Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: HellFire on February 28, 2009, 02:52:23 PM
-
Greetings every1:
Here's a question that I'd be interested in resolving, what was the BEST pure DOG-
FIGHTER in World War II? Was it the:
(a) BF109
(b) Spitfire
(c) P51
(d)Yak9
(e) or ????
Pls list the reasons why, thx. :D
-
You'll never get a definitive answer, NEVER. You omitted many others that deserve mention. The Zeke, Hurricane, P-47, Hellcat, Corsair, and others.
This should go in the Aircraft & Vehicles section.
If I had to choose, the Pony never would have been included. The Hellcat or Jug. After talking to a Jug pilot from WWII today at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, I'd be torn with either.
-
None of the above. :D
-
U4 is best in the game.
-
i'd say a6m2 at the time of production,
obviously the spitfire evolution was a great A2A dogfighter,
the hurricane also.
-
i'd say a6m2 at the time of production,
obviously the spitfire evolution was a great A2A dogfighter,
the hurricane also.
+1
-
Thats an easy one best pure dogfigher in WW2 >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Marseille
-
What's a pure dogfighter?
-
Perhaps the A6M. And that's the very reason for it's demise during the war - Air combat was rarely about dogfighting at all.
-
What about the best IMPURE dogfighter?
-
Greetings every1:
Here's a question that I'd be interested in resolving, what was the BEST pure DOG-
FIGHTER in World War II?
michael vicks grandfather
-
michael vicks grandfather
:lol
-
Perhaps the A6M. And that's the very reason for it's demise during the war - Air combat was rarely about dogfighting at all.
Ki-43 is said to be significantly more maneuverable than the A6M, though lighter built, shorter ranged and with less fire power.
-
michael vicks grandfather
:rofl :rofl brilliant!
-
190
-
Because of thew A6M's poor high speed performance and equally poor climb ability, the spit would clearly be ranked ahead of it.
-
Because of thew A6M's poor high speed performance and equally poor climb ability, the spit would clearly be ranked ahead of it.
Depends what part of the war you're talking about. In 1941 and 42 I think the Zeke probably beat out the Spit variants.
- oldman
-
Depends what part of the war you're talking about. In 1941 and 42 I think the Zeke probably beat out the Spit variants.
- oldman
Geez.. the OP said WWII. There's no depending and no part.
-
Geez.. the OP said WWII. There's no depending and no part.
Oh. OK. F8F Bearcat then.
- oldman
-
Long range would be the 51. Short range interceptor would be the Spit 14. Bomber destroyer probably the 190A8
All around dogfighter, probably the Spitfire LFIXe with full span wings and broad chord rudder.
-
Oh. OK. F8F Bearcat then.
- oldman
Never saw combat, so doesn't count. Otherwise you'd have to include the F7F, Do-335, etc. etc.
Anyway...
F4U-4. Best all-around air-to-air fighter (that saw combat) of WWII.
-
Lusche had the best answer.
A6m dominated the air war until the F6f and the F4u were deployed in big enough numbers to tip the balance.
But for 4 years out of 6 A6m was the dogfighter to beat. You just can't say that about any of the other birds.
-
Careful Ghost. Even the little F4F had a positive K/D vs. the Zero. The F4Fs strengths over the Zero--firepower, durability, and high-speed maneuverability--were what the tactics that ultimately DEFEATED the Zero were built around.
The F6F and F4U would have been just as dead playing the Zero's game.
-
Careful Ghost. Even the little F4F had a positive K/D vs. the Zero. The F4Fs strengths over the Zero--firepower, durability, and high-speed maneuverability--were what the tactics that ultimately DEFEATED the Zero were built around.
I've got a book my dad lent me that echoes what you state.
"Fire In The Sky" -Eric Bergerud
There were some interesting comments by Japanese pilots about wishing their planes had American ruggedness,armor,and machine guns.
Great book,and well worth buying.
-
I remember an account by Sakai where he unloaded literally everything he had into an F4F and was shocked to watch it fly off. Tough little ship. :D
-
Saxman I never said that US planes were not tough. As to K/D pretty much meaningless in this discussion.
We were discussing planes that could dogfight.
US planes used totally different tactics, Altitude advantage, and numerical advantage, or dive out of the fight and run home to fly another day.
Fm2 or F4f one on one, coalt, CoE is owned by the A6m.
-
he said PURE dogfighter in my eyes that is a2a dogfighting on equal terms,
sakai, nishizawa, honda, only thing you would be able to do against them would be RUN!
-
Oh. OK. F8F Bearcat then.
- oldman
Awesome plane (my favorite) too bad it didn't get into the thick of things during WW2... Maybe we could throw it into AHII just to see :lol :aok
-
Oh. OK. F8F Bearcat then.
- oldman
This (old)Man knows a fine piece of hardware when he sees it! Bearcat..more exciting than a 1k/night "escort". :)
-
No doubt that the F4U-4 was an excellent aircraft. Ironically, no F4U-4's were assigned to fighter squadrons during WWII. As far as I know, all were assigned to either VMF or VBF squadrons, which caused a lot of teeth gnashing by F4U-4 pilots who didn't want to be hauling around bombs. Late war VF squadrons flew F6F-5's. I'll go with the zero also as "pure dogfighter."
-
Um....VMF IS a fighter squadron.
And IMO, you have to factor in the tactics because it's virtually impossible to separate tactics from dogfighting.
-
V = Fixed Wing
M = Marine
F = Fighter
V = Fixed Wing
F = Fighter
VF = U S Navy
VMF = U S M C
When you load Fighters up with Bombs and Rockets...they become Fighter/Bombers...Fighters first, Bombers second.
The F4U Series of aircraft flew this mission well.
The F4U-4 flew this mission exceptionally well.
-
In Europe...the P47 probably fullfilled the roll of the F4U series
-
Oh...an aside...since General Marshall did not want any Marines in Europe, having been usurped by the Marines in WWI, he declined the Marines' offer to assist in the European Theater in WWII.
-
That's what killed Project Danny (Marine F4Us using Tiny Tims to take out V1 sites).
-
1) speed
2) range
3) effective firepower
These are the attributes that always control the fight. In the end the faster plane is the only one that can employ its tactics of choice. Thats why in a 1 on 1 given equal pilots the 109 owns the spitfire....all the time every time even though the spitty is clearly the better "dog fighter". Range provides operational flexibility and can offer tactical advantage. Effective firepower goes beyond the guns on board and includes cockpit ergonomics, views, ammo load out, gun sight etc.
When you take all these things into consideration one plane stands out....the Pony. I remember watching one of these "best fighter" shows (history channel?) and a Luftwaffe ace made a telling comment. It wasn't the ponies capabilities compared to the 109 that made it special...it's that it was doing it over Berlin or words