won the tank war

we sent our tanks out in groups against the tiger, it could and did kill the first three tanks but the fourth tank would have time to circle behind the tiger and kill it, vastly inferrior equipment but we still won the tank battle
B-17 we sent over groups of 1000's of bombers plus 300-400 fighters they could and did get 10-30% of our bombers but we just kept comming despite terrible losses, inferrior planes b-17 defeated a vastly superior planes 109-190 etc because of sheer numbers.

I think it was Galland who said "the safest place to be over Berlin was in an American Fighter plane-"-the germans ignored the fighters to get to the bombers thereby falling in great numbers to the USA fighters.

Tactics
Our tactics were just send more of them -they cant kill us all
B17 10 men 2000lbs bomb load we sent 1000's lost hundreds
P-38 1 man 2000lbs bomb load could fight after the drop

Tactics
We bombed cities and towns to rubble while we left the oil refineries alone
once we got the oil they couldnt fuel their planes and tanks

equipment , material and manpower

The USA had great planes in almost every phase, great pilots but great pilots are not the property of one country
Japan, germany, russia had great pilots also

The next time I here someone use the excuse of "the plane(262) had vulnerability durring TO and landing"
NOW THIS TO EVERYONE can anyone name one plane that was not vernuable during To and landing. QUIT using that line.


We won be cause we had great technology, planes, equiptment great soldiers, and a homeland that never saw a bomber plane flying over our factories.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

I think all planes are vulnerable during TO and Landings. The question or issue is who had airsupremacy?......

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Bigtim, I'll only warn you once, you EVER call me a German appologist again...

I had relatives die in the Holocaust simply because they were Roman Catholics that refused to renouce the Church.

Oh I forgot, just because I happen to think Germany had the best fighters of WW2 that makes me a German appologist.


Guess what hundreds of thousands of Germans died too. Some of them even fought and died defending their country and nothing more without regards for the screwed up political crap the the Nazi party spewed forth.


Here is a hint for you, the 262 wasn't grasping at straws, the 262 first flew in 1942. Far before Germany was worried about losing the war, in fact it flew just as Germany was crushing Russia...

PS: I'm glad you liked both those Wiki articles. I wrote almost all of both of them.

bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

first and foremost I will say whatever I want, whenever I want,just like you do constantly its called free speech.
don't threaten me your a punk threatening a punk.

I had my relatives die dropping bombs on Germany, and in the bulge, you don't have a franchise on tragedy whatever the circumstance.

you need to read the post for someone who toots there own horn as much as you do you obviously didn't read it thoroughly, I called Oberst the apologist, your just a know it all who has a opinion obviously not always followed by quite a few readers.

so if you wrote the wiki info then you must know the 262 flew, but was unreliable and not a viable combat aircraft until 1944,whatever the circumstance
I googled the articals simple as that, the information is public and available in many books, as well as on line sources,simple as that, beating your own drum again its a theme of yours.

not all Germans who fought in WWII were nazi's mater of fact some were even American born Germans who felt there duty was to fight for there ancestral home,but I am sure you knew that as well.

as for a little history for you, R Catholics and there organization, turned a blind eye to the slaughter of,Jews,gypsies,gays, the mentally retarded,and disabled, or any one they perceived as different,from there ideological perspective,for years,and in some cases indirectly contributed to the rounding up of these people.
history is a matter of perspective isn't it.

bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

here is your origonal posting the comparisons in single aircraft have been posted to no end, with the exeption of the ME262's speed, the data is a wash the difference in speed of many of the fighters is nearly identical, as one side developed a superior plane as the war went on, the other matched the performance, a early war fighter was no match for a late war modified version, so it comes down to tactics,the allies employed a superior tactical advantage, or they would have lost the conflict would they not.

manueverability can be overcome by superior tactics ex. the P-40 in china overwelmed in numbers but used superior tactics to there advantage.
taking advantage of the explosiveness of the Zero and Oscars they faced and the advantage that the P-40 had in a dive over the zero,never try to turn with a Zero was a mantra of the AVG.

