Most Important Fighter Plane of WWII? (war, bomb, Britain, Japanese)

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

What is the most important fighter of WWII? Not necessarily the “best” but most important-which includes a number of points.

1) Was it available when needed? Many amazing aircraft were developed during the war, but many only entered service after the war was decided.
2) What functions could it serve? There were a number of great “dogfighters” that were very limited in range. While they were fine “point defense” fighters, or interceptors, they lacked the range to support offensive operations at a significant distance from their home base. There were other planes that were good "ground attack" fighters but performed poorly at altitude.
3) Were they good “gun platforms”, meaning did they have good firepower and accuracy.
4) Did they offer decent protection to the pilot? Did they feature things like armor plating and self-sealing fuel tanks?
5) Fighters don’t just fight other planes, or shouldn’t be so limited. They also need to be able to “take out” ground targets. Which means carry a significant load of bombs.
6) Were they “rugged” and able to bring a pilot home from a long flight over enemy territory, or over long expanses of water?
7) Did it excel in a number of different theaters of operation?
8) How long was it in front-line service?
9) Were they produced in sufficient number to make an impact?

In the US arsenal, we had a number of great (and some not-so-great) airplanes. Most all had some great strengths, as well as some weaknesses. I’m biased and a bit of a fan-boy, I admit, but my vote is for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Why? Let me tell you.

1) The Lightning was in service when the war started (in limited numbers and less than fully developed, but in service). It was the only front line US fighter in service throughout the entire war (at least as far as US involvement is concerned).
2) The Lightning was the longest-range fighter of the war, flying combat missions of over a 1000 mile RADIUS, with a 3000+ mile ferry range. Being able to hit an enemy at their airfield while they can’t reach yours is a nice thing.
3) It was the only fighter we had early in the war ('42-mid 43) that could compete on equal terms with the best the Germans and Japanese had to throw at them.
4) It was the first 400mph fighter in the world. It also was one of the fastest climbing US fighters throughout the war.
5) It carried up to 4000lbs of bombs, the most of any US fighter. It could also carry 2, 310 gallon drop tanks. It was used as a level bomber, skip bomber, dive bomber and was tested to drop (2) 2000lb torpedoes. No other fighter (or torpedo bomber AFAIK) ever did so.
6) It excelled in both the Pacific and Mediterranean theaters, where its range allowed it to take the battle to the enemy, and its ruggedness and dual engines brought a great many pilots home with battle damage. It was more than capable against the BF-109s, FW-190s and Zeros available at that time.
7) It had (4) .50 caliber MGs and a 20mm cannon all clustered in the nose. All guns were aimed to fire straight ahead, meaning they did not suffer the range limitations of fighters with wing-mounted guns and the associated convergence issues (where the guns are set to hit the target at just one range). Shoot a well aimed shot much beyond that range with a fighter with wing-mounted guns and the rounds crossed (typically at 200 yards) and kept going at an angle. At range such a gun platform would shoot rounds past both sides of an enemy. Not so the ’38, which was effective out to 1000 yards or more. Look at gun camera video from ‘38s vs others.
8) Performance of the ’38 in the ETO was more mixed. But let’s take a better look at things. Lightnings were deployed there in ‘42 (and BTW, they were the only fighter to fly into battle in the ETO from the US, via operation Bolaro). However, shortly after they arrived in Britain, all of them were sent to North Africa to support operations there. As such there were NO experienced P-38 pilots, commanders or ground crews in Britain in early ’43. New crews and planes were moved there, with very inexperienced pilots. Throughout the majority of ’43 (until December) the ’38 was the only plane available with the range to escort bombers to distant targets over Europe. Also remember that the plane was in great demand in the Pacific and the MTO as well; there weren’t that many in Europe. Lightnings were often outnumbered 5:1 and sometimes up to 10:1, by very experienced Luftwaffe pilots. In spite of this…they allowed precision daylight bombing to continue. Prior to ‘38s flying escort, bomber losses were up to 30% in a single mission. After the escorts, this dropped dramatically, to about 5% or less, due to all causes (including flack and mechanical failures). The arrogance of Bomber Command to think they could run unescorted daylight bombers cost a great many lives, before they “allowed” escorts.

