“Can you please send a link to the USAAF's Spitfire exploits that you mention above as these are the only two I could find in the short five minute search. Plese include the numbers of EAC shot down in this time with the Spitfire AC in USAAF Servive! Can you please send links to the quotes of the statements above also?
    Here are the links showing that the 31
^st and 52^nd fighter groups arrived in Europe without aircraft as the P-39 and P-40 were both judged to be incapable of operating in that environment. They were equipped with Spitfire Mk-Vs and then operated in Northern Europe from early to mid 1942 escorting bombers. Then they were deployed on Operation Torch, where they constituted over 25% (by number of groups) of the USAAF fighter force for that operation. They continued to fight with the Spitfire until the end of 1943, when the Spits (by then Mk-VIIIs and IXs were replaced by P-51s. One of the links has that the 31^st shot down nearly 200 enemy aircraft using the Spit out of 500 in total. It also has a list of aces, though many those would have most achieved victories in both the Spit and the Mustang. 
    The links also show that the 4
^th Fighter Group that you mention was an ex RAF Eagle unit which transferred into the USAAF in mid-1942, taking its Spitfire Mk Vs with it. It transitioned to Thunderbolts in April 1943. 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3...
   
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...   
http://raf-112-squadron.org/31...   
http://www.usaaf.com/8thaf/fig...http://www.armyaircorpsmuseum....
      http://www.8thafhs.org/fighter...
      http://www.usaaf.com/8thaf/fig...
      http://raf-112-squadron.org/52...
    http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Spi...
  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Thank you for posting those links! They were very informative and bolster your argument well. However, your argument still hinges on the perception of those groups of people and not on facts as we now know them.

Generally people who like the Spit, or Zero or any of the turn and burn types base this on an emotional idea of dogfighting that started with the first World War.

It is very easy to show, either by gaming or simulator flying, that this is the worst possible way to fight an air war. So now, I will give you my own ancidotal evidence to back my claim. When I was stationed, or more exactly worked in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, there is not a lot to do along the lines of conventional american pastimes. So we, the Pilots, mechs and other interested parties, played a lot of games. You can not hang out with jet jockies 40+ hours a week and not have some of their oppinions rub off on you. More importantly, you can not play +5,000 games of "Achtung Spitfuer" and it's comps WO learning something about how the planes work. Not when you've got real honest to GOD Fighter pliots there reffing and playing the games against you.

Now I was an air head long before I started working for Miky-D, Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, Goodyear Aerospace and others and this experiance and earning enough money to be able to take three vacations a year to "Top Gun type businesses where you can rent a plane with real fighter jock to ride shotgun and rat race to your heart's content, convinced me that dog fighting was for loosers! Ask them to set the effective range to 600 yards or meters then see how long you last, as opposed to 250'!

Finnaly, EBH wrote how to do it right in his bio. If he states dog fighting is for targets, I believe him!

 

I would say that with the advantage of 20-20 hind sight, we should judge each of the planes on how well it could do it's job, both in the hands of an ace, or with a target pushing the stick and peddals. Then the qualities of speed in cruise, pointability, pitch authority, range and guns system are what matter most!
I highlighted three points abo ve   because they make my point, even if it is in an off handed way. Ruggedness counts! That means an air cooled radial, or two engines. Firepower counts and planes with wing mounted guns can only have half of their pointed at the target except under the very best of sircumstances. Lastly altitude counts and that means turbochargers, or zip juce. Finally, I would say that the fact that Zemkeliked the hardest planes to fly well meant that he was an exceptional pilot and did not mind the infirior pointability of the two single engined types! 

I agree that the question is a difficult one because it is ill defined, but I think it was more of a conversation starter than anything else. What I think of when I think of "best all round fighter" is the one that was able to make the greatest contribution because:

1. it could competitively carry out the greatest number of fighter roles:Agreed! Pls define the rolls and how to judge them?
2. was provided on a cost effective basis: This is also a false idea. Aircraft are probably the single largest force multiplier in history and cost has little or nothing to do with how well they influance the war. Governments pay whatever it costs to win.
3. was capable of making the greatest impact because of availability over a long period of time. This does not matter in the least so long as the next bird out of the barn is better than the last. The '39-40 Spit was a far cry from the 41-2 and 43-44-45 mods! Except for a family resemblance of some of them, there were few if any interchangable parts. 

To me individual technical characteristics are of a secondary concern.Only partially right. But this counteracts your statement above! I know there are certain things that make one plane much more effective than others and those things are much more important than cost! They may keep individual pilots happy but the most important test is, which was capable of doing the most to win the War?

One other point that I think should be considered is that the later American types only really fought at a time when the Axis had been at War for four years, at which time their problems with pilot training, fuel availability and aircraft numbers had well and truly commenced, and only got worse. This highlights to me that the Thunderbolt was a bit of a one trick wonder? in air to air combat, with it's pilots relying on being able to howl down from high altitude, blow the crap out of any haplesss German fighter that got in the way and if they found themselves in front of a German fighter, take a few hits and dive away.I would say the record does not bear this out? 

