Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
oldbutnotwise       2/10/2013 2:54:36 PM
This is the rub! You think that even with all the excreances "Hanging off" of the B-17 that it is a less aerodynamic aircraft than the lancaster?
The Lanc was designed to carry a lot of bombs a long distance not a small bomb load from high altitude, something that it failed to do even in perfect conditions
 
Why on earth would you draw that conclusion? Published speeds are either the same or faster depending on the model of B-17! At no time is the Lancaster faster than the B-17, even when you consider that it has more powerful engines!
80hp, not a huge difference in power is it? and as it was ONLY 5mph slower DISPITE carrying a damn site more bombs (68000lbs vs 54000lbs)
 
and if we use the Lancaster IV   we have 319 mph @75000lbs which I believe is FASTER than a B17
 
At no time can the Lanc reach normal operational altitudes of the B-17! Even the 3 dozen or so stripped "Specials" were not as fast or high flying as the average B-17! So how on earth do you figure that the Lanc was the more aerodynamic plane?I mean seriously! 
 
more aerodynamic yes a better heavy bomber no
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark    F6F all the way.   2/11/2013 4:45:56 AM
To judge the best fighter plane of WWII, you have to balance out the good and the bad aspects of each type and look at each design in total.  Speed, climb, maneuverability, firepower, range, ceiling and just how well the aircraft deals out and handles punishment are all factors that have to be put into a final tally that determines which design is the best.  Planes that arrived late in the war should not count, as they were frequently held back, under-used, deployed too late, or in too small numbers to make a difference or get a real test.  (Hence; no Bearcats, ME 262s, Ki 84s, Meteors, etc.)  So, based on this formula, IMO, the best fighter of WWII is the F6F Hellcat... why, you may ask?  *The Helllcat could climb faster than the Mustang, Corsair, F190 (Radial or inline) the P47, the ME 109 and the P40.  The only plane it could not out climb was the Russian Yak 3. (But not by much.. around 150 ft/min) **The F6F had better range than the FW 190 (both versions, by a lot) the Spitfire, (by a lot) the P47, the P40, the YAK 3, the ME 109 (Both by a lot) and the Corsair.  The only planes with longer legs were the Mustang and the Zero (And, once again, not by much... around 40 miles more for the A6M) *** The F6F could fly higher than the Corsair, the radial FW 190, the Zero, the Spitfire, the P40 and the YAK 3.  The Mustang, Inline FW 190, the P 47 and the ME 109 could fly higher. However, the best opposing plane. (the ME 109) had an altitude advantage of 2000 ft., gaining it only one diving pass to take out the Hellcat, and, considering the durability of the F6f, not a good one.  If the Hellcat survived, the 109 would be at a disadvantage in not being capable of getting back to that high perch. **** The only area lacking is top speed, being faster than Spitfire and the P 40, but no other plane I listed.  HOWEVER: speed is a factor that typically allows the faster plane the option of running... In a dogfight, speed will inevitably drop off, so the raw speed advantage is a dubious one, unless the differences are wildly different.  In the case of the fastest enemy fighter, the A6M, was just 30 mph faster..***** Where the Hellcat excels is firepower and the ability to take damage.  Water-cooled inline engines are vulnerable to minor hits... This puts an automatic negative to the Mustang, The inline FW 190, the ME 109, the Spitfire, the P 40 and the YAK 3.  When comparing planes as the best, the ability to bring a trained pilot home to fight another day has to be taken into consideration.  You also have to look at fatal flaws in the designs... The Zero was a deathtrap... if it got hit, it tended to blow up.  Amazingly, the P47 had this problem too, but only when used in ground attack.  The fuel tank under the pilot's seat was vulnerable and tended to explode if hit by Triple-A  (Against light ground fire, it was all but invulnerable, of course.)  The ME 109 had poor take off and landing characteristics, and a horrible, rearward blind spot, The YAK 3 had a poor war load capability and the P 40 was useless at altitude.  When judging each of these designs, you have to put in the negatives, and the F6F had no real vices of fatal flaws...It really was a well designed, well built, honest fighter... AND it could land on a carrier flight deck, something that only the Corsair and the Zero could match. ****** So let's review... The F6F is easily the best radial engine fighter of WWII, but it is also not lacking in performance when compared to in-line, water-cooled fighters that could not take the same amount of damage the Hellcat could take and survive.  Even when you consider the areas that the F6F is lacking (Speed and service ceiling), neither number is so low that it represents a fatal flaw.  In other words, when taken in total, the Hellcat gets the best overall score. 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/11/2013 8:32:47 AM
Sorry but I think you need to check your sources, for example a MkIX spit  will climb faster turn quicker, is faster and has a higher service altitude than the Helcat, in addition the 2 (or 4) 20mm is hardly inferior to the 6 x .5s in the helcat 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Which Hellcat and which Spitfire?   2/11/2013 8:54:04 AM
The Hellcats went all the way to the N-model.
 
Some of the later Hellcats carried radar.
 
Many Hellcats carried 20 mm cannon.
 