What about some other great fighters, the P-51 and the P-47? Both were great planes, and in some areas better than the Lightning. However, the ’47 never had the range to strike distant targets or accompany bombers until the very end of the war (P-47N-a fantastic aircraft). The Mustang? Early versions of the Mustang used Allison engines with single speed superchargers. They were good at low altitude, up to about 15,000 feet. But past that they lost power dramatically and were little better than P-40s or P-39s. The ’38 was equipped with Allison engines, but with turbochargers, that allowed them to maintain power up to high altitude. The FIRST P-51Bs equipped with Merlin engines (with 2-stage, 2-speed superchargers, offering respectable high altitude performance) didn’t go into service until December ’43, after much of the worst fighting was over in the ETO. It also saw only very limited use in the Pacific and Med. The good part-nearly all production of the ‘51s was delivered to Britain, allowing them to quickly become both very common and to have numerical superiority over German fighters. However…bomber escort was its most famous use. With a single, liquid-cooled engine, it was very vulnerable to ground fire. A single bullet, hitting anywhere in the cooling system, and the pilot wasn't going home. It was far less suitable for attacking ground targets than the ’38 (with dual, liquid cooled engines) or the Thunderbolt (with an air-cooled engine). In addition, the gun convergence issue was an even bigger issue with ground targets than arial ones. Again, watch those gun-camera videos. Not to mention that, again, the '38 had a higher bomb payload than any other fighter. The decision was made to go strictly with the ’51 for bomber escort with the 8th air force. Which was a good thing, as it allowed the ’38 to be used where it was most needed.

What about Navy fighters? The Corsair was an excellent fighter. However...it only saw action in one theater. Worse, while designed as a carrier based fighter, it wasn't cleared for carrier duty until late in the war.

All my opinion of course. What's your favorite and why?

[Dd714]

Hmmm, I can't add the detail that you did, but my opinions:

Lightening for the reasons you said - mostly because it gave our bombers long range fighter support.
British Spitfires for it's performance in the Battle of Britian.
Mustang's - again for it's range.
Japanese Zero - at least until about 1943 they were better than anything the US flew in the pacific.
and of course the Messerchmitt ME262 jet fighters - Germany could never make enough to make a difference, but they were very successful.

[Irishtom29]

Most important and most capable are not necessarily the same thing.

The war was so long and fought in so many areas I think there was no most important fighter. If you asked what was the most important fighter in the later years of the naval war against Japan I'd say the Hellcat. If you asked what was the most important fighter on the eastern front from 1943 to 1945 I'd have no idea.

[willg]

The Spitfire and Hurricanes deserve credit for their performance during The Battle of Britain.

I also agree that the Hellcat was instrumental in the Pacific, although attrition also contributed to Japanese inability to re-establish any sort of air superiority.

[bus man]

For the Pacific Theater, I would say the Zero in the first year or so of the war, and the Hellcat thereafter. In the hands of a well-trained, experienced pilot, the Zero was a fearsome weapon, able to out-shoot, out-climb, out-maneuver, and out-fly anything we had. Its great weakness was its minimal armoring, but this only became clear starting about the Battle of Midway, and then becoming all the more apparent during the Guadalcanal campaign.

But as the war progressed, the Hellcat entered service, and at the same time, the relative flying ability of the American pilots began to exceed that of the Japanese, whose best pilots were being worn down by the attrition of the Solomons fighting. Thus, the roles were reversed, and the Americans soon found themselves with superior pilots flying a superior plane.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by willg

The Spitfire and Hurricanes deserve credit for their performance during The Battle of Britain.

I also agree that the Hellcat was instrumental in the Pacific, although attrition also contributed to Japanese inability to re-establish any sort of air superiority.

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.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by bus man

For the Pacific Theater, I would say the Zero in the first year or so of the war, and the Hellcat thereafter. In the hands of a well-trained, experienced pilot, the Zero was a fearsome weapon, able to out-shoot, out-climb, out-maneuver, and out-fly anything we had. Its great weakness was its minimal armoring, but this only became clear starting about the Battle of Midway, and then becoming all the more apparent during the Guadalcanal campaign.

