Best fighter or fighter bomber of world war 2

[Skaman]

my top 10

1.fw 190
2.p 51
3.zero
4.corsair
5.spitfire
6.me 262
7.mosquito
8.il2 sturmovik
9.me 109
10.val

[Seoulstriker]

my top 10

1.fw 190
2.p 51
3.zero
4.corsair
5.spitfire
6.me 262
7.mosquito
8.il2 sturmovik
9.me 109
10.val

do you play IL-2 Sturmovik?

[Ratamacue]

I'm going to have to go with two planes.

1. F4U-4 Corsair. Strong armament (6x .50cal), crazy dive rate, could outmaneuver a Japanese Zero, and take quite a beating. As I remember it was also very strong in close air support towards the end of the war.

2. P-47 Thunderbolt. Heavily armed (8x .50cal), fastest dive rate of any single-engine fighter of the war, strong in close air support, and could probably fly home after both wings and elevators were blown off by flak. :)

[USMarine3521]

im going to say the B-29 superfortress was the best bomber of WWII


edit: oh it says figher bomber....oops....im going to say the F4U-4 Corsair then

[Mark Sman]

P-47 or FW-190
actually these two planes are so evenly matched that you could say them in either order. For what was required at the time I'm going with either of these. You could make the case for the ME-262, but I'm going to down check that because of difficulty of maunfacturing and maintaining at the time. Note: At that time.

[ogukuo72]

I heard a Beaufighter is pretty fast and packs a mean punch with six 0.303 Brownings and 20mm cannons. The Australians replaced the former with six 0.50 calibre Brownings, which gives it more firepower upfront than any other fighter-bombers.

[FallenAngel]

German:
FW-190
ME-162
Ho-299A-1

American
P-51
P-47
F-4U

British
Spitfire
Typhoon
Mosquito

Japan
A6M
Ki-61
J2m

Russia
Yak-3
Yak-9
IL-2

[Skaman]

German:
FW-190
ME-162
Ho-299A-1

American
P-51
P-47
F-4U

British
Spitfire
Typhoon
Mosquito


Japan
A6M
Ki-61
J2m

Russia
Yak-3
Yak-9
IL-2
'

how can you say the gotha, it didnt even go into service!!! no combat whatsoever!!!

[ogukuo72]

I think if we wanna go for an all-time great, it'll have to be the Spitfire, for the following reasons:

1. It's the only fighter other than the Zero that served from the start of the war to the end of the war.

2. In fact, it still served with the Fleet Air Arm in the Korean War (1950), a feat only the F4U could match, and the F4U was not there at the Battle of Britain in 1940!

3. Unlike the Zero, its basic sound design allowed it to remain an effective fighter with improvments (better engines and armaments) as the war progressed. The Zero, after its initial devastatingly effective debut, rapidly fell behind the technological curve.

4. It is the fighter that proved crucial in at least two pivotal campaigns in the war:

a. Battle of Britian (What would have happened had Britain sued for peace?)

b. Battle of Malta (What would have happened had Malta been occupied or had lost its effectiveness as an offensive air base astride supply routes in the Med? Thus it effects not just Malta but the whole campaign in North Africa.)

These are not campaigns that won the war, but both are epic struggles where the Spitfire fought against overwhelming odds to stave off defeats that would have meant a Nazi triumph. The only comparison is the Midway Battle and Guadacanal campaign.

[Minjin]

US: Corsair or Mustang for fighters.....B17 for bomber

UK: Spitfire or Hurricane for fighters (duh).....Lancaster bomber

Germany: Messerschmitt BF109 or Focke Wulfe FW190, and Not sure which bomber....

Japan: Don't know too many but the Zero.......

Russia: I like the Yakovlevs, and don't know too many others...

[Minjin]

US: Corsair or Mustang for fighters.....B17 for bomber

UK: Spitfire or Hurricane for fighters (duh).....Lancaster bomber

Germany: Messerschmitt BF109 or Focke Wulfe FW190, and Not sure which bomber....

Japan: Don't know too many but the Zero.......

Russia: I like the Yakovlevs, and don't know too many others...

[GazB]

Not really interested in other countries aircraft but for Soviet aircraft:

Fighters: La-5FN, Yak-3, La-9

Bombers: Tu-2, Pe-2, Il-4, Il-2.

[BMF]

as far as impact on the war is concerned, i'd have to go with the 109 for my fighter, and probably the B-17 as a bomber. for runners' up, the tomahawk is a classic (flying tigers and all that), spitfire was a good'un, and the corsair. other bombers...the JU 88 and HE111 were both good, effective medium bombers(used wrong, but not their fault). the JU 87 stukha(spelling) also is deserving of recognition, as-is the B 25 mitchell

[FallenAngel]

how can you say the gotha, it didnt even go into service!!! no combat whatsoever!!!

Oh...my bad. I didn't see that requirement in your origional post :bash:

Well, in theory, it would have been a fantastic flying machine.

[He219]

how can you say the gotha, it didnt even go into service!!! no combat whatsoever!!!

Oh...my bad. I didn't see that requirement in your origional post :bash:

Well, in theory, it would have been a fantastic flying machine.

http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/horten_alt.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/go229/

No theory; The HoIX/Go-229 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html) was a fantastic flying machine with exceptional performance. It was only tested and never saw action when US forces captured the manufacturing plant, Gothaer Wagonfactory, hehe. It was the first Stealth jet-fighter using composite flying wing construction.


http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/focke-wulf_ta-152.t.jpg
The Kurt Tank (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html) Ta-151H (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/focke_ta152.htm) was the final iteration of the venerable Fw-190 D-9 series and the fastest piston engine fighter of WWII. It also used Nitris-Oxide injection and outraced just about anything (other than the Do335 'Arrow').

http://www.cafark.org/Do335.gifhttp://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335-32.gif
Technically innovative, heavily armed and possessing a performance which no other piston-engined aircraft has ever achieved or surpassed, the Do 335 (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335hist.htm)possessed great potential as a combat aircraft, but never got the chance to prove itself. Delayed by high ranking indecision and Allied bombing raids, it simply ran out of time.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/he219-1.jpg
The He219 (http://www.wingsontheweb.com/vhangar/he219/tour.html) ;) was arguably the best performing night-fighting interceptor of WWII and chewed up Mosquitos for breakfast. The He 219 was also one of the first operational airplanes with cockpit pressurization and ejection seats.

http://www.adlertag.de/flugzeuge/me109k4_1.gif
The Me 109 K (http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109k.htm) (Bf=Bavarian Flugzeugwerke, subcontractor) was fastest in the K version at 452 mph.

http://www.aviation-history.com/arado/ar234-1a.jpg
The Arado-234 (http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_arado_ar_234_blitz.html) Blitz was the most capable jet of WWII and utilized JATO.

Other advanced German WWII jet and rocket fighter designs can be found Here (http://www.luft46.com/).

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/CorsairCarrierLdg.jpg
The F4U Corsair (http://users.skynet.be/CORSAIR-F4U-CFS2/Part_Corsair_Plane/htm/Type_of_plane/htm/Corsair_Type_of_plane_WW2_Menu.htm) was one of the biggest and baddest piston engine fighters of all time.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg
The P47D (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm).

http://www.sweptwings.co.uk/images/dux_bearcat_1as_small.jpg
The Grumman Bearcat F8F was the ultimate 'Cat'.

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/images3/p51Home8thAF1.jpg
The P51 goes without saying anything ;)

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p61s.jpg
The P61 Black Widow (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p61.htm) was the most powerful WWII night interceptor.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38-10.jpg
The P38 Lightning (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38.htm) was the most capable fighter of WWII.

http://www.spitfire-museum.com/images/spit06_small.jpg
The SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE MK XVI (http://www.spitfire-museum.com/) was the finest British fighter and remains synonymous as one of the best WWII era piston engined fighers.

http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/mosquito/mosq_m.jpg
The de Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_mosquito.htm) was the fastest British bomber of WWII.

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon5.jpg
http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon7.jpg
The Hawker Typhoon IB and Tempest (http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon.html) were Britain's fastest piston fighters of WWII.


http://reformline.de/ra-18.gif
The Maachi MC202 Folgore (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/macchi.htm). Italy's best WWII fighter.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/rod_larson/Zero-Ground-5_small.jpg
Larger (http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/rod_larson/Zero-Ground-5.jpg)
http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/rod_larson/Zero-Taxi-4_small.jpg
Larger (http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/rod_larson/Zero-Taxi-4.jpg)
The Mitsubishi/Nakajima A6M5 Zero (http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/rod_larson/a6m5_walkaround.htm) is synonymous as Japan's leading WWII air superiority fighter. Like the Me-109, it is TINY compared to US WWII fighters.

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/la-7s-navejich-prev.jpg
Soviet La-7 (http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/la-7.html).

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/thumbnail/03_ardmore/03ARD012.JPG
Soviet La-9 (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/la9.html).

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/thumbnail/98_wanaka/WANYAK3G.JPG
Soviet Yak-3 (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/yak3.html).

[MolliG]

Hmmm... P-51D. The Merlin was what turned the Mustang into a war winner :).

[martinexsquaddie]

The spitfire
as the german ace said to goring what do you need
a squadron of spitfires :lol:

[GLax]

air to air i gotta go with a p51 but air to ground prolly a p47, thing was a hog...

[Aussie2093]

Aren't we forgetting the German Junkers Ju-87 Stuka!?!
Not only was it an exceptional dive-bomber with outstanding results (spare the BoB where it was incorrectly utilised), but it had that shrieking whirl as it dived that scared the **** out of even the most hardened grunts on the ground. Sometimes the look and sound of the thing can do more damage than the armament itself if you know what I mean...

"No other aircraft can make claim to the number of ships sunk and also it ranks second to the number of enemy tanks destroyed during times of warfare. "


http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/Stuka/Stuka_002.jpg

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/ju874.jpg

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/ju879.jpg

LISTEN to an attack:
http://tinyurl.com/ioex/ms/mus/stuka.mp3

[HappyCat]

my top 10

1.fw 190
2.p 51
3.zero
4.corsair
5.spitfire
6.me 262
7.mosquito
8.il2 sturmovik
9.me 109
10.val

I don't think the fw 190 would deserve to be on the list, or at least not # 1, most veteran german pilots prefered the 109 to it because the 109 had firepower centralized in the nose which made it much easier to take a plane down.
And as for the stuka, they were never very good planes, they could scare people on the ground and lower moral of enemy troops, but when half the stukas that are sent out over the battle of britain are shot down in a day the moral for the german air force would be much worse.

