Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have another question. Why didn't the USAAF ever adopt the Corsair? It was in many ways similar to the P-47 (same basic R-2800 engine, with a 2-stage supercharger rather than a turbo, same HP). Was the '47 better at high altitude due to the turbo? Both were rugged, dependable fighters, with similar top speeds, the Corsair actually had better range. Seems like it would have been serviceable.
No doubt the Spitfire and Hurricane did well in the BoB. But both were "one trick pony" fighters. Point defense fighters/interceptors. They were very good at it-good speed, rate of climb and maneuverability. Neither had the range to take the battle to the enemy, either in terms of fighter sweeps deep into enemy territory, nor in bomber escort. They also suffered from the same weakness as the Mustang...a single liquid cooled engine, vulnerable to being taken down with one hit anywhere in the cooling system. In a defensive fighter that's not the end of the world-bail out (or land a damaged plane) over your homeland, get to base and grab another plane. Over Germany? Better get used to weinerschnitzle. Over the Pacific? Shark bait anyone? The Bf-109 and the FW-190 suffered the same failing (range and also liquid engine for the 109). One of the reasons they lost the BoB was due to limited range and endurance of their fighters.
Even so, the Brit planes were there when they were needed and did the job. If they hadn't butchered the Luftwaffe, Germany would have invaded Britain and we would have had no place to launch our invasion of Europe. They were in the fight while the US Army Air Corps was still having their second cup of coffee.
Even so, the Brit planes were there when they were needed and did the job. If they hadn't butchered the Luftwaffe, Germany would have invaded Britain and we would have had no place to launch our invasion of Europe. They were in the fight while the US Army Air Corps was still having their second cup of coffee.
True enough about the timing. And yes, if Britain had fallen, we would have been SOL for a launching point for the invasion of Europe. By the same note, if the only fighters available in 43-44-45 were the Spits, there also would (in all likelihood) been no invasion, due to the range limitations. We could never have hampered the German's military production since we would have had no way of escorting our bombers, nor achieved the air superiority necessary for an amphibious assault.
When all is said and done, there really is no one "most important". Many served specific purposes that couldn't have been done by other planes, or were not available at the time, or in the numbers, needed. If the Spit, Hurricane, P-40 and Wildcat hadn't been available in '40-42, Britain would (possibly) have fallen, and the Midway and the Guadalcanal/Solomons landings wouldn't have taken place. If the P-38 hadn't been available in '42-44, the Africa campaign might have been lost, at the least it would have been bloodier for us and lasted longer. And if it hadn't been available in the Pacific it's likely we would have lost New Guinea and we wouldn't have been able to escort bombers on raids of Rabaul and other distant Japanese bases. If it hadn't been available in the ETO in late 43-early '44, we could not have continued the bombing offensive (at least until the '51 was available in quantity). And without the '51s performance and availability in quantity by mid-44, the D-day invasion would have at best been delayed.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 09-29-2015 at 09:29 PM..
No doubt the Spitfire and Hurricane did well in the BoB. But both were "one trick pony" fighters. Point defense fighters/interceptors. They were very good at it-good speed, rate of climb and maneuverability. Neither had the range to take the battle to the enemy, either in terms of fighter sweeps deep into enemy territory, nor in bomber escort. They also suffered from the same weakness as the Mustang...a single liquid cooled engine, vulnerable to being taken down with one hit anywhere in the cooling system. In a defensive fighter that's not the end of the world-bail out (or land a damaged plane) over your homeland, get to base and grab another plane. Over Germany? Better get used to weinerschnitzle. Over the Pacific? Shark bait anyone? The Bf-109 and the FW-190 suffered the same failing (range and also liquid engine for the 109). One of the reasons they lost the BoB was due to limited range and endurance of their fighters.
The Best?
The Hellcat was a much better plane than the F4F Wildcat, but it was the F4F that saved the day in the Pacific War in the first two, or so, years. Built like a Mac Truck, it couldn't match the zero in speed, climbing, and high speed maneuverability. But the pilot was protected by amour, the fuel tanks were self-sealing and the plane was far less vulnerable to machine gun fire than the paper thin zero. American Navy and Marine pilots rapidly developed tactics that suited the Wildcat tactics, attacking from the side and taking lead angle shots, employing the Thatch Weave, and diving for the deck when zeros were on their tail, dives from which the zero was much harder to recover. The F6F was designed to overcome the technical weaknesses of the F4F and to take advantage of the toughness of the F4F and tactics that had been developed to overcome its weaknesses.