But as the war progressed, the Hellcat entered service, and at the same time, the relative flying ability of the American pilots began to exceed that of the Japanese, whose best pilots were being worn down by the attrition of the Solomons fighting. Thus, the roles were reversed, and the Americans soon found themselves with superior pilots flying a superior plane.

The Zero was no wonderplane. It was designed to be very lightweight-due to the fact that the Japanese had no high-performance engines available for their fighters at the time. A side effect of a light-weight plane was excellent maneuverability. At low-medium speeds, there was nothing that could turn with it. However, it's controls got very heavy at speed. Above 250mph most of our planes could at worst turn with it. Part of that was a design function-the light weight of the Zero meant that it was not a rugged plane. Aggressive maneuvers at speed would tear the wings off. It was also fairly slow by WWII standards-a '38 would pull away from a Zero-on ONE engine. The '38 would also out-climb it (4750 ft/min vs 3100). The other issues with the Zero is that, to keep weight down, it had no armor plate around the pilot and no self-sealing fuel tanks. It was a very "fragile" plane. It's strengths were maneuverability and good range. It's vulnerabilities cost the Japanese a lot of experienced pilots.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

The Zero was no wonderplane. It was designed to be very lightweight-due to the fact that the Japanese had no high-performance engines available for their fighters at the time. A side effect of a light-weight plane was excellent maneuverability. At low-medium speeds, there was nothing that could turn with it. However, it's controls got very heavy at speed. Above 250mph most of our planes could at worst turn with it. Part of that was a design function-the light weight of the Zero meant that it was not a rugged plane. Aggressive maneuvers at speed would tear the wings off. It was also fairly slow by WWII standards-a '38 would pull away from a Zero-on ONE engine. The '38 would also out-climb it (4750 ft/min vs 3100). The other issues with the Zero is that, to keep weight down, it had no armor plate around the pilot and no self-sealing fuel tanks. It was a very "fragile" plane. It's strengths were maneuverability and good range. It's vulnerabilities cost the Japanese a lot of experienced pilots.

I don't dispute that the P-38 is a technically superior plane to the Zero. But your original question specifically said "most important," and I stand by my opinion that the Zero was more important than the Lightning, or any other fighter, during the first year of combat in the Pacific.

Incidentally, do you know when the Lightning was introduced to Pacific combat? I don't recall hearing about it being used at any time prior to the raid that killed Admiral Yamamoto in April 1943.

[Taiko]

Originally Posted by bus man

I don't dispute that the P-38 is a technically superior plane to the Zero. But your original question specifically said "most important," and I stand by my opinion that the Zero was more important than the Lightning, or any other fighter, during the first year of combat in the Pacific.
Incidentally, do you know when the Lightning was introduced to Pacific combat? I don't recall hearing about it being used at any time prior to the raid that killed Admiral Yamamoto in April 1943.

Or perhaps the Wildcats as they protected the strategic assets the US carriers, not New Guinea, during the critical phase when the war was won.

By the time the Corsairs and Hellcats arrived it was just a matter of rolling back increasingly less capable Japanese air forces.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by bus man

I don't dispute that the P-38 is a technically superior plane to the Zero. But your original question specifically said "most important," and I stand by my opinion that the Zero was more important than the Lightning, or any other fighter, during the first year of combat in the Pacific.

Incidentally, do you know when the Lightning was introduced to Pacific combat? I don't recall hearing about it being used at any time prior to the raid that killed Admiral Yamamoto in April 1943.

I guess I'd agree in that timeframe. It was really the Zero that enabled the Japanese their early victories/conquests in the SWPA, and we had nothing that really could compete with it. The '38 first operated as West Coast defense shortly after Pearl Harbor, in the Aleutians in May '42 and not until November '42 in New Guinea. The F4 (photo recon) version went into service in the SWPA a bit earlier. Most early production '38s made their way to Europe via Operation Bolero (flying over), starting in June '42. The PTO always got the leavings after Europe was taken care of.