[He219]

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/bk37_ju87.jpg
The Ju-87 was a lumbering target for fighters. It was highly effective bombing, strafing and killing Soviet Tanks.

The Fw-190 Doras outmatched just about all Me-109's with exception of the K models. No comparison. Greater landing gear stability and a much larger airframe. The D-9's (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dan2.htm) and it's final iterations, the Ta-152, were some of the finest fighters of WWII. The Ta-152 was the fastest piston fighter of WWII.....

http://www.simviation.com/gryphon/cfs1/fw190d9-01.jpg
The Fw 190D "long-nose" version was an adaptation of the radial-engined Fw 190A to the Junkers Jumo 213 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine. In many respects, the "Dora" was the most successful version of the Focke-Wulf fighter to attain service in quantity.

The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 (http://www.simviation.com/gryphon/cfs1/Fw190d9-info.htm) was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang.


TA 152H-1 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html)
Used mainly for close support and top cover for Me262 bases during takeoff/landings.

Near the end of 1944, Kurt Tank himself had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152Hs. He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs. Tank pressed the button which activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke.

Delivery: January 1945
Total built: 150
Powerplant:
V12 liquid cooled Junkers Jumo 213E-1
MW50 Methanol Water for low altitude boost
GM1 Nitrous Oxide for high altitude boost
1750hp (takeoff) 2050hp (MW50)
1320hp (32800ft) 1740hp (MW50)
Weight: 8642 lbs empty 10472 normal 11502 maximum
Armament:
1 x MK108 30mm cannon (90 rpg)
2 x MG151/20E 20mm cannon (175 rpg)

Performance:
Speed
332 MPH (sea level) 350 (MW50)
465 MPH (29530 ft) (MW50)
472 MPH (41010 ft) (GM1)

Climb Rate
3445 ft/min (alt n/a)

[thatguy96]

It should be noted that the number of accidental deaths of pilots flying Corsairs, both F4Us and F2Gs were extremely high. It didn't get the name "Ensign Eliminator" for nothing. Its extremely long nose proved to be quite difficult for most pilots coming from Wildcats or Hellcats to judge distances and such. The Hellcat in my mind, and if the Bearcat had actually served, would be the better choices, offering similar performance (well not to the F2G, but the fact that you could never run the engine at 100% for very long means it still had issues) and armament. The fact that the French and other air arms around the world used the Corsair after WWII belies the fact that many used Hellcats and Bearcats and that the main reason for this was the simple fact that we were throwing these things away in favor of our new jet fighters and the Skyraider (a truly superior piston engined aircraft).

Personally, my choices for the US would still include the Corsair, but not very high up. And as for overall importance the Hellcat and Wildcat should definitly be included. The F4F-4 (and subsequent Wildcats, F4F-5 and 6, and FM-1 and 2) was a mean little machine given its age and size, and while it could not challange even the early A6Ms in maneauverability, it gave them a dose of pain simply because it was more durable.

[California Joe]

P-51 Mustang.

All the cool pilots said so.

[fng]

Single piston engine air-to-air:
TA-152
P-51 (Chuck Yeager said that a P-51 could do what a Spitfire could only it
could do it all day.)

Single piston engine air-to-ground:
P-47 (Could handle a ton of AAA damage)
Stormovik
F-4U

Twin piston engined air-to-ground:
A-26 Invader p-)
Mosquito
Germans had a good one too (can't remember which)

[He219]

fng, do you mean the Hs-129 (http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbainhs129.htm)?
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Hs129/Hs129B3-1.jpg

The IL2 definately could take A LOT of damage.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/il2.jpg


On another note, the sister of our family friends was married to none other than Richard Ira Bong (http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/bong.htm). I have a custom made lighter made by Dick from a .50 cal casing since I was a kid.... :D
http://www.historysaver.com/assets/noseart/P38margephoto.jpghttp://www.pro-mark.com/Marge%20B.jpg
Sadly, he died in '45 test flying a P-80 over L.A. :(

[ogukuo72]

When it comes to dive-bombers, it's kind of hard to choose between the Stuka and the Dauntless (sorry, can't remember the numerical designation). Both contributed more their fair share to the war efforts of their respective countries. The Stuka blasted a way through France in 1940, and did sterling service in the Med and in Russia.

But for my money, I would give the title of the greatest dive-bomber to the Dauntless simply because a handful of them turned the tide in the Pacific at Midway. I will always have a soft spot for a under-powered, under-gunned and numerically inferior underdog that won against all odds.

[ArmedPacifist]

The Me-262

fastest plane in service, first aircraft to use jet propulsion. Had it been entered into service earlier it might have changed history in the Battle of Britian.

[thatguy96]

He219, you know why they say Bong was so good right? That he had such bad eyesight that he'd fly up behind his opponent so close that he couldn't miss, and flying a P-38 he had a cone of fire straight ahead.

[He219]

Yeah, I read that someplace. But you have to give him credit for flying close enough to shoot down 40 bandits and be the US's Ace of Aces...


;)

[thatguy96]

Without a doubt...I just always thought it was amusing.

[perdurabo]

well for badass lokin FW190 and Aces over aces was Erich Hartman above 1000 victories:) all over spain poland benelux france england russia and meany other:)
but P51 was the best in that war
poland didnt have good fighters we used old ones but few new developments was under way but we had one of greatest bombers of war PZL37 Łoś fast agile manuverable over 2 000 kg of bombs:)

[He219]

yep!

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm3.jpg

The highest scoring ace of all time was the great German Luftwaffe experte Erich Hartmann (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/hartm/hartm1.htm) with 352 aerial kills. Flying Bf 109s (Me-109s) against the overmatched Soviet MiGs and Yaks for almost three years, he accumulated his unrivalled score. Hartmann claimed, that of all his accomplishments, he was proudest of the fact that he never lost a wingman. He is also reputed to have said. "Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss."

Erich Hartmann did fly nearly all of his missions against the Russians on the eastern front, but he also flew against the Americans over Rumania, downing 7 P-51D Mustangs. He is also rumored to have downed several Hurricanes and Spitfires, which were flown by Russian pilots.


Hartmann was deadly flying the Me/Bf-109 (G6). The 109 remains the most produced fighter aircraft in history with manufacturing peaking at the end of WWII. My choice for best WWII fighter, statistically; the Ta-152H.

http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

Approximately 150 Ta 152H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant. Most of the Ta 152s operated in the close-support role. Others flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, trying to protect the jets from being "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or landing. It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly.

The pilots who flew the Ta 152 H in battle were very pleased with it. The aircraft was well able to battle the P-51D "Mustang" as well as the British Hawker "Tempest", several of these allied aircraft falling to the guns of the Ta 152. The final victims of the Ta 152s guns being Russian Yakolev Yak-9s during the final days of battle around Berlin on April 30, 1945.
http://www.russia.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=9858&pagenumber=1

[Russian Texan]

well for badass lokin FW190 and Aces over aces was Erich Hartman above 1000 victories

Do you realize how ridiculously high this number sounds :lol: It would be very interesting to see your source. I have done my research and it seems that most sources agree on the number "352" although some are arguing that since Luftwaffe didn't require much proof to confirm a kill it is doubtfull that number is that high. There is very interesting book, well it is actually series of books, that was written by Russian and German researchers about the air war on the Eastern front. The name is "Black cross/Red star" I have read some parts of it and so far I'm very impressed by the research that authors have done. As far as which airplane is the best fighter of WW2, americans will argue for P 51, brits for Spitfire, Germans for Me 262 or FW 109, Russians for their own aircraft but the interesting fact is that when some russian units were given a choice of any allied aircrafts they would choose Yaks. On other hand, one of the highest scoring soviet aces Pokryshkin (72 kills) was flying P39 Aircobra...

[He219]

He must have gotten the sorties confused with victories, Russian Texan.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1.jpg
Erich Hartmann survived the war with 352 confirmed victories, a higher total than any other fighter pilot in history. These victories were attained on 1,404 combat sorties, resulting in 825 aerial combats. Of his 352 victories, 260 were achieved against fighters - and seven against U.S. Fifteenth Air Force Mustangs.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/hartm/hartm1.htm

Over the years, there's been a lot of ink spilled about the relative scores of German and American aces. 27 Americans shot down over 20 enemy planes. 15 Germans shot down over 200 planes, and more than 100 Luftwaffe experten downed at least 100 aircraft.

In large part, the differences can be attributed to one man: Joseph Stalin, who approached all Russian military problems with one concept: more! More planes, more pilots, and when they got shot down, even more planes and more pilots. Poorly trained, flying mediocre aircraft, the brave Russian pilots didn't have much of a chance.

Also important is the type of air warfare that the Soviets waged. They focused on ground support, on the tank-killing Il-2 Sturmoviks. And they were very successful. But the Sturmoviks, while deadly against German tanks, were no match for Hartmann and other aces flying Bf 109s and Fw 190s.
http://www.acepilots.com/misc_hartmann.html

And you are right about the Airacobra. The US gave them the the USSR because they were thought of as a piece of $hit. It does have the extraordinary rear mounted engine though and Pokryshkin knew how to make the best use of it...

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/pokri1.jpg
The P-39 was a favourite weapon of Pokryshkin. He still flew on that type when his all 9th Fighter Division was already reequiped with La-7 fighters. In 1943 Pokryshkin made a useful P-39 modification, he bound all armenement fire into one stick button, so that a wave of 37 mm cannon and 12,7 mm heavy gun shells can devestate any enemy plane in one moment.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pokri/pokri.htm

[ArmedPacifist]

Hans Rudel was a pretty amazing pilot.

[GazB]

"is that when some russian units were given a choice of any allied aircrafts they would choose Yaks. On other hand, one of the highest scoring soviet aces Pokryshkin (72 kills) was flying P39 Aircobra..."