in the wiki posting on the ME262 the superior speed was delt with by either gaining altitude and diving on them to match speed, or staking out landing strips and downing them durring TO or landing approach the plane shot down 500 aircraft,100 were shot down by the allies hardly invincible, obviously this doesn't cover the many pilots lost to mechanical malfunctions using new unfamillar plane.

fire power- 8-50cal machine guns pack a powerfull wallop as in the P-47 as a example,P-51 6-50's late P-40's 6_50's a cannon is hard to beat unless your plane has superior armor like many allied planes had,at the expense of performance, the comparison in firepower is also a wash either method of killing is affective.

now your question has no mention of exchanging pilots, but for variety of quaity fighter aircraft produced in numbers to be affective, the allies namely the united states has the upper hand no doubt, in overall quality and numbers of effective fighter machines used in mutiple theaters of war durring WWII.

it has to include the desire of the men and women fighting in the conflict using the equipment provided and adapting to it,and applying the tactics for success, put a allied pilot in a axis machine from day one in training,I couldn't say.
never flown in any fighter plane but a Mustang as a passenger when I was a kid.

many of the US fighters came in a far shorter developmenal time frame, on line into production much quicker than many of axis planes, and adapted to the competition through tecnical improvements, and there's that word again tactics.

now there has been plenty of mention of pilot skills in this thread,and of the superiority of the german pilots in there skill sets, so obviously this wasn't off the table wouldnt victory in a conflict determine which country had the overall best machinery as a whole,if the pilot skill level was equal.

according to several posters they were not the germans were the better pilots but still lost the airwar then its obvious, as a overall group it is the US.

now Ram-bro with the divisive question you posted, with a invitation to conflict,flaming, and quite frankly, as I have read through the pages, if a pro allied position is posted it is under attack by the likes of Mr. know it all what do you expect,who would post a pro allied position only to be told that there wrong, the best is blood and guts, meat and bone not always a piston and cylinder, and aviation fuel.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

Big Tim, I see the effort you put forth in stating your case. You guys votig for the Allies/Americans are getting better. Its hard to vote based strictly on #s of kills by a certain plane or even ace because a plane flying for 8 yrs(me-109) should outscore anything the allies put up. So #s don't coun or are not subjective enough. You cann't measure pilots willingness and desire to fight and die for their country , I would call that a wash. To measure the skill sets of the pilot, it has generally been conceded that allied pilots were better trained especially during the later parts of the war so skill sets cant be a subjective method to use. You can see the difficulty that this post has presented us with. The best I could come up with was to have a good ol fashion WWI fighter swarm where the pilots meet at noon at 20000 ft and duke it out. Now the equalizer would be all pilots would get thesame amt and kind of training and they would have to swap airplanes. meaning Allies get the Axis planes and vice versa. Would that make a difference. A that point does it come down to hardware or pilot skill and training (being equal)? Now I said flaming was permitted only because it was gonna happen. It wasn't meant to be persanal attacks but attacks n the information and arguments ut forward. Guys are getting better making their arguments and the supporters of the Luftwaffe hardware are just the loudest not necesaarily the right ones. I voted for the Germans for reasons stated earlier, but my mind can be changed.whewwwww

LuftwaffeOberst

Why do some people take a interesting topic or debate and make it personal? Oh Dear Lord! This thread at times reminds me of the Mexican Senate... they talk about a bill that is controversial, then the name calling and fists start flying.

My 13 year old does that in school.

Oh yes... the Stuka! Out of date and slow as a snail. However there were constant upgrades made to the plane making it a great tank and merchant ship killer.

Without fighter escort it was toast without butter. [:'(]

America and England did the right thing by sharing everything. By far that's what made the P-51D a fantastic fighter. It seems America at that time had undesirable engines. (Some say that we still do for cars) But remember people... even the Bf and Me 109's had fuel injection. What would stall a Allied plane for the 6 years of fighting 1938-1943, wouldn't stall the 109.

Someone else said it right... team work, skill, experience and tactics make a ace, not the plane. VMF-121 with their beat up early F4U's and the AVG in China with their P-40's is proof enough... right?