And FRANKLY USN pilots were just too damn well trained. An RAF pilot in a Spitfire Mk IX would be in deep trouble, against ANY Hellcat flown during the Turkey Shoot by an USN pilot. The planes are too close. The pilots would decide the issue.
 
B.
 

Sorry but I think you need to check your sources, for example a MkIX spit  will climb faster turn quicker, is faster and has a higher service altitude than the Helcat, in addition the 2 (or 4) 20mm is hardly inferior to the 6 x .5s in the helcat 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/11/2013 10:18:33 AM
Very close indeed but I'd personally suggest the Hellcat was probably the better platform - it was more versatile, inherently carrier-capable, more durable, easier to manufacture, easier to maintain and destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other allied platform.
 
In short, in the context of winning a war those qualities were more important than which platform would have won a majority of hypothetical dogfights. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/11/2013 10:47:56 AM
A few carried 20mm cannons is true, but the F6F- 5 was the fastest (the N were night fighters) and that was a good 20mph slower than a MkIX 
 
whilst it was a better carrier fighter than a Seafire Mk1-111 (the later mks of Seafire would be a different issue, they being a better FIGHER but not FIGHTER BOMBER) 
 
The tests by the USN of the F4u and F6f showned that they were inferior as fighters to the Spit, however as they were duel purpose in being fighter bombers they were a better fit for carrier ops  
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/11/2013 12:38:44 PM

The B-17 is the more aerodynamic plane of the two! Lancaster and B-17. It is not even close! If the Lancaster had to leave enough bombs on the ground back at base to equal the B-17's ceiling,
    and as the B17 couldnt carry the bomb load of a Lanc its a one sided argument
This is not, and never has been in dispute! The lancaster could carry more weight of bombs than the B-17! Discounting the 30 something Specials, the late production Lancaster could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs inside the bomb bay! That is more than any B-17 could cary, iether inside, externally, or combined. But now the rub! Given that the maximum bomb load was ~18,000 pounds, Why was the Lancaster's AVERAGE BOMB LOAD for the entire war just under 8,000 pounds? Because no mater how you slice it load and range are fungable and all aircraft are required to trade one for the other.
within limits (this is the bit you fail to understand you cannot trade one off against the other indefinately thier is a point at which there is nothing left to trade
You are absolutely right as far as you go! The B-17G carries more gas, not counting the "auxilery tank(s) in the bomb bay(s), so when that point is reached when the Lancaster can not carry one more drop of fuel, the B-17 still has several hundred gallons of fuel to trade. Secondly, the B-17G is several hundred to a thousand pounds lighter Empty Equiped Weight than the Lancaster. So when there is not one more pound of weight the landing gear will support, the B-17G will have several hundred to one-thousand pounds still availible to load, either gas or bombs. When combined with the B-17's more aerodynamic airfraim, that means that at ANY GIVEN CIELING  THE LANCASTER CAN REACH, the B-17 will have MORE of what ever left to carry.
 
Or wait, do you dispute that range and load are inversely linked?
no, I dispute that if you can only carry 2000lbs (6000) to berlin than your bomber is not as efficient as mine that carries 14000lbs to berlin, yes you can carry 8000lbs and trade off range, but that means I fly to russia and you fly to belgium
  No! You miss the entire point! If the Lancaster was required to fly as high as the B-17 did, either to evade flack, or make it harder for fitghters to reach, then it could not cary as much bombs as the B-17G to ANY range! Besides, you got it wrong, it is 6000 pounds in late B-17Gs to Berlin and at over 28,000'! One more time, If the Lancaster could cary 18,000 pounds of bombs, or even 14,000 pounds to berlin AS AN EVERY DAY THING, then why was the lancaster's total average for the entire war just under 8,000 pounds? That means that for ever load with 14,000 pounds up, there had to be a load with nothing up! So in reality, the vast majority of missions were flown with less than 8,000 pounds up and very few were flown with more than 10,000 pounds up! That is a fact of life! When you consider that Americans flew by far the most long range missions with longer ranged planes like the B-17 and B-24, it is easy to see why the Average bomb load in B-17s was less than 4,400 pounds. When you trade off bomb load for range and altitude you reduce bomb load and that is all there is to it.

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Part three.   2/11/2013 12:40:13 PM