What would have happened in a scenario where there were consistently equal or better numbers of German fighters The extreme ruggedness and survivability of the P-47 let more of it's pilots return to fight another day! with equally well-trained pilots, as the British faced over the channel until 1942? Given that the RAF got it's arce handed to them over the channel and Norther France, I would say that this makes my point! I reckon you would find that the Thunderbolt would have come up lacking, In what way? Each plane has it's strong and weak points. If I fly the 'bolt on it's strengths it wins very much more than it looses. More numerous German aircraft with more competent pilots would have worked this out that the T-Bolt could be stalked to lower altitudes and then run down and destroyed. I would counter with given paddle blade props, it could out clime the curreent Spit easily. It had more SEP than any plane but the later P-38 and it had great pitch authority. More than can be said about many of the planes mentioned here.

The same can't be said for the Mustang as it had more tricks up its speed at altitude, was damn fast at lower altitudes and had better rolling/turning performance than the P-47 at lower speeds. I dispute the value of low speed tactics, because it means that you have already surrendered the inititive! As for Spitfire, with that rate of climb One last time. With PBPs the -47 out climbs the Spit. 
I reckon in a more challenging environment both those types would be more survivable than the P-47.

No, it is a PTOP powered plane. It does not matter what turns the prop, only that the tip speed puts absolute limits on performance! 

Pretty much a majority of Spitfires Mk's saw WWII Service....After the war the RAF focused on jet development, not prop- development.

 

Again, Turbines inherited the Earth, not the piston-engine, so I'd say the rest of your argument is just that AN ARGUMENT...because you can't admit  you weren't right.

 

Jets offer more advantages, besides speed, to air forces.  And 700 pounds of turbine, make up for a whole lot of fuel, differential... 

If roughly 92-93% of all aircraft are recip powered, how did turbines inherit the Earth? 
Not really! While turbines get better every year, they are still a VERY LONG WAY FROM GOOD RECIP ENGINES!

JB,

 

I know that the bounce was an effective tactic against enemy fighters. Every fighter ace in every air arm in history since Oswald Boelcke knew that. Diving was also often an effective way to escape if you can dive faster than the opponent. All that I am saying is that it was desirable for a WW2 fighter aircraft to be able to do something other than that, like climb, or run at low level, or turn at low speed, in case it ran out of sky while diving.

 

The P-40 could look after itself down low against early war types as it was relatively fast and manouverable at low level. The Mustang and the  Spitfire could also look after themselves if they got caught down low. The P-47 couldn't, it was slow and unmanouverable down low, which was  a big disadvantage not only if it got followed down to low level but because it was often used a ground attack aircraft.

 

As it was by 1943 the Luftwaffes best pilots and most of it's aircraft were being held back in defence of the Fatherland at higher altitudes, so in tactical theatres like Italy the P-47 (and other types) grossly outnumbered mostly very poorly trained German pilots. Of course the P-47 was going to find itself above most of the Germans more often, there were just that that many more of them. Of course the German pilots were going to have a hard time making a pursuit from a higher altitude, they were so outnumbered that they would have been too busy watching their own backs and in any case were usually too inexperienced to even think of such things. Had matters come up even I think that the P-47 would have come up short while the Mustang and Spitfire would have continued to shine.

 

Regarding the P-51 carrier comment, re-read my original comment, you will see that I said it to demonstrate the silliness of imagining longer range P-47s earlier, not because I was serious. 

 

Shooter, if you are going to start talking about your video gaming experience as proof of what you are arguing, I'm not discussing this with you any more, because that is just stupid. What I have proven is that the verified, trained professionals of the USAAF in WW2 chose the Spitfire over the available American types. I'll be taking their choices as evidence over the theorising of an internet gamer.

 

 

 

The Fiat CR.42 could out turning the P-38. 

Shooter, if you are going to tell us that the paddle bladed prop P-47's zoom climbing performance equates to it "out climbing the Spit", then there is no hope for you. The links I have already provided show unequivicolly that the Spitfire Mk XIV, the contemporary mark to the PBP Thunderbolts could outclimb it by 60% to 100%! Zoom climbing is useful under a limited range of circumstances, but once the inertia has worn off the Spitfire will overhaul a zoom climbing Thunderbolt in a very short time indeed.

 

The links I have already provided also show that a Thunderbolt outrolled a normal winged Spit at over 280mph. Given that the P-47D's top speed was only 340mph at sea level, it wouldn't take much loss of speed from hard manovering before the Thunderbolt is playing in the Spit's territory. In any case, rolling with the Thunderbolt isn't the trick that a good Spitfire pilot would use anyway. They used to evade fast diving and rolling Fw-190s (the fastest rolling of them all) and Bf-109s by executing a climbing turn which would force an overshoot. The same would work on the Thunderbolt. On the offensive the Spit could do the same thing, turn and climb away from a rolling T-Bolt,  then turn again for another attack. The T-Bolt pilot could roll until he gets dizzy if he wanted to , while the Spit can keep the altitude on him he wouldn't get away and will eventually make a mistake that The Spit could exploit. Aerial combat is all about intimidation and there would have been nothing more intimidating than constantly being the one with the enemy on your tail.