Please resist the urge to curse, flame, degrade, insult or embarrass someone in your post. We encourage the free flow of your ideas, but believe that they can be communicated (and received) much more effectively if you keep things civil. If you have to vent, take it offline. We carefully monitor posts and will ban individuals who engage in offensive conduct within the forums.

If we like teaching and learning new things here at RCU, remember what's written above. ( We agreed when we joined) All of you write good things from time to time, I'd hate to see anyone take a vacation for a while... especially when a new person needs help with a R/C airplane. JMHO

LuftwaffeOberst

[sm=punching.gif] WW1? Give me a Fokker DVIIF any day!!! That is my favorite plane of all planes of WWI. That was one Baaaad aircraft.

deatonbt

If it is not obvious, I voted United States.

And there are a lot of what ifs going on here. What could of should of happened etc. You can what if the P-80 too. That doesn't count.

One of the attributes mentioned in the first post was availibility. This statement is not an opinion. Don't throw it away for convenence. Show a German airplane that was being used as an effective weapon that measured up to all of the attributes as well as the P-51, P-47, and P-38.

The 262 was an incredible plane for the time, but still the Germans could only put 12 262s in the air at any one time. That is such an incredibly underwhelming ridiculous number, it should not be considered.

I don't know how many TA-152s got in the air and were used. But I can bet that it wasn't many. Same thing. It is a hard fact.

Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that there was not a case made for any of the Allies. I made one. I even threw in a few sources. No what ifs. It can be called an opinion but dispute anything in the posts that I made.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Actually, it was soon determined that the P-47 was a much better ground attack aircraft than the P-51. The P-47 had 2 more M.G.s for starters, but was also MUCH less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-51.
As for the answer to the question: not sure, but I'm thinking Gabrowski, and P-47?

BTW: the highest scoring U.S. pilot of WW 2 was as we all know: Lt. Dick Bong. Since he was flying a P-38, I wonder how many of his kills were the result of him winning a 'dogfight'? This is in response to the person who suggested that a dog-fighting aircraft (highly manuverable) was better than one with a higher speed range.

Yet another non-specific post. WHO IS "WE"? Since you are from Califoirnia, maybe you mean California won the war?
But perhaps you are refering Russia, since Russia played a far greater role in the defeat of Germany than all other allies combined. So are you saying Russia had the best fighter planes of WW 2?
And what about bombers: are you saying that contribution to Germany's defeat was overshadowed by the fighter's contribution? There were MANY things that determined the eventual outcome of the war, and there is no 1 category of weapon than can be given more credit than all others. Even the A-bomb: would the U.S. have been able to drop it if the Battle of Midway had not so completely removed Japan's ability launch further offensives?

If by "we" you are suggesting that the U.S. won the war (by itself), then you sir are really misguided. "Allies" is a term which refers to the MANY NATIONS which COMBINED to defeat Germany, and Russia is the nation that did more to conquer Germany than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED!

The question is "which country", NOT 'which side- allies or axis' had the best fighter planes.
Since some of you patriotic wannabes don't really know: the biggest reason that the U.S. was on the winning team is because RUSSIA was on our side. Now, if anyone can throw out a legitimate dispute to that statement, I MAY start to listen to arguments that suggest that the U.S. had the best fighter planes BECAUSE the U.S. won the war.

In summary, replies like 'we won the war, therefor we had the best fighter planes' is about as lame as it gets, and it is the common argument posted by MOST (but not all) of the U.S. figher plane proponents.

So far, there have been vey few who have been making substantiated arguments for the U.S. figher planes. The rest are just beating their own chests in the name of patriotism, using the term "American" as if the U.S.(A.) has a patent on it, and using the term "we" as if the U.S. won the war single handedly.

deatonbt

I think that I am presenting a pretty good case.

alanc

glad someone has mentioned the word ALLIES, but very sad that the losses incurred by the british, and our commonwealth are not, and never have been, recognised by the USA, if we had not held on with tenacity before you ever got involved, with BRITISH equipment, made in BRITISH factories, just how many soldiers and airmen would you have lost, trying to wrestle control from the German empire? for an empire it would have been,
That involvment of the US was critical, is obvious, but please, give us some credit will you?