I think you mean the French Normandie Neimann unit chose the Yak-3s.

Also the highest scoring Soviet ace was Kozhedub (spelling) with about 62 confirmed kills.

Also regarding the German tallies you should allow for the fact that the Geman airforce wiped out many small european airforces like Poland and Belgium etc etc... many of which were equipped with biplanes.

[Russian Texan]

Well it is actually considered to be a controversial issue. The thing is that soviets had very strict rules, unlike germans, when it came to verifying kills. At that time they only credited planes which were shot down in their territory and therefore it could be verified. Some historians state that Pokryshkin should be given credit for 13 more "free hunt" kills over the enemy territory. So if you count them it is 72:62 Pokryshkin over Kozhedub. But according to the official stats Kozhedub is the highest scoring allied ace of WW2. His plane of choice was "La 5" in which he managed to down Me 262. On one occasion he shot down 2 "P 51" which mistakenly attacked him (both losses were verified by USAF), ofcourse they didn't count towards his stats. I guess he never really got over the fact of americans attacking him :lol: and later became a commander of all soviet fighter regiments in Korea where his units produced 16 aces including two highest scoring in the conflict: Pepelyaev and Sutyagin both with 23 kills.

Anyhow I think that soviets had the best looking fighters in WW2, but ofcourse it is my very subjective opinion. :)
http://www.fighterplanes.net/

[perdurabo]

well for badass lokin FW190 and Aces over aces was Erich Hartman above 1000 victories

Do you realize how ridiculously high this number sounds :lol: It would be very interesting to see your source. I have done my research and it seems that most sources agree on the number "352" although some are arguing that since Luftwaffe didn't require much proof to confirm a kill it is doubtfull that number is that high. There is very interesting book, well it is actually series of books, that was written by Russian and German researchers about the air war on the Eastern front. The name is "Black cross/Red star" I have read some parts of it and so far I'm very impressed by the research that authors have done. As far as which airplane is the best fighter of WW2, americans will argue for P 51, brits for Spitfire, Germans for Me 262 or FW 109, Russians for their own aircraft but the interesting fact is that when some russian units were given a choice of any allied aircrafts they would choose Yaks. On other hand, one of the highest scoring soviet aces Pokryshkin (72 kills) was flying P39 Aircobra...
upsss sory:) yep 352 my bad:( but above 300 is quite impresing:)

[tony6]

But it doesn't mean that he actualy shot down 352 planes.
There was pretty good kill confirmation method in RAF (reports+photo cameras+film analysis) but in Luftwaffe nobody cared...

[James]

Best fighter: Brewster Buffalo
Best Attack Aircraft: Douglas (?) Devastator

:P

[ogukuo72]

The Finns did a pretty decent job with their Brewster 239's (Buffaloes in British parlance) against the Russians.

If the Americans and Commonwealth pilots didn't do so well against the Japanese, it may not be because of the plane, but because of the pilots / tactics etc..

[Russian Texan]

One thing that I don't get is if the Finns airforce supposevely was so effective against Soviets who in turn completely cleaned Japs clock and US airmen had trouble with Japaneese, what does it mean? If to think about it logicaly then US had piss poor flyers which is hard to believe... So can someone please explain it to me how it adds up.

[ogukuo72]

The AVG did a good job with a poor fighter (the P40), so the Americans can't be piss poor flyers. The Brits fought off the Luftwaffe over Britain, so that can't be it either.

But the fact remains that the Finns did a splendid job in a fighter that everyone called junk. Indeed, the victory ratio in 1941 was supposed to be 67.5 to 1!

So what happened? Can someone tell us?

[GazB]

The "Soviets who in turn completely cleaned Japs clock" because their leader Zhukov knew how to handle the troops, and his tactics were good and his equipment was not that inferior to that of the Japanese... BT-7 tanks and Polikarpov mono and biplane fighters.

Against the Finns (which happened after the fighting in Gakalin Khol (spelling)) on the other hand came up against conscript troops that used WWI type tactics of frontal assaults with bolt action rifles and I-15 biplanes, I-16 monoplanes and not very successful Mig-1 fighters.
Again at the end of the war when the Soviets swept down through china and north Korea and the Islands to the north of Japan they did so with modern weapons and equipment with battle hardened troops and Yaks and Lavochkins and T-34/85s.

In fact one of the conspirasy theories for the US use of the Atomic bomb was to show the Soviets the powerful weapon the US had at its command and that the Emperor had already made approaches to make peace. (Of course unknown to the US the manhattan project was riddled with spies and Stalin was well aware that the two bombs dropped and the one tested were the only weapons the US would have in 45 and that it wuld take 3-4 years before they had a dozen droppable weapons to use against the Soviet Union.

[Kingpin]

Well, because Il-2 Sturmovik considered to be historically correct i can choose

Soviet
La-5FN and Yak-9 is the best for usual pilots (i prefer first)
And Yak-3 is the best for aces (like my friend :roll: ).

German
Bf-109 As6 with 30mm cannon
Fw-190 (1944 year model)

[ogukuo72]

Compared to American and British fighters, Russian fighters are lightly armed and short-ranged. I've some doubts that a LaGG or a Yak would be able to shoot down a B-17, let alone a B-29, easily.

It's certainly inconceivable to imagine the Russians launching the kind of air campaign that wrestled air superiority (no, air supremacy!) over Germany without a long-range penetration fighter like the P-51. Indeed, without the attritional air campaigns fought over the sky of Germany, we can ask whether the Russians could have established air superiority over a Luftwaffe not fatally weakened by American and British airpower.

Without air superiority over the battle-front, aircraft such as Il-2 - no matter how heavily armoured - would have been easy meat for the swarms of FW190 and Me 109 armed with 15mm machine guns and 20mm cannons. What would it mean for the ground war with a powerful Luftwaffe with air superiority that allows its fighter-bombers to roam the battle ground, breaking up Russian battle formations?

[Russian Texan]

Do you even know what are you talking about? I strongly suggest you look up some info on the armament of the soviet fighters before making a post, you know it just might give you some credibility... I don't really see that much of a difference in range capabilities between soviet and US/GB fighters except P 51 with the drop off tanks. Soviets didn't need a plane with the huge range due to the specifics of the war on the eastern front - there was constant movement and no permanent airbases. If you noticed neither Germany nor Russia had a dedicated, built in large numbers,long range heavy bomber. To be correct, Russians had monstrosity named "Pe 8" that was able to fly from Moscow to Washington and carry 4000 kg of bombs, but it never was built in large numbers. The airwar on the eastern front was all all about ground support, that is why USSR built over 36,000 "Il 2" and 12,000 "Pe 2".
The reason US/GB achieved airsuperiority on the western front is because overwhelming majority of Germany's fighters and best pilots were on the Eastern front. And before you start to argue, pls do some research :roll:
Recently I got into WW2 stuff and started doing some reading, while doing so I have discovered things that were completely omited in my high school and college history classes. Let me tell you, the air war as well as the ground war on the Eastern front is absolutelly incomparable to the one in the West. The number of aircraft involved, sorties flown, losses, etc. are just inconceivable to the point that, with all respect to our allies, "Battle of the Britain" was just a small scrimadge by the Soviet standarts. Read "Black Cross/Red Star" it's like an eye opener.

[GazB]

"Compared to American and British fighters, Russian fighters are lightly armed and short-ranged."

This is a common misconception. For a start one of the earliest Soviet fighters was the Polikarpov !-16 monoplane armed with 4 7.62mm ShKAS MGs, later with 2 20mm cannon added. The ShKAS had a rate of fire three times higher than a comparable western MG, at 1,800 rpm for the early war version and 2,700rpm for the late war Ultra ShKAS model.
Regarding weight of fire the ancient I-16 with 4 MGs had more firepower than a late war Spitfire with 8 x 303 MGs.
Later weapons used included 20mm and 23mm cannon and 37mm cannon as well. The La-7 had three 23mm cannon that would rip bombers to shreds and had the explosive power to bring down fighters with single round hits.

As they weren't being used against strategic targets range was not an issue till near the end of the war when distances started to increase. The result was the Yak-9DD which had very good range. On the whole range wasn't an issue in the field and therefore irrelevant to the designers.

"Indeed, without the attritional air campaigns fought over the sky of Germany, we can ask whether the Russians could have established air superiority over a Luftwaffe not fatally weakened by American and British airpower. "

We could equally ask if the Soviets had not been attacked and continued with the Molotov agreement in supplying steel and oil and rubber to the Germans and didn't tie up 2/3rds of Germany's military forces from 41-44 whether there would have been a Great Britain for the US to base its forces in. And without the unsinkable carrier that is GB exactly what the US would have done... D-Day would have been impossible for a start.

"Without air superiority over the battle-front, aircraft such as Il-2 - no matter how heavily armoured - would have been easy meat for the swarms of FW190 and Me 109 armed with 15mm machine guns and 20mm cannons. "

Often they didn't have airsuperiority and yes quite a few were lost, but also quite a few managed to do some damage as well.

"What would it mean for the ground war with a powerful Luftwaffe with air superiority that allows its fighter-bombers to roam the battle ground, breaking up Russian battle formations?"

They had that. When the Germans first invaded the Russians had 10-15,000 planes... the vast majority were destroyed on the ground. They were obsolescent biplanes and monoplanes like the Polikarpov. It wasn't till the Germans were near the outskirts of Moscow that the Soviet Airforce actually stoppped them.

[ogukuo72]

The La-7 was armed with three 20mm and had a range of 990km. You are probably referring to the La-9, which was fitted with three 23mm but did not debut until 1946. With the La-7's lack of high-attitude performance, it will be hard put to intercept B-17s, let alone B-29s. The German fighter FW190 was much more balanced in terms of performance, and proved a formidable opponent for the USAAF.

Any aircraft design is a compromise between different elements. The greatest fighters have to achieve the best compromise. Designs such as P-51s and FW-190s achieved a much better balance than the Russian designs.

You are right in that the majority of the Wehrmacht's strength was concentrated in Russia. Indeed, before 1944, there WAS no Western Front. It would certainly be doubtful if Overlord could have succeeded if the Germans could deploy 2/3 of their strength in France instead of the other way round.

