Warbird Information Exchange

Whether it saw combat or not, the 51H was the production successor to the 51D and it was produced in numbers during WWII. It was not a Korean War fighter, it was not a 'next generation' post war fighter like the F-86 or F-84 or F9F.

I'm ok if people want to 'just' limit the discussion to 51D's - it was STILL a better killer than any P-47 when it came to the primary mission - kill the other guy a long way from home and protect the bombers.

Tell me what other fighter role was more important to winning WWII? Destroying his airpower or messing up stuff on the ground?

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder - some people complained that Loni Anderson and Pam Anderson were diminished with 'reductions' just like the 51H - I'm not one of them.... in air to air - less weight and more energy is king - the 47 had straight down energy and could take one hell of a lot of punishment- but was top heavy - lol!.

So, who do you like in a fight? Ali (float, sting like a butterfly') or Wepner (tomato can) or Tex Cobb?(I can take what you dish out). If I have to fight one as the other I know who I want to be!

Regards,

Bill

Firepower and durability aren't the main factors that make a great fighter, but I wouldn't rate them low on the list either. A great fighter must be strong in all areas...or at least it's preferable that it be sufficiently above-average in it's weakest areas...or, at worst, isn't so lacking in any one area that it is a hinderance. The Mustang wasn't as durable as the Jug, but was adequate in that department. (One could also argue that a single well-placed bullet will take down any plane.) The Jug couldn't roll with the Mustang, but was more than adequate in that department. In the end, both fighters had enough excellent qualities to outweigh any of their weaker areas.

It would be hard to definitively say one fighter is better than another, because each will vary greatly depending on the situation they are thrown in.

However, I do rank durability high because whether it's a dogfight or a ground attack situation, the fighter should plan on taking some damage. Durability by itself doesn't make a great fighter, but often leads to the pilot living to fight another day. Those are qualities any pilot can appreciate.

Defending England to give the allies a place to attack from.

With out that the war would have been pretty hard to fight from North America.

Cheers Dave C

Dave - with due respect to the incredible job done by the RAF in the BoB, it wasn't won because the Spit was superior to the Me 109E - they were evenly matched.

It was won because the Luftwaffe failed to understand the importance of the Radar towers and because the 109 could only fight for a very short time over the target at London ranges - and not at all beyond that.

The time over target with a high performance fighter is precisely what the 51B/C/D achieved thanks to the Merlin/51 mating

Regards,

Bill

For Mjanovec and others: How do you know if you are a P-47 guy at heart? When you think that Kirstie Alley looked better BEFORE she lost the weight! Seriously, I thought about durability as a major asset, but narrowly concluded that, for an air combat fighter, it was one of the 2nd tier assets which I'll get into Tue. The 47 would score high, maybe 1st place there, but it would be more vital on ground attack. My readings show damage was not as big a factor for the top aces in air combat. The Zero was really a threat early in the war even without much survivabilty because it was so hard to hit! It's really a matter of definition as to which assets we value in what order. In a few days when I am finished with this whole theme, one of you guys could do one just on best ground attack plane, or ultimate post war prop fighter.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

For Dave and others who've written about importance as an asset; This wasn't my category, but if addressed believe it or not, I think there is another fighter that is tops here, the ME 109. Think about it, it was their primary fighter from the mid 30's on(Spain) and still a potent front line weapon at the end of the war. The final 109 was fast and good at high altitude. Even with the FW, the top aces stayed with the 109. I asked Rahl why, and he told me it was familiarity and better supecharger in the 109. An impressive man by the way. The scores of the top German aces is amazing, about 10 times that of Allies and mostly in 109. Germany had little else at the beggining, Huri and Spit promptly exposed the weakness of the 110. Could the Huri have held Britain without Spits? I don't know. Good as the 51 was, the B&D didn't exist till the 2nd half. We probably could have managed long range bomber escort to Germany with 47 or 38 or modified Spits if forced to. The 51 was really needed in the Pacific.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

The 109 is/was one of the greatest - with the huge downcheck of range - which cost the Germans the Battle of Britain. I believe most of the top pilots in my father's group considered the 109K very close to equal to the 51 in an equal fight with matched skills.