I think i am done with this thread now, its all to we did this, we did that, its biased, and very unfair

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Me thinks you need to learn a bit more about what you think you are talking about in reagards to freedom of speech. I suggest you review the RCU COC as well as exactly what the US regards as freedom of speech. You may very well learn something... then again... However if your comment was meant only for Oberst, I applogize.

PS: I enjoyed my punk years. Black Flag, SSD, Dead Kennedy's, DRI, Suicidals, all in all good music thru a great period in my life. Never really liked the Sex Pistols or Ramones though...


A little more history for you, while the Vatican may have turned an eye on what was happening, thousands and thousands of Catholic Priests and layity died protecting the very same persons the Nazi's were putting to death. Being Roman Catholic, be it a priest or layity didn't mean you blindly followed what the Vatican did, or heck, even knew what the Vatican was doing at the time.


Yes, I'm well aware of the Me 262's limitations, but where did I say it was the best fighter plane of WW2? I didn't. It was due to the engine's limitations that it didn't make my short list. Never the less a 5 to 1 record isn't exactly bad, P-51: 1.96 to 1, the Spity: 1.34 to 1, the Thunderbolt 1.00 to 1 and the Lightning was 1.01 to 1 (this is in the ETO and MTO only, and the Spit numbers are for Spits in US service ONLY). Mind you these are A2A only and these numbers are from official USAAF numbers.

All aircraft have their limitations. Put a bullet from a standard infantryman's rifle thru the belly radiator of a P-51 and watch what happens...

as for the P-47's 8 .50's packing a wallop, yep, sure did, but it was about 70% of the wallop a Fw 190 A8/R2 tossed out. Or a little over half what the Me 262 could dish out. And the M-2's and M-3s were not cannons, they were machine guns.

About 80 or so Ta 152's out of the approximate 150 made it into combat.

This isn't about who had the better pilots, who could field the most aircraft, is simply about the best fighter planes.

Put two identical pilots in the Ta 152H and the P-51D and who would win in a dog fight?
Put two identical pilots in the Fw 190A and the P-47D and who would win in a dog fight?
Put two identical pilots in the P-40 and the Zero and who would win in a dog fight?
Put two identical pilots in the Bf 109G and the La-5 and who would win in a dog fight?

skull1971

Thanks CJ, I knew about the Jug being a better ground attack. I also knew about the 51 as a ground attack ship with it's problems. I read a story once about a 51 driver that was train busting, and ended up popping his own radiator. Spent the rest of the war as a POW, the moral of his story "If your train busting, and it ends up being an ammo train, be far enough away you don't get hit by flying train parts."

Also I was thinking Gabby, but I knew about Bong. That just proves the "The P-47 wasn't nimble enough to be a fighter," as crap. It was a great fighter, just seems everyone is caught up on Mustangs. They are good planes, but, like the Spit, to much praise goes to them. The Jugs, P38's, Hell Cats, Wild Cats, Corsairs, P40's, and more were there doing the job before the Stang showed up. The p51 was found to be good at something (AFTER THE MERLIN ENGINE) that was needed, long range escort. Before that the Jug's were doing a pretty good job of herding the bombers, they just drank to much fuel.

OK here's a question,, Would the P51 ever have come into production IF the P47 would have had the range to round trip to the target, with the bombers? I say NO!

skull1971

alanc, don't give up hope! There are a few of us open minded guys around that do think of all the allies, at least I do. I also still say the Hurricane was the "Winner" of the BoB, not the Spit.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

In short: yes. The British wanted the U.S. to produce more figher planes for export to Britain. What they asked for was P-40s, but Dutch Kindleburger told them that he could design and build a BETTER figher than the P-40 in basically the time frame alloted to start another P-40 production line. So, with the assistance from an ex-Curtiss designer (check me on this, I could be wrong again) who had been previously working on making the P-40 a better plane: the Allison engined P-51 was born.
Yes, it was better than the P-40, but not enough to impress the AAF (or was it the AAC back then?). But the Brits liked them enough to buy them as is, so yes: the P-51 would have gone into production regradless of the P-47.
Then the Brits desided to see if with a RR engine in it: it would become a better high altitude figher (since at that time, it was considered better for fighting at 15,000 or below), and Viola: the RR/ Merlin engined Mustangs were born and the rest is history (and folklore).