Also, don't forget. German and Japanese pilots flew until they were killed, while the best USN and USMC pilots in the F4F were rotated into training slots where they could teach others the skills they had developed in combat.
And then there are the early versions of Spitfire, a better performing plane, but just as important in helping to turn the tide of war.
The P-47 Thunderbolt. All of America's top aces in the ETO flew the Jug and it was later extremely effective in the ground attack mode after the Normandy invasion.
Pacific:
The F6F Hellcat. This was the fighter that beat the Zero and turned the tide of the naval air war, allowing the US to gain air superiority wherever the fleet went.
If the Spit, Hurricane, P-40 and Wildcat hadn't been available in '40-42, Britain would (possibly) have fallen, and the Midway and the Guadalcanal/Solomons landings wouldn't have taken place.
I would disagree, in the case of Midway at least. Recall that ALL of the U.S. air strikes against the Japanese fleet were made without fighter escort (whether intentionally or accidentally), except for that of the Yorktown's torpedo squadron. While Midway itself was defended by fighters, their contribution proved to be minor. (I think it would have been far better if they had been used to escort the land-based planes to their targets, instead of being used to defend the island.) The U.S. fighters made their greatest contribution in defending the Yorktown against attack; but even despite the fact that they chewed the Hiryu's squadrons to pieces, the end result was that the Yorktown was still sunk (thanks to two aerial attacks plus I-168).
I will concede, though, that if the Yorktown had not been defended by fighters, the Hiryu's dive bombers probably would have put her under, leaving her torpedo planes clear to possibly attack Enterprise or Hornet. Thus, while the presence or absence of U.S. fighters would not have altered the ultimate U.S. victory, their absence might have reduced the margin of that victory.
The Hellcat was a much better plane than the F4F Wildcat, but it was the F4F that saved the day in the Pacific War in the first two, or so, years. Built like a Mac Truck, it couldn't match the zero in speed, climbing, and high speed maneuverability. But the pilot was protected by amour, the fuel tanks were self-sealing and the plane was far less vulnerable to machine gun fire than the paper thin zero. American Navy and Marine pilots rapidly developed tactics that suited the Wildcat tactics, attacking from the side and taking lead angle shots, employing the Thatch Weave, and diving for the deck when zeros were on their tail, dives from which the zero was much harder to recover. The F6F was designed to overcome the technical weaknesses of the F4F and to take advantage of the toughness of the F4F and tactics that had been developed to overcome its weaknesses.
Also, don't forget. German and Japanese pilots flew until they were killed, while the best USN and USMC pilots in the F4F were rotated into training slots where they could teach others the skills they had developed in combat.
And then there are the early versions of Spitfire, a better performing plane, but just as important in helping to turn the tide of war.
These are the two Best in my view.
Much better said than my post...
My WWII Pilot said he should have been killed several times and it was only the design of the plane that kept him alive...
The Spitfire was a very good plane, with some real strong suits. Good dogfighter (comparable to the BF-109) and a great rate of climb. But it was quite range limited throughout the war-as such there were lots of missions it couldn't even attempt. It was excellent for what it was designed for-a defensive fighter for protecting Britain. One of the best DESIGNS where the plane did the job it was designed to do, and did it very well.
No argument that the ME-262 was the most advanced plane of the war. Far faster than anything it faced. However, it was still a "niche" plane. Correct me if I'm wrong (no expert on this one) but I don't think it was much of a dogfighter. It took too long to accelerate when it lost energy, and wasn't a great turning plane. IIRC the vast majority of it's kills were against bombers. It was also very range limited and very costly to manufacture. Much like the Tiger and Panther tanks-very advanced, but too few in number and too specialized.
I agree with you on the Yak3-it was an outstanding fighter. Unfortunately it wasn't introduced until (again, IIRC) 1944. The Yak1 (introduced in 1940) was also a very good fighter, and produced in higher numbers. (BTW y a k gets you ***, really?)
It is amazing how quickly new planes were designed and built, and how rapidly technology progressed from 1940-1945. Which is what makes it so hard to find one "most important" or "best" one-but makes for an interesting thread.
The ME262 was also quite vulnerable during take off & landing in the later part of the war when the Allies pretty much had air superiority over the Reich. The Luftwaffe had to form 'protection flight' units of 109's & 190's to cover the 262's over their own airfields.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most Important Fighter Plane of WWII?