But I believe that the air campaign over Germany did help the Russian ground war in drawing a huge portion of Luftwaffe strength away from the Eastern Front. Another factor is that the many of the superb 88mm Flak (and to an even greater extent the 105mm Flak) were deployed in Germany to oppose the USAAF and RAF instead of on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Air Force.

Just as critically, the versatile 88mm (and to a lesser extent the 105mm)could also have been used as artillery and anti-tank guns. If it had not been for the air campaign, the Russian land forces would probably have met with heavier concentrations of these guns. The Germans could only produce a certain number of 88mm tubes, and these have to be allocated between Luftwaffe for use as flak guns and the Heer for use as anti-tank guns. So, those that went to Germany to defend against USAAF and RAF bombers would not be available to the German army groups for defence against Russian's mass tank assaults.

[Kingpin]

Fw-190 was developed as high altitude interceptor - that's why it have better performance against B-17/29. But don't forget Germany didn't have such strategic bombers. So why Soviets needed to develop such aircraft?

[Kingpin]

My grandfather flew on Il-2 from 1943 to 1945 and he thinks that Il-2 is a great plane. Very reliable and it was very hard to shot down this plane. WW2 variant for A-10 (and Su-25). ;)

[Shadow]

The best WWII Pilot was Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
http://images0815.zyn.de/ic/70/64/0246734374.jpg

2530 Feindflügen und dreißigmal abgeschossen, spricht für sich. Auf sein Konto gehen 519 russische Panzer, 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Zerstörer, 70 Landungsboote, mehr als 800 motorisierte Fahrzeuge, über 150 Artillerie-, Pak- und Flakstellungen, 9 Luftsiege und zahlreiche Bunker, Brücken und Nachschublinien

2530 Missions
519 Russian Tabks
1 Battleship
1 Destroyer
70 Landingboots
800 motorized Vehicles
<150 Artillerie
9 Dogfights
Many Bridges Supportconvois etc.[/img]

[Kingpin]

Rudel was a good pilot but also he was an ultimate fascist. So his view on WW2 should be considered through this fact.

And also he was lucky bastard - he was downed more than 30 times and survived all of them. Actually i suppose his luck gave him so much scores instead of his skills.

[tony6]

Polish 303rd (RAF) was one of the best squadron in WWII.
"The question of honor-the Kosciuszko Squadron, forgotten heroes of WWII"-a book for those of You who speak english.

[Russian Texan]

Polish 303rd (RAF) was one of the best squadron in WWII.
"The question of honor-the Kosciuszko Squadron, forgotten heroes of WWII"-a book for those of You who speak english.

With all respect, but it only had 126 kills with the top guy scoring 17 and dying in the crash...

[volfram]

303 squadron shot 126 airplains during Battle of Britain and was best among all RAF squadrons at this time.

[tony6]

Hey "Ruski":
with all the respect it had "only" 126 kills in "only" 1,5 months (flying mostly Hurricanes at that time).

[tony6]

P.S.
The guy who died in the crush was sgt Frantiszek and he was the only Czech in this squadron.
He was flying in Polish squadron on his own request.

[GazB]

"Just as critically, the versatile 88mm (and to a lesser extent the 105mm)could also have been used as artillery and anti-tank guns."

The Germans weren't short of anti tank guns on the Eastern front... they were short of tanks. The German policy of over producing things (ie Panthers were very good once all the bugs were worked out, but less than 6,000 were made, and only 2,500 odd Tigers were made. Equally stupid things like rocket propelled interceptors were being made instead of the things they needed (ie Bf-109s, Fw-190s and Panzer IVs).

After 1943 they were pretty much withdrawing from the East so mobile guns would have been more use to them than towed 88s.

This is not to suggest that the bombing of Germany did nothing of course, but to listen to the Western view it won the war... the reality is that it probably didn't, though it certainly contributed.

[Skaman]

The best WWII Pilot was Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
http://images0815.zyn.de/ic/70/64/0246734374.jpg

2530 Feindflügen und dreißigmal abgeschossen, spricht für sich. Auf sein Konto gehen 519 russische Panzer, 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Zerstörer, 70 Landungsboote, mehr als 800 motorisierte Fahrzeuge, über 150 Artillerie-, Pak- und Flakstellungen, 9 Luftsiege und zahlreiche Bunker, Brücken und Nachschublinien

2530 Missions
519 Russian Tabks
1 Battleship
1 Destroyer
70 Landingboots
800 motorized Vehicles
<150 Artillerie
9 Dogfights
Many Bridges Supportconvois etc.[/img]


i disagree, i would say erich hartman

[He219]

" Equally stupid things like rocket propelled interceptors were being made instead of the things they needed (ie Bf-109s, Fw-190s and Panzer IVs).
Another Brilliant assertion by GazB! :cantbeli:

http://www.214th.com/ww2/germany/me109/me109d.jpg

At over 33000 planes, the 109 was the most produced fighter in history. Production peaked at the end of WWII using decentralized (http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Production.htm) production facilities.
The Me-109G was the most numerous of the Messerschmitts, with production reaching 725 a month by July 1943, and that year's total reaching 6,418 aircraft. In spite of Allied bombing raids against German industry, Me-109 production for 1944 reached 14,212. In addition to the Messerschmitts produced in Germany, Hungary built about 700 Me-109Gs under license at Budapest and Györ until September 1944. Romania also began licensed production in the IAR plant at Brasov, but completed only 16 Me-109G-6s and assembled 30 others from German-delivered components before its facilities were destroyed by bombers of the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force on May 6, 1944.

Although somewhat past its prime as a first-line fighter, the Me-109G remained a foe to be reckoned with right to the end of the fighting, due in part to its fuel-injected DB 605A engine, but primarily due to the expertise and ingenuity of its pilots. The Gustavs were flown at one time or another by all the greatest aces of the Axis powers, including Finland's Eino Ilmari Juutilainen (94 victories), Alexandru Serbanescu of Romania (45), Mato Dukovac of Croatia (40), Dezsö Szent-Györgyi of Hungary (32), Ján Reznak of Slovakia (32), Stoyan Stoyanov of Bulgaria (6) and Spanish volunteer Gonzalo Hevia Alvarez Quiñones (12). A squadron of anti-Stalinist Russians who had allied themselves with the Germans was also equipped with Me-109E-1s; several of its pilots scored 15 or more victories, and one, Leonidas Maximciuc, claimed 52. Some Italian aces added to their scores flying Me-109Gs in 1943 and 1945. The only noteworthy Axis aces who did not put in some flying hours in Me-109s were Japanese.

Leading them all, of course, were the Germans themselves. The all-time ace of aces, Erich Hartmann, scored all of his 352 victories in the Me-109, preferring to stay with it rather than take the time to familiarize himself with more advanced types. Gerhard Barkhorn, the Luftwaffe's second-ranking ace with 301 victories, considered the Me-109F his favorite fighter. Günther Rall, the third-ranking German ace with 275 victories, flew all variants of the Me-109 from E to K, as well as putting in a brief stint in the Focke Wulf Fw-109D. Rall echoed Hartmann's sentiments: "I liked the 109 most because I was familiar with it."

Not everyone who flew the Me-109 liked it. Walter Nowotny, the leading Austrian ace, scored his first successes in Me-109Es but soon moved on to the Fw-190A, in which he gained most of his 258 victories. For every German who preferred the familiarity of the Me-109 there was another who was happier flying the Fw-190, the Me-262 jet or anything else.
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/aircraft/day/me109_text.html

Total Fw 190 production, which ended in 1945, was approximately 19,500. It was the first fighter to give the Luftwaffe a combat advantage over the early Spitfires. Its overall versatility, too complex to list here, was characterised by several dozen kits to adapt production aircraft to different roles, and the allocation of some 80 Versuchs numbers to individual development aircraft.

However, all the production in the world including unmatched technological ingenuity could not stem the tide of war with the loss fuel, raw materials and manpower to stem the ever increasing material advantage of the American Industrial complex.

[Macs.]

Best Fighter Pilot (ever) in WW2:
Erich Hartmann´, shooting down 352 enemy airplanes
http://waffenhq.de/specials/hartmann-01.jpg

[ogukuo72]

"Just as critically, the versatile 88mm (and to a lesser extent the 105mm)could also have been used as artillery and anti-tank guns."

The Germans weren't short of anti tank guns on the Eastern front... they were short of tanks. The German policy of over producing things (ie Panthers were very good once all the bugs were worked out, but less than 6,000 were made, and only 2,500 odd Tigers were made. Equally stupid things like rocket propelled interceptors were being made instead of the things they needed (ie Bf-109s, Fw-190s and Panzer IVs).

After 1943 they were pretty much withdrawing from the East so mobile guns would have been more use to them than towed 88s.

This is not to suggest that the bombing of Germany did nothing of course, but to listen to the Western view it won the war... the reality is that it probably didn't, though it certainly contributed.

Don't forget that the Tigers and various SPG designs used 88mm tubes as well. And I'm not sure why you said that there was plenty of anti-tank guns, when most German infantry battalions on the Eastern Front were still issued with 50mm tubes at the opening of Operation Bagration.

Perhaps you are right in that there was PLENTY of anti-tank guns - just not enough of the 75mm and - especially - 88mm varieties. And you need those to stop T-34/85's and KV-85's (not to mention the Josef Stalins).

[GazB]

"Don't forget that the Tigers and various SPG designs used 88mm tubes as well."

They did, but the ammo they used was not the same as the 88mm Flak gun.

88mm Anti aircraft guns were very expensive (due to design) and the shortage of them was more to do with this than anything else.

"And I'm not sure why you said that there was plenty of anti-tank guns, when most German infantry battalions on the Eastern Front were still issued with 50mm tubes at the opening of Operation Bagration. "

Quite true, but at that time there were less than 1,000 KVs and T-34s in service and the early encirclements in 41 were the most productive for the Germans netting about 2.5-3 million prisoners of the 5-6 million soviet prisoners taken during the whole war (of which about 1 million survived) as well as huge amounts of captured weapons. One of the most common weapons captured were the 76.2mm field guns that with solid shot were quite capable of taking on T-34s and KVs at a time before they were commonplace... of course the weapons had to be in the right place at the right time, but then they were more mobile than the 88mm Flak guns anyway.