But I also agree that the Mustang is over-rated and the P-47 is under-rated. It has been said that many U.S. fighter pilots believed that if they wanted to have their picture taken next to a fighter plane so that they could send it home to their girlfriend: they did so with a P-51.
If they wanted to have a better chance of returning home to their girlfriend, they flew a P-47 into combat (rather then a P-51).
The P-51 had only 1 decided advange over most of the other figher planes of the day: exceptional range. Otherwise, they were mostly just 'on par' with the others (speed, manuverability) and decidely sub-par in some respects (vulnerability, especially from small arms ground fire as previously stated).

As for the arguments concerning the long developement stage of the Jumo jet engines: that too was based on high ranking (as in: as high as it gets) political decision making. The big 'A.' just didn't want to devote the necessary funds and resources for an engine which he felt would not be needed.

skull1971

Sorry CJ, when I wrote the question about 51 vs. 47 I was being narrow minded and only thinking of the U.S. use of the 51. I do know the story of how the 51 came to be, for the Brit's, but like I said,, I wasn't thinking. [sm=bananahead.gif]

hugger-4641

My Feedback: (6)

Skull1971, I'd love to see that wind tunnel video if you could find it. P-38 is my favorite topic to, I don't think it is coincedence that the 1st and 2nd highest kill # were held by p-38 pilots.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Not to take anything away from the P-38 (one of my favorites also), but consider this: the majority of P-38s fought in the Pacific ocean campaign, where their enemy was: Japanese aircraft.
To turn the original question around a little bit: 'which country had the worst figher planes of the war', and if I limit my answer ro either Germany or Japan: I would rather take my chances against a Japanese fighter plane (ESPECIALLY if it is a Zero).

And then there is the level of pilot training: while in Germany, it slowly wittled away due to attrition, Japan lost about 1/2 of it's best carrier based pilots at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942, and never came close to recovering from that.
NOTE: I recently read that some Japanese INSTRUCTOR pilots were 'temporaily' transferred to carriers to assist in that battle, which further eroded the Japanese pilot training programs.
ALL of Bong's victories came 6 months or more after the Battle of Midway.

skull1971

I'll look for it tonight, it's an old vhs, so I gotta find a player too![:@]

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

wow, no flaming going on, a true exchange of ideas in a non threatening manner, who woulda thunk it? Alanc, I am one of those who recognie that the world we live in today(good or bad) is a direct result of the skill, tenacity and sacrifice of the British common wealth and the victory of the B.O.B. don't go.........

Baron b58

To shoot down a P51 Mustang you will have to be a above average pilot flying a fairly good machine; to shoot down more than 5 Mustangs I would say you will have to be a brilliant pilot flying absolutely superlative equipment. Wilhelm Steinmann shot down at least 11 Mustangs and 7 P47 Thunderbolts and survived to tell the tale. I am sure he must have been an incredible pilot but to do something like that he must have been flying the better fighter as well.

The other day I read about a duel between a FW TA152 and a RAF Tempest; a low level dogfight developed between the two aircraft and ended with the German pilot literally toying around with the Tempest like a cat playing with a ball of yarn. He eventually forced the Tempest into a stall and into a spectacular crash into the forest below. The German pilot afterwards said he never felt threatened by the Tempest and was amazed at how easily the TA152 overcame his opponent.

bigtim; I hope you read the piece written by Hellcat56, that is why the Americans won. Evil Merlin; more people should listen to what you have to say.

I am a South African and my families were not really intimidated by either side so I think I can give a unbiased unpatriotic vote; another one for the Luftwaffe !!

skull1971

Oh No!! don't make his head swell anymore than it is!!![sm=lol.gif]

Just fun'en ya Evil!!