 

er no, the wing on the Lanc restriced its ceiling not its bomb load, it could and did reach berlin with 10000lb+ at 24000+ , it was never designed to operate at > 30000ft so why would it be an issue? and as the B17 rarely operated at > 26000ft
  Er no! The Lancaster's Average bomb load was less than 8,000 pounds for the entire war, given the lower cieling and the shorter ranges they "Typically" flew, the differance can be ENTIRELY explained by the differances in altitude flown. Those differances in altitude were why so many more Lancs and their crews were lost than B-17s.
The B-17 had more aspect ratio, better form factor, more efficient engines with better SFC and more fuel tankage. ALL things that the Lanc could not equal.
History says not, its a fact that Lancs took 14000lbs to berlin something beyond a B17 capability, so either your tankage is wrong, your efficeincy is wrong or you form factor is wrong - your choice
  Only because they did so at 17,000'! reduce the bomb load to gain altitude to lessen the number of crew killed by flack and the bomb load drops dramatically! Harris was one of those "Old school" guys who's only care was "will there be enough planes and crews left to bomb some place else tomorrow"? He sent his guys out knowing they would suffer disporportionally more casualties at lower altitudes, but believed the effect of so many planes at once would over whealm the deffenders. Given the 3,249 lost in action out of 7,377 total made compaired to the B-17 which lost 4,688 out of 12,731! Or 44.1% to 36.82% losses, Lanc to -17! The B-17s shot down more than twenty times as many enemy AC as the Lanc, flew half again as many more missions as the Lanc to get those half as many crews killed! ALTITUDE does matter and dark matters too. If the Lancasters had been required to bomb during the day light hours, they would have been whiped out to a plane down at the altitudes they flew. But Harris knew those risks and made the choices any way and killed half again as many RAF crew members as did American USAAF crews because of his choice of altitude.
    Because what you claim is not rational, me and everyother poster can see the flaws in your argument yet you cannot and yet you claim to be a trained analyst but cannot consider your premise to be inn error despite the evidence.
See above.
     the basic point is that the small bomb bay of the B17 and the limited tankage of the pre Tokyo tanked G models means that it was a poor heavy bomber
  Just to make sure we are all on the same page, they made roughly one-thousand more B-17Gs with tokyo tanks than all the Lancasters ever made. ( 8,680-7,377!) Then if we were to subtract all the "Early Model" Lancasters with the reduced tankage of the early planes, the ratio only gets very much worse. The "Tokyo tanks" were out in the wings and gave a range of 3,750 miles with 4,000 pounds up with out the ferry tanks in the bomb bay. The Ferry tanks in the bomb bay, one of which still left room for 4,000 plus pounds of bombs increased that range even more.






 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/11/2013 2:47:26 PM
Lancaster MkIV
  • Maximum speed...: 319 mph (475 km/h) at 18,800 (5,640 m)
  • Cruise speed...: 215 mph (346 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
  • Range...: 2,930 mi (4,720 km) with maximum bomb-load 1,470 miles (2,370 km) [N 1]...
  • Service ceiling...: 30,500 ft (9,295 m)
  • Rate of climb...: 800 ft/min (245 m/min)
  •  
    Quote    Reply

    oldbutnotwise       2/11/2013 2:58:03 PM
    The B-17 is the more aerodynamic plane of the two! Lancaster and B-17. It is not even close! If the Lancaster had to leave enough bombs on the ground back at base to equal the B-17's ceiling,
     
    why? the RAF didnt want to bomb from from> 20000ft as it was a waste of time, just because the usaaf did doent make it right
     
        and as the B17 couldnt carry the bomb load of a Lanc its a one sided argument
    This is not, and never has been in dispute! The lancaster could carry more weight of bombs than the B-17!
    finialy you admit it
     
    Discounting the 30 something Specials, the late production Lancaster could carry 18 X 1,000 pound bombs inside the bomb bay! That is more than any B-17 could cary, iether inside, externally, or combined. But now the rub! Given that the maximum bomb load was ~18,000 pounds, Why was the Lancaster's AVERAGE BOMB LOAD for the entire war just under 8,000 pounds?
    may be the 4000lbs mine laying missions or the food missions to europe or the fact that this figure doesnt include incendaries?
     
     Because no mater how you slice it load and range are fungable and all aircraft are required to trade one for the other.
    within limits (this is the bit you fail to understand you cannot trade one off against the other indefinately thier is a point at which there is nothing left to trade
    You are absolutely right as far as you go! The B-17G carries more gas, not counting the "auxilery tank(s) in the bomb bay(s), so when that point is reached when the Lancaster can not carry one more drop of fuel, the B-17 still has several hundred gallons of fuel to trade.
    no it hasnt, to hit berlin it needed the bombbay tanks or the tokyo tanks, to go further required both
     
    Secondly, the B-17G is several hundred to a thousand pounds lighter Empty Equiped Weight than the Lancaster. So when there is not one more pound of weight the landing gear will support, the B-17G will have several hundred to one-thousand pounds still availible to load, either gas or bombs. When combined with the B-17's more aerodynamic airfraim, that means that at ANY GIVEN CIELING  THE LANCASTER CAN REACH, the B-17 will have MORE of what ever left to carry.
     
    but the point is that it couldnt carry it could it? the biggest load was 9600 and that was special missions with disney bombs, the land did 22000lbs special missions.
     
    you equate the fact that the b17 had ONE advantage that being celing and then claim that this is the most important aspect, I say BOMB LOAD is the most important aspect of a heavy bomber and that the B17 could only carry a load
      to berlin a medium bomber could!
     
     
    Quote    Reply



     Latest
     News
     
     Most
     Read
     
     Most
     Commented
     Hot
     Topics