"Perhaps you are right in that there was PLENTY of anti-tank guns - just not enough of the 75mm and - especially - 88mm varieties. And you need those to stop T-34/85's and KV-85's (not to mention the Josef Stalins)."

The 75mm guns came with the Panthers and were fitted to the Panzer IVs and were adaquate for more than 90% of targets. The 88mm guns of the Tigers were better of course, and the 85mm gun of the T-34/85 was relatively comparable, though slightly less powerful, it did the job, but most importantly was there in numbers, whereas the Tigers and Panthers were very few and far between. Time, effort, money, resources squandered on Panthers and Tigers resulted in excellent vehicles, but that same money time etc spent on a tank that merely did the job like the Panzer IV would have been a much better investment... 20 Panzer IVs in a unit is worth rather more than 5 broken down Panthers, or 2 Tigers on the way, but delayed because new bridges have to be built for them to get there.

"At over 33000 planes, the 109 was the most produced fighter in history."

So what? Over 36,000 Yaks were made during WWII. What difference does that make? Does that mean that all of the time, money, people, resources, etc wasted on a rocket plane to intercept bombers was actually well spent? The huge cost of fueling them alone meant they never entered service. They could fly one mission and had to be almost completely overhauled before they could fly again. They could remain in the air for 15 mins during one interception. They were very fast and well armed, but cost 5 times more than a Bf-109, and if you add design and development costs as well then it would probably be closer to 50 times more expensive. Complete waste.

Even with the Me262 Hitler wanted to make it into a bomber instead of what it obviously was.. a fighter.

[ogukuo72]

The high scores achieved by Luftwaffe aces are an indication of the failure of the Luftwaffe rather than its success.

Those high scores are accumulated by continuous fighting over three or four years. Some of the German aces were in the Spanish Civil War, which means they had been fighting for almost eight years!

This continous fighting means that many skilled fighter pilots were kept on the front lines for too long. They were killed off one by one through the inevitable attrition that came with the brutal and accident prone nature of WW2 air warfare.

The RAF and USAAF rotates their experienced pilots regularly, often assigning aces to train the next generation of pilots. This ensured that hard won experience and skills ('human software' in modern parlance) are passed on. The end result is that the RAF and USAAF managed to keep the quality of their air force uniformly high whereas air forces that does not practice rotation - like the Luftwaffe and the Japanese air forces - experience a rapid decline in pilot quality after the first batch of superb fighters were killed off.

Sure, there is a very small and hard core of superb pilots, but the rest are badly trained cannon fodder. This is NOT the way to win an air war.

[FallenAngel]

yeah, but the US alone also had something like 5 times the population of Germany...that gives you a lot bigger pool to pull canidates from which allows you to rotate people back to be instructors without any major loss of numbers.

[ogukuo72]

True. But China had an even bigger pool of population, and the Chinese Air Force was never a major factor in fighting in WW2. :)

[Kingpin]

Best Fighter Pilot (ever) in WW2:
Erich Hartmann´, shooting down 352 enemy airplanes
http://waffenhq.de/specials/hartmann-01.jpg

No! He had 352 victories. This is not equal to shot down a plane. If you hit a bomber and it dropped bombs and trying to run - this is also victory. If you damaged an enemy fighter and it is out of battle and going back to its airfield or to emergency landing - it is also victory.

In russian airforce were other rules. Plane should be destroyed to be accounted.

[perdurabo]

in Luftwaffe was some point system i have an article (in Polish:() about it and it its true! he fight from spain to the end so in 7-9years of war flying in moust times on better planes he could done that:) reamember that germans couldn't send him rest they were always out of good pilots and in western front in first phase when USSR flew on I16 I153 etc. he flew on Me109/FW190 so he could do that:)

[FabeYond]

No! He had 352 victories. This is not equal to shot down a plane. If you hit a bomber and it dropped bombs and trying to run - this is also victory. If you damaged an enemy fighter and it is out of battle and going back to its airfield or to emergency landing - it is also victory.

In russian airforce were other rules. Plane should be destroyed to be accounted.

You surely have some sources to back up this, yes?

If not - well, I can give you some insight into the german system:

The major difference between the German and Western Allies' method of scoring victories was that the Germans were not allowed to share a victory. Their cardinal rule was: "One pilot-one kill." In contrast Allied pilots were allowed to share victories. If two pilots fired at an enemy and it went down, each Allied pilot received one-half of the kill. Carried to absurdity, it is conceivable that an Allied pilot could become an ace with ten or more half-victories, never scoring any victories of his own! The Luftwaffe system of awarding victories was impartial, inflexible, and far less prone to error than the American or British method. That is not to say that errors were not made, history shows that both sides during the "Battle of Britain" tended to overclaim victories on a scale of 2:1.

The German's recorded victories in one of three categories: Abschuss (Destroyed), Herausschuss (Seperation), and endgueltige Vernichtung (Final Destruction.) These three categories were used for assessing "points" towards awards. Only an enemy aircraft in an Abschuss was counted towards the pilot's overall victory tally. A pilot that brought down and enemy plane with a Endgueltige Vernichtung or Final Destruction of a damaged aircraft was not awarded credit for the "kill", however he did earn "points" for the aircraft's destruction.

Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.

Every Abschuss had to be confirmed by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe or Commander in Chief of the Air Force. Jagdwaffe pilots were at all times required to note their geographical position as well as the type and number of the aircraft in enemy formations engaged. Naturally, the victor was required to log the exact time of a kill, while he maneuvered for a tactical advantage over the remaining enemy aircraft! In addition, he had to observe other actions in the air in order to be able to witness victories by his Staffelmates. Upon landing, the claimant prepared his Abschuss report for review by the immediate supervisory officer, who either endorsed or rejected the claim. If endorsed, the pilot's report to the Geschwaderstab, or Wing Staff, which, in turn, filed its report and sent both to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or Air Ministry. After checking all the papers that were submitted, the official confirmation was prepared and sent to the unit. This very long bureaucratic proceedure sometimes took as long as a year! During 1944, another authority was created: the Abschusskommission, which received all reports on crashed aircraft remains found by search units. This commission checked conflicting claims between antiaircraft batteries and fighter pilots, and awarded credit for the victory to one claimant or the other. This system ensured that no more credits would be awarded than wrecks found.

The German system of confirming aerial victories was very effective in keeping human errors and weknesses within limits. Despite this, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or Luftwaffe High Command, considered the large victory totals during the early days of the Russian campaign as incredulous. On many occasions, they accused the Jagdgeschwader Kommodores of exaggerating the victory scores. In effect Goering was calling the frontline pilots liars. This was one of the grievances that brought about the Mutiny of the Fighters, or the Kommodores' Revolt Conference, in Berlin during January, 1945.

When a German fighter pilot scored a victory, he would call "Horrido" on the radio. This distinctive announcement of victory alerted his fellow pilots to watch for a crash or a flamer, as well as notify ground stations, which helped to confirm many victories.

taken from: http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm

[MARK.TIGGER]

corsair yep an excellent aircraft but its reputation and a bit of a nightmare was so bad the it took the British Fleet airarm to prove to the US navy it was a viable carrier aircraft. yes it was excellent and IMHO one of the best of ww2

[Russian Texan]

You gave an excellent description how the system was suppose to work but it did't. In real life there were plenty of overclaims and false reports on both sides. Infact higher the pilots score was - more credibility he had. For example: If a rookie would claim a victory it had to be checked but if a multiple kill pilot was making the same claim, often just his word was required and it was true for both Russian and Germans (I don't know much about Japaneese, British, Polish, etc.). You are also wrong about joint/collective/shared victories on the Allied side: Russians kept a separate score for shared victories, for example: one of soviet navy aces - Abramov ended war with 21 personal and 8 shared kills.
All of my info is based on "Black cross/Red star" book series which was written jointly by both Russians and Germans.

[ogukuo72]

Hmmmmm...... why this obsession with keeping scores? The air force that won is not the one with the few aces with the highest victory scores. The JNAF and JAAF both had aces with very high scores - but they lost the war too didn't they?

[Longbranch]

Sexiest lines of the war – Macchi MC205:
http://www.ffsmc.com/zforum/zpublic/2_ITA-MACCHI_M.C.205_Veltro_Le-Bourget.JPG

Greatest "sh!t their pants" effect – P61 (4x20mm, 4x.50 cal.):
http://www.maam.org/images/p61flt.jpg

Coolest looking of the war – P40 in Flying Tigers paint:
http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40rt.gif

What I'd fly if I were involved – F8F Bearcat:
http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/images/F8F.jpg
…2,300 hp radial engine, 4x20mm cannons, turns like a Zero, climbs like a Mosquito, level speed like a P51-D and better guns than anything outside the P61.

[usa320]

Fighter-bomber?

Id have to say

1. P-47D
2. p-51D
3. IL-2

[Armour recon]

Messerschmitt Bf 109
Brewster F2A Buffalo



But who knows, never flew any of them.

[Russian Texan]

Brewster F2A Buffalo


Huh?

[Armour recon]

The Brewster F2A, the U.S. Navy's first monoplane shipboard fighter, saw brief combat service during the first half-year of the Pacific War. Built in 1936-38.

[ogukuo72]

Only the Finns managed to make the best use of their Buffaloes, with amazing score ratios. The Americans flying Buffaloes at Midway were decimated, while the Brits met with disaster in their Buffaloes over Malaya and Burma.

[Flagg]

The Brewster was a crap plane...quite obsolete at the start of both the Winter War and WWII

My opinion is that Finland had better trained pilots at the time opposed by inferior pilots in comparable equipment. So the Finns were able to acquit themselves quite well in the air.

Use of the Brewster by the US and the Poms in the Pacific at the start of WWII was a different story. The Japanese, at the beginning of the conflict, had some of the best vetted and trained pilots in the world flying superior aircraft than the Buffalo.....better pilots, better aircraft, and superior local numbers at the beginning of the Pacific Campaign resulted in a Buffalo slaughter.

As far as "Best Fighter" goes....I think of it like racing......many people, including myself, follow the racer...not the ride

[ogukuo72]

The Brewster was a crap plane...quite obsolete at the start of both the Winter War and WWII

My opinion is that Finland had better trained pilots at the time opposed by inferior pilots in comparable equipment. So the Finns were able to acquit themselves quite well in the air.