Bill, I'm pretty sure the air war in the ETO would have been a.) far bloodier, and b.) less effective against the Luftwaffe without 51's. After Black Thursday 14 October, 1943 the 8th AF had to pull back from the deep penetrations, the Jugs didn't have the range and the 38's were blowing up Allisons and freezing pilots.

One could argue, without proof, that the introduction of the 38J with dive breaks would have turned the tide at long range - it certainly gave them a chance to dive, but if you look at the 20th and the 55th and 364th were on the negative side of loss ratio while they flew 38's..

Except for the 56th, the air to air ratio of the P-47 groups were close to 1:1 also. My father's group, the 355th was 1:1 with 47's and 7.5:1 with 51's in comparison for air to air results of 51 versus 47. That was a combination of performance at point of attack over the target and huge attrition of Luftwaffe by Mustangs in Feb-June 1944 period.

The 8th restarted the deep penetrations in Jan/Feb, coincidentally with two introductions - Two groups equipped and on combat ops with 51's with much better performance against 109's and 190s at altitude and improved range on the 47D's.

The consequences however of 51's not being in theatre when they arrived was three very dangerous set of conditions. First, no Oil Campaign without unacceptable losses. Second, a much stronger Luftwaffe in June 1944 making D-Day an even more hazardous expedition. Last, more breathing room to develop and deploy the 262.

I'll get off the 'importance' rambling and summarize by saying that the top conventional fighters in WWII were the Spit, The 109 and 190, the 51 and 47 and the F6F and F4U - I like the 38 and the Zero and the Yak-9 but put them slightly lower

The closest to All Around Best in my opinion- strictly fighter against fighter - even combat skills, enough fuel for a 30 minute fight - no range consideration fighting over your territory - not his...

would be the late model Spitfire.

The All Around Best - same criteria except you have to fight over HIS territory - is the Mustang.

I had this specific conversation at the 1986 Fighter Aces Reunion with Rall, Krupinski, Galland and Steinhoff and excerpts of a letter from Galland to me is included in my book Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons.

Regards,

Bill

The Zero was really a threat early in the war even without much survivabilty because it was so hard to hit!
bill even late in the war a well flown zero was a threat (the allies were tought never get into a turning dogfight) in saburo sakai's biography he talks about being jumped by 15 f6f's flown by seemingly inexperenced pilots and by pulling to the left every time a hellcat made a run on him he lande back at his base with out a single bullet hole in his a6m5.
by the end of the war both japan and germany were short of quality pilots ,but some of the planes flown by both countrie's were amonst the best fighter's of the war,ta-152 ,ki-100,n1k2 and ki-84.
paul

Dave - Paul I agree with the points made by both of you.

It is also important to evaluate a/c on the period/combatants and pool of pilot skills.. for example it would hard to make a case that the P-40 (and F4F) were superior a/c to the Zero despite having a favorable kill ratio... in China and South Pacific.

Also a lot easier when these types were on defensive end of engagement and able to get an altitude advantage - tactics played a key role.

One ponders (another discussion I had with Galland) what the cumulative effect of USAAF Fighter Command effectiveness wouyld have been if Galland had been able to persuade Goering to at least let him attack our P-47's and P-51's in mid Channel and force drop tanks to be jettisoned or just engage in full scale fights when our guys were vulnerable with heavy fuel loads... or, God forbid - follow our guys home when fuel was low and attack the airfields.

The 8th AF Fighter Command got a reasonably free ride and time to hone combat skills in 1943- for which the Luftwaffe paid dearly in 1944.

as for durability the p-40 & p-47, they could get the living sh*t shot out of them & still respectfully fight & defend themselves. the p- 40 flew like a brick, but it had the balls along with the 47. the p51 was the high performer in the dogfight category but not in the ground attack mode. the 51 was very vulnerable to a well placed shot in it's coolant housing which would usually render it as a goner. somebody made a valid point that the zeke in capable hands by 1945 was still not 1 to mess with, even if it was obsolete by then. honestly, all the posts of this thread thus far have made valid points, with the conclusion that we all have our opinions & bias's. opinions are like a**holes we all have both of them!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

True enough, great thread with lots of great info.

Cheers Dave C

It was one of the best in a ground attack role.

The P-40 was just as prone to the golden b-b with it's liquid cooled allison - took two b-b's for a 38 (and a beast to maintain). If you want durability in the mud go R-2800.. if you want top performance in the air go Merlin or DB

good point!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!