Use of the Brewster by the US and the Poms in the Pacific at the start of WWII was a different story. The Japanese, at the beginning of the conflict, had some of the best vetted and trained pilots in the world flying superior aircraft than the Buffalo.....better pilots, better aircraft, and superior local numbers at the beginning of the Pacific Campaign resulted in a Buffalo slaughter.

As far as "Best Fighter" goes....I think of it like racing......many people, including myself, follow the racer...not the ride

Check out this site called the Annals of the Buffalos

http://www.danford.net/buff.htm

Good site. Pay special attention to those parts that discuss why Finnish pilots did much better with the Buffalos. And - yes - the point about how Finnish pilots were better relative to their opposition was raised. But the B-239 was apparently faster than the F2A as well as it has less armour and equipment.

It is also interesting to note that it is possible for a British pilot to fly a Buff and SURVIVE. Like all American naval planes, the Buff was tough compared to Japanese planes with good dive characteristics.

Air combat victory is not dependent solely on good planes. It is a complex combination of morale, luck, training, the right equipment (itself a complex combination of plane+radio+armour+fuel+radar+etc.), tactics and other factors.

Part of the secret to surviving and scoring is the right combat tactics and teamwork. You don't maneuver with the Jap fighters (horizontal tactics). You fight only when you have an advantage, zooming down, make one quick pass, and then dive out of the area quickly(vertical tactics).

This were the tactics the AVG used in Burma using their P-40B's and their score margins against JAAF pilots (the same well-vetted and well-trained bunch mentioned by Flagg) was very respectable.

The American naval aviators also developed some very good tactics (such as weaving) that allowed their Wildcats to put up a respectable fight and survive. I suspect that the Marine pilots over Midway, and the Commonwealth pilots over Malaya, suffered because the proper tactics had not been developed to make the most of their planes.

[ogukuo72]

They <refering to the AVG> shot down a lot more aeroplanes down than us. They had the right tactics, you know. There was no British or American fighter ever built that could dogfight with the Japanese. You had to use other tactics--come in from above, or on the same level at the very least, then dive away before they got onto you. Because if they got onto you, well, you were shot down.

We ran out of aeroplanes and pilots. That's why there's nothing said about us after awhile, because we just didn't have any more aeroplanes. They were all damaged or shot down. We never got replacements. The people with the Hurricanes that arrived . . . they were a different lot to us, and we were just left on the ground, gazing at them. [As for the pilots:] A lot of them never flew. They were either sick or useless. And they were generally officers, for some reason or other.

[Vic flew one of four survivors that went out to Dum-Dum, Calcutta, and the squadron kept two of them along with their Hurricanes.] Willie and I tried them out, the Hurricane versus the Buffalo. The Buffalo wasn't so bad.


Just to add on to my previous posting. This is what a British Buff pilot has to say about the Buff and proper tactics.

[Merik]

P-47M was the fastest single engine fighter of the war and could knock anything out of the sky.

[He219]

The XP-47M did indeed achieve some phenomenal statistics. However, production P-47M fighters did not reach operational status until the end of the war. Lets look at the production aircraft and implementation.

The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe. Underwing racks were not fitted, as the P-47M was meant to be operated strictly as a fighter.

Performance of the P-47M-1-RE included a maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 560 miles at 10,000 feet. Armament was six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 267 or 425 rpg. Weights were 10,432 pounds empty, 13,275 pounds normal loaded, and 15,500 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 308 square feet.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_12.html

Compare this with the Ta152H:

http://members.aol.com/ta183huckebein/hikoki/ta152.jpg
The pilots who flew the Ta 152 H in battle were very pleased with it. The aircraft was well able to battle the P-51D "Mustang" as well as the British Hawker "Tempest", several of these allied aircraft falling to the guns of the Ta 152. Despite the fact the Ta 152 H was ment to combat high-altitude allied bombers, almost no missions of this type were flown by those units who operated the aircraft ( notably, III/JG 301 and Stab JG 301 ). The first mission undertaken by III/JG 301 on March 2, 1945 was to intercept U.S. bombers heading for the Bohlen chemical plant near Leuna. It ended when pilots of a group of Messerschmitt BF 109s mistook the new German aircraft for the enemy and engaged them. No losses were incured and the superior climbing and agility of the Ta 152 H allowed them to evade all of the "attackers". Following this, most of III/JG 301 was involved with battling allied fighters, not bombers...the final victims of the Ta 152s guns being Russian Yakolev Yak-9s during the final days of battle around Berlin on April 30, 1945.

Specification Table for the Focke-Wulf Ta 152H-1 Type High-altitude fighter
Crew One
Powerplant Junkers Jumo 213E-1 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled engine rated at 1,750hp
at take-off ( 2,050hp with MW 50 ) and 1,320hp at 32,800ft. ( 1,740hp
with GM 1 )
Armaments One 30mm, engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds of ammo,
two 20mm, wing-mounted MG 151 cannon with 175 rounds per gun
Speed:
Maximum speed 332mph at sea level ( 350mph with MW 50 ), 465mph at 29,530ft. ( with
MW 50 ), 472mph at 41,010ft. ( with GM 1 ), 311mph cruising speed
at 22,965ft.
Range 755 miles to 1,250 miles depending on speed and external tankage
Climb 3,445ft. per minute with MW 50 injection
Ceiling 48,550ft. with GM 1 injection
Dimensions:
Span 47ft. 4 1/2in.
Length 35ft. 1 2/3in.
Height 11ft. 1/4in.
Wing Area 250.8 sq. ft.
Weights:
Empty 8,642lbs.
Loaded 11,502lbs.
Deployed? Yes


These two aircraft are certainly matched extremely closely, but did they meet head on? What was the service ceiling of the P-47M and what is it's WWII operational record?

The P-47 also reminds me of an analogy, "with engines large enough, even a brick could be made to fly..." (Red-Flag)

:P

[Merik]

Actually the P-47M did reach operational status with 130 being made for mainly the European Theater. Most of those served with the 56th Fighter Group with the entire wing being outfitted with them including spares. The P-47M claims victories over many 190s, 109s, and the Me-262. The top speed for the single, piston engine aircraft was 473 mph and served mainly in 1943.

[MARK.TIGGER]

the fastest piston engined service fighter was the Hawker Siddley Sea Fury that entered service at the end of WW2 and is credited with shooting down a MIG 15 over Korea.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/data/gallery/full/994170946f.jpg

[GazB]

The Sea Fury was a beautiful plane...

[He219]

http://www.srv.net/~twest/oleyeller/southerncross_01.gif
On 23 June, 1942, Luftwaffe Pilot Oberleutnant Arnim Faber erroneously landed his Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 fighter at RAF Pembrey, apparently having mistaken this airfield for a Luftwaffe channel coast airfield. The British were thereby presented with a working example of the Fw 190 fighter, which had been giving the RAF an extremely difficult time. The Hawker Fury design was a direct result of the examination of Faber's Fw 190A-3. Examination of Faber's aircraft was largely responsible for the preparation of Specification F.6/42, which called for a new, high-performance fighter.

The first production aircraft - a Mark 10 which was a carrier-based version, with folding wings- did not make its initial flight until September 1946.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Seafury.html

http://nellisairshow.com/03/air_racing/rare_bear/title.jpg
The Rare Bear is a World War II era Grumman F8F Bearcat. It has been restored and substantially modified from its stock configuration. This airplane was originally flown with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 (2,804 cubic inch) 18 cylinder radial engine rated at 2,000 horsepower. As it is raced today, The Rare Bear is equipped with a modified Wright R-3350 engine producing in excess of 4000 horsepower! This has allowed the Rare Bear to establish the Closed Course World Speed Record at 528.3 mph. This amazing airplane also holds the 3000 Meter Time-To-Climb Record at 91.9 seconds. Lyle Shelton's Rare Bear is also a six time National Air Race Championship winner.
http://nellisairshow.com/03/air_racing/rare_bear.html

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/do335_5.jpghttp://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/do335_6.gif
The Do-335 was one of a small group of aircraft marking the pinnacle of international piston-engined development. It was the fastest production piston-engined fighter ever built, attaining 846 kilometers per hour (474 mph) in level flight at a time when the official world speed record was 755 kph (469 mph). Powered by two 1800-hp engines in a unique low-drag configuration and weighing 9600 kg (21,000 lb) loaded, it was an exceptional heavy fighter. This very innovative design also featured an ejection seat, for pilot safety, and a jettisoning fin.

The first of the Do-335A-1 production version left the Dornier line at Friedrichshafen early in 1945, one of only four produced in 1945. It was armed with one 30 mm MK-103 cannon (70 rounds were carried) firing through the propeller hub and two 15 mm MG-151/15 cannon (200 rounds per gun) firing from the top of the forward engine. Even with the fighter situation as desperate as it was, these aircraft were still equipped to carry 500 kg (1100 lb) of bombs internally. Further operational testing, including use of air-to-ground guided missiles, began in Spring 1945 with Trials Unit (Erprobungskommando) 335.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dornier_do335.htm

[He219]

Actually the P-47M did reach operational status with 130 being made for mainly the European Theater. Most of those served with the 56th Fighter Group with the entire wing being outfitted with them including spares. The P-47M claims victories over many 190s, 109s, and the Me-262. The top speed for the single, piston engine aircraft was 473 mph and served mainly in 1943.

How could it have possiply 'served mainly in 1943' when the XP-47M was first flown in mid 1943?
The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_12.html

P-47M's operated in WWII: http://www.donhollway.com/writing/wolfpack/wolfpack.html

[Vance]

THe ME-262 is a highly underrated plane if you ask me. It did take a skilled pilot to fly, but from what I have heard from various German pilots who flew it, it was an amazing aircraft. But, like most other things for the German, it was too little, too late.

[He219]

I would say the Arado Ar-234 (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avar234.html) is the most underappreciated aircraft of WWII. It was also the most capable.
;)

With the skids just barely retracted, Sommer is surrounded by the escort German fighters, and while verifying the multitude of instruments, he climbs, and finally reaches twelve thousands meters. This is the altitude at which he will be invulnerable to anti aircraft guns, and enemy fighters, with the exception of a few stratospheric spitfires reserved for the surveillance of Britain. Flying at nearly nine hundred kilometers per hour, it takes very little time to reach Normandy, and before arriving over the objectives, the pilot readies the cameras (RB 50/30). In front of him, a periscope permits to check the sky, mostly for vapor trails, because if too numerous they could attract the attention of the anti aircraft gun observers. Sommer checks his map, and begins the photographic session.
http://aerostories.free.fr/events/juvin/page2.html

http://aerostories.free.fr/events/juvin/img4.jpg

http://aerostories.free.fr/events/juvin/arrom.JPG
August 2nd 1944, 1632 hours. Eric Sommer photographs the artificial harbor at Arromanches from his Arado 234 at an altitude of 11,000 meters. This photo which was transmitted to the German high command reveals the floating docks and more than three hundred ships.


http://aerostories.free.fr/events/juvin/img11.jpg
1.24MB Real Player (http://aerostories2.free.fr/video/arado/aradolink.rm)

http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/17919.jpe
Ar-234C:
maximum speed 873 KPH 542 MPH
service ceiling 12,000 meters 39,370 feet

[ogukuo72]

THe ME-262 is a highly underrated plane if you ask me. It did take a skilled pilot to fly, but from what I have heard from various German pilots who flew it, it was an amazing aircraft. But, like most other things for the German, it was too little, too late.

Another example of why comparing the statistics of planes don't give a complete picture of how good a plane really is. The truth is, pilots don't always make the best judge of the kind of planes necessary to win an air war. "Sweet planes" don't always win wars.

The Me-262 suffers from very short range and poor engine reliability. This two factors necessarily confined the Me-262 to the role of an interceptor, or a hit and run fighter bomber. It will not be able to win air superiority as the P-51 had done, nor provide the marvelous close air support that Typhoons, P-47's, and Il-2's provide for their respective forces. These kind of support requires range for loitering, and good maneuverability at low levels - both the Achilles' Heel of the Me-262.

It is also unclear that the superb performance of the Me-262 would have made it a better interceptor than other fighters. Remember that the challenge faced by the Luftwaffe was not lousy planes (FW-190, He-219, etc are very good planes), but the severe shortage of skilled pilots, fuel, secure air bases, and secure industrial backing.

And the Me-262 needed all of these in abundance, even more than the piston-engined fighters. It needs skilled pilots to fly it safely - even experienced pilots ended up in air crashes - ironically because of its high performance. It drinks fuel like an alcoholic downs whisky. It needs a proper airbase with long paved runways and taxiways unlike the piston engined fighters that can take off from fields - thus Me-262 bases make easy targets. And the very sophistication of the Me-262 - especially its BMW engines - requires much more industrial backing than conventional piston engines.

Don't be fooled by the impressive performance figures - it was exactly the wrong kind of plane for the catastrophic situation confronting Germany.

[He219]

Don't be fooled by the impressive performance figures - it was exactly the wrong kind of plane for the catastrophic situation confronting Germany.

It was a stepping stone. Your points are valid to an extent. Engines typically required overhaul after 25 hrs, flameouts were common with limited and poor grades of fuel and its voulnerability during takeoff or landing, requiring piston-engined fighter cover.

However, it also paved the way for future swept-wing jet fighters. You say it was the wrong plane at the wrong time. The catastrophic situation for Germany was having Hitler at it's helm. Had his interference not delayed introduction of the Me-262, you would not be writing the statement you just made. Even with the limited resources available, ignoring the benefits of technical innovations would have been a long-term strategic blunder. You must say that we are fortunate those technologies were not fully exploited to perpetuate Hitler's tyrannical rule. Imagine if it and other jet fighters had managed production ealier, such as the Go-229 and the P-1101 designs (precurser of the Mig-15). The He-162 was rushed into combat at the last minute, it's exceptional characteristics self-evident. Interestingly, with the Tesa-Uhu glue factory bombed, a hasty substitute failed to adequately bond the compostie construction of the He-162 under high stress. Given it's leight weight and single engine, it attained 522mph in flight.
The various changes resulted in an aircraft that weighed substantially more than the 2 tonne limit of the original specification. The He-162A-2 weighed a total of 2.8 tonnes (6,180 pounds) fully loaded. However, performance was excellent, much better than specified. The He-162 was capable of 890 KPH (553 MPH) at low altitude and 905 KPH (562 MPH) at 5,950 meters (19,500 feet). The RLM was not inclined to complain about the increased weight.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avhe162.html

Here is an interesting tidbit. The ranking jet-ace of WWII was Kurt Welter (http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/luftwaffe3945/welter.htm).
Welter claimed 25 Mosquitos and two four-engined bombers shot down by night and two further Mosquitos by day flying the Me 262. Whilst Welter had tested a prototype Me 262 fitted with Neptun radar, the majority of Welter’s 20 plus night victories were achieved in standard radarless aircraft. Welter was awarded the Eichenlaub (Nr 769) on 9 March 1945 for 48 victories. Kurt Welter was credited with 63 victories in 93 missions. He recorded 56 victories at night, including 33 Mosquitos.
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/welter.html

Heinz Bär (221 victories), 8th ranking air "Ace" of all time, scored 16 aerial victories with the Me 262A, the 2nd ranking jet ace of WWII. In the hands of experienced pilots, like JV-44, Me-262's became formidable weapons.

Pilots to mention were 'Mustang Killer' Obst. Walther Dahl (129 victories) with claim to 15 P-51s and Oblt. Wilhelm Hoffmann (44 victories) with claim to 13 P-47s.

http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/luftwaffe3945/recordes.htm

[ogukuo72]

The BMW engine was the main stumbling block that limited the Me-262, and contributed to its weaknesses of poor range, poor reliability and poor low-attitude performance. Hitler's interference was not relevant to this point as it relates to the development of the airframe.

Even if the airframe development had been advanced by six months, the immaturity of the engines would still mean that it was unlikely that Allied air forces would have faced Me-262's over Normandy in significant numbers. It wouldn't have made much difference anyway. For it to make an impact over Normandy, it must be able to achieve air superiority by shooting down the fighter bombers pounding German forces. It can only do so by flying low-level and loitering in the combat area, hunting for these fighter bombers. As we know, the Me-262s were most vulnerable in this condition.

It is also irrelevant to the point that Germany no longer had sufficient numbers of skilled pilots in the 1945 to fly Me-262's in sufficient numbers to make an impact. The fatal plunge in the number of competent pilots started even before 1945. It began over Stalingrad when instructor pilots were wasted flying transport missions. The attrition of the 1943/44 air battles over France and Germany further bled Luftwaffe pilot strength.

For Germany to have had sufficient skilled pilots to truly field the Me-262 in sufficient strength, the plane would have to be ready as early as spring of 1944. With or without Hitler's interference, this would not have been possible.

As for the other designs, none of them reached a sufficient level of maturity to even serve as back-ups to the Me-262. In any case, these designs suffered from the same weaknesses as the Me-262. If anything, these designs are almost fatally dangerous to the pilots themselves, being difficult to fly and land.

[He219]

The BMW engine was the main stumbling block that limited the Me-262, and contributed to its weaknesses of poor range, poor reliability and poor low-attitude performance. Hitler's interference was not relevant to this point as it relates to the development of the airframe.
:roll:

http://mesipage.virtualave.net/nuke/Aircraft/140-1.jpg[img]
Ju EF 140 w/ Jumo 004's

The first BMW 003 ran in 1940 and first flew in 1942. Production began in late-1943 or early-1944.

The V3 was the first Me 262 which got the Jumo 004A-0 engine. It flew first on 18/7/1942. It was followed by V4 to V6, also equipped with Jumo 004A-0, the Me 262-V7 to V12 were already equipped with the serial production engine Jumo 004B-0.

This engine became the later serial production engine for the Me 262. The initial production fighter aircraft Me 262-A1 and the B1 got the Jumo 004B-1, while the bomber series Me 262-A2 and the night fighter Me 262-B1 were later equipped with Jumo 004B-3.

The Mixed power Me262C-1 was also fitted with the Jumo 004B-3, but the C-2 was designed with BMW 003R .

Other aircraft fitted with the Jumo 004:
Arado 234, Focke-Wulf Ta 183, Gotha P.60B, Heinkel He 280V-2, Horten Ho IX, Messerschmitt Me 110-C, Messerchmitt P.1011

Note the Junkers Jumo 022, under designation NK-12, is the world longest lived jet engine fitted to many Soviet aircraft such as the TU-91, TU-95, Tu-128 and TU-142, many which are still flying today.

http://www.junkers.de/visionen/jet_antrieb/

Other engines available:

Junkers Jumo 004 D/E
FW turbojet
He S 001
Argus As 044
Argus 014 Pulsejet
Sanger Ramjet
Walter HWK 509 A-2 rocket motor

More information can be found here: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesD.htm

[ogukuo72]

This is not the same as saying that the engines produced are sufficiently reliable and efficient. Like I said, the main problem are with the engines. There is no denying that the Me-262 airframe is a superb one.

However, the technology behind the engines - including those used by other German jets - had not proven themselves to be sufficiently reliable and efficient. In addition, they were complex for the industrial production techniques of that time (a jet engine is still a complex and demanding piece of mahinery even in today's high-tech milieu), demanding a great many man-hours. The demand on the production personnel and the ground crew was probably part of the reason why production engines had such poor reliability rates. No nations - even in war - would adopt an engine that must be changed after 25 hours of usage unless they are desperate.

I've argued previously that the jet planes were precisely the wrong kinds of planes for Germany in 1944/45. This is part of the reason why. The jet engines offered a leap in performance. This was why it was adopted by a desperate Nazi regime. But it also demands a huge investment by Germany in terms of both man-hours and raw materials. Given that the Germans were already out-numbered, fighting a two-front war, and its industries are being pounded from the air, it has to invest its shrinking resources wisely.

Investment in developing and building highly complex jet airplanes means not only that there will never be enough to off-set the air superiority of the Allied forces, but also that the technology will bound to be too immature to be fully effective. It will also mean that resources will be sucked away from the production and development of weapons that were less dramatic but more useful, such as Panther tanks and the excellent FW190.

The fuel inefficiency of the engines meant that these engines are precisely the wrong kinds of engines with Germany losing most of its oil resources and its reserves rapidly shrinking.

The British and American philosophy of developing their weapon systems were much better, concentrating on developing useful weapons that can be produced in sufficient numbers that can be used by average trained crew to win the war.

This is the way to win - you don't need the best in terms of technology, but you need the most efficient and effective weapon given what you have. The Germans got it wrong - they got the best weapon in terms of technology, but the most inefficient and ineffective weapon, given their limited resources.

[He219]

After showing that the Me-262s performance was not limited to the BMW 003 25 hr. engine and that the Junkers Jumo 004 was the actual production engine for that model, now you question the race to regain air supremacy. The strategic bombing of the German heartland by mass formations of B-17's relied on the advancing sophistication of fighter escorts that eventually outmatched most of the contemporary production fighters in Germany, with exception of a few piston engined fighters. Those were the Dora 9's, Ta-152's and F and K model 109's. Simultaneously, production of 109's and 190's reached a peak at the end of the war using decentralized production.

German science was not to blame, it was Hitler's micro-managing of the war. The jet was finally implemented precisely to win back air superiority from allied bombers and their fighter escorts that were decimating infrastructure and morale. It could have been employed as a fighter interceptor much earlier to replace the aging 109 design that flew since the Spanish civil war, showcasing it's generation of technological innovation.

No nations - even in war - would adopt an engine that must be changed after 25 hours of usage unless they are desperate.

Investment in developing and building highly complex jet airplanes means not only that there will never be enough to off-set the air superiority of the Allied forces, but also that the technology will bound to be too immature to be fully effective.

The British and American philosophy of developing their weapon systems were much better, concentrating on developing useful weapons that can be produced in sufficient numbers that can be used by average trained crew to win the war.

The jet engines offered a leap in performance. This was why it was adopted by a desperate Nazi regime.


I suppose it was also the reason the 'desperate' British simultaneously developed the De Havilland H-1 "Goblin" for the first flight of the Gloster "Meteor" on the 5/3/1943, eventually to be replaced by the Goblin II and the Rolls Royce W2 "Welland" , "Derwent" and RB.41 "Nene". Designed to intercept kerosene powered Pulse Jet V1 Flying Bombs (extraordinary in fuel resourecefulness), the Meteor flew combat missions in WWII, but was no match for superior German jet and rocket technologies. The Meteor's 1,600 lb W2B/23 engines for No.616 Squadron RAF in May 1944 was no match for the 2,000 lb Jumo 004 Me-262 fighters. The Jumo 004E even featured an afterburner!

The jet revolutionized interceptor technology, but as the proverbial saying goes, it was already too late. Similar to the Japanese, experienced German Pilots were expended, whereas experienced allied pilots were cycled back to train their lessons to the next crop. The lack of implementing jet interceptor technology while available allowed oil-fields at Polesti and elsewhere to be bombed, as well as valuable wartime industries. Allied piston fighter technology overtook aging German desings. The development of the jet age was not only inevitable, but necessary maintain and eventually critical in the attempt to regain air supremacy.

The desger, Anselm Franz, that perfected the Jumo 004 jet engine of the Me-262 went on to desing gas-turbine engines that include the T53 (which powers the U.S. military's AH-1S Cobra, Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, and Bell UH-1 helicopters) and T55 series of turboshaft engines, as well as the T55 high-bypass turbofan (named the ALF502). In the 1960s, Franz led a team to design the three-spool, 1,500-shaft-horsepower AGT-1500 gas turbine, the power plant for the U.S. M1 Abrams main battle tank. He retired as vice president of Avco Lycoming in 1968.

The ME 262 Jet Fighter

In 1938, the German air ministry awarded a design contract to Willy Messerschmitt for a radical jet fighter. The ME 262 was to be an interceptor fighter with swept-back wings, powered by the BMW 003 engine. After building a mock-up in January 1940, Messerschmitt was awarded a contract for three prototypes for flight testing.
Messerschmitt encouraged his designers to work in teams and created a climate that encouraged innovation. The design team settled for two engines and a tail-wheel undercarriage. Because the wings were too thin to accommodate the landing wheels, they were designed to retract into the fuselage, giving the aircraft its characteristic sharklike triangular cross section.

In November 1941, test pilot Fritz Wendel took off in an ME 262 powered by BMW 003 engines. Both engines flamed out, but Wendel was still able to land the aircraft. BMW engineers found that both engines had broken compressor blades.

By this time, Anselm Franz had developed the Jumo 004 to a point where it could be flown in the ME 262. At 8:40 a.m. on July 18, 1942, Wendel completed a successful test flight and reported that the engines "ran like clockwork."

The deployment of the ME 262 was delayed by bureaucratic problems and by Adolf Hitler's insistence that it be retrofitted as a bomber. A few days after the Allied victory in Normandy, France, the Nazi leader permitted testing of the ME 262 as a fighter, but he insisted that bomber deployment not be delayed.

The ME 262 is widely acknowledged to have been superior (at least in terms of performance) to any fighter the Allies had, even in 1946 and 1947. The ME 262 had a maximum speed of 524 miles per hour at 20,000 feet, a service ceiling of 37,565 feet, and a rate of climb of 3.937 feet per minute at sea level. It had an endurance of 1.25 hours. The aircraft had a high wing load (66 pounds per square foot) and a takeoff speed of 190 miles per hour. It required a long takeoff run of 3,200 feet into a wind of 15 miles per hour. The landing speed was correspondingly high—just under 200 miles per hour. Thus the ME 262 was vulnerable to attack during takeoff and landing.

From mid-1944, both fighter and bomber versions of the ME 262 rolled off the production line. On July 25, 1944, a British Royal Air Force reconnaissance Mosquito flying at 29,000 feet near Munich encountered a jet-powered interceptor for the first time in history. If the ME 262 had seen service earlier, it may have hindered Allied air superiority before the Normandy landing, but priority for production was placed on bombers. During the fall and winter of 1944 and 1945, a substantial number of ME 262s were put into operational use, but not enough to seriously hamper the Allied campaign.

The Jumo engines also propelled the world's first jet bomber (the Arado 234) and the experimental forward-swept-wing Junkers Ju 287 four-engine bomber. After the war, the Jumo, designated the RD-10, was used in Russian jets, such as with the Yak-15, Yak-17, and SU-9.

The most technically advanced turbojet was the Heinkel Hirth 011, with specifications drawn up by Helmut Schelp, who wanted to replace the BMW 003 and Jumo 004 engines. The design goals of the 011 included a 5:1 compressor pressure ratio, a thrust of 3,000 pounds, and no strategic materials. Von Ohain's 011 engine used a completely air-cooled turbine developed by Max Bentele. Development of the 011 engine started in May 1943. http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/september97/features/franz/franz.html

[LongWayToTheTop]

spitfire was the best fighter plane in WW2 the british murdered the germans in the battle of britian with their spitfires.

[ogukuo72]

Read an interesting point on the internet recently: the Brewster Buffalo has the best ace to aircraft produced ratio - 1:13.7 - i.e. for every 13.7 Brewster Buffalo produced, there is one ace flying the Brewster.

This figure is supposed to be the best amongst all the aircraft types fielded during WW2, and that includes the Zero, the Spitfire and the P-51.

An indication of the aircraft's greatness?

[ArmedPacifist]

How did the Gloucester Meteor compare to the ME-262?

[He219]

How did the Gloucester Meteor compare to the ME-262?

The Me 262 never engaged its British counterpart, the twin-jet Gloster Meteor (which was slower and less well armed); conversely, many Me 262s were destroyed by Allied Mustang, Spitfire, Tempest and Thunderbolt piston-engined fighters. Almost all the Me262s and Me163s were destroyed while taking off, landing or on the ground


Q. If the war went on long enough, which jet fighter woulda been the best? A. The Meteor did come out before the Germans surrendered but it never met the Me262 in combat. Of course Luftwaffe pilots who flew the Me262 during the war then flew Meteors in various Latin American airforces said the Me262 was a far better fighter. They might be right. There are many instances where post-war testing of enemy fighters vs our own had our own pilots reporting that the enemy fighters were superior to ours contrary to our own propaganda. These reports weren't published or even admitted to until over 50 years after the war. That's how arrogant we humans can be.

For example, eventhough the Meteor (and therefore P80) engines put out more thrust, the Me262 was generally faster. I'd put this down to the superior slope wing and sharklike frame of the Me262. The Me262 was also more agile than either the Meteor or P80. The first Japanese Kikka wasn't as fast as any of them but had such an amazingly short take-off requirement that it could take off and land on escort carriers unlike ours. It was also the most agile. The Soviets had 2 avenues of jet fighters. One used its own Russian invented jet engines which were like the American domestic jet engines and too slow. The other were those taken from occupied German factories. These jets were still inferior to the Me262s until near 1950. To be fair to the Russians, the Americans didn't do any better with their own jets until the British agreed to share and license their own technology.

So, say 1946 I'd say the Me262, then Meteor and P80, then Kikka.
http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/QA_Aug2003.html

[Apogeumus]

The best fighter and bomber?

Fighter PZL p 11 http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/1939/pzl/pzl11_01.jpg
Bomber PZL p 37 Łoś http://republika.pl/camelotcastle/image/pzl_los/los.jpg

:lol:

[Durandal]

Best fighter: Brewster Buffalo
Best Attack Aircraft: Douglas (?) Devastator

:P

rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Durandal]

:|

[Durandal]

:|

[Durandal]

My choice:

Fighter

P-38 Lightning
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/images/PLANE%20Lockheed%20P38.jpg

Fighter Bomber

Douglas Sky Raider
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/images/PLANE%20Douglas%20AD.jpg

And trust me, it WAS out before the end of World War 2 and it had NO EQUAL at the time. All you German and Russian aircraft whores be damned! :)

Ack, why can't I delete the other two previous posts?

[Falco]

P51D all the way. They even brought some jet propelled MiGs down in Korea.

[MARK.TIGGER]

did the a1 actally serve in WW2 i know in my post about the sea fury i made it clear it didn't.

or does appearing in 'the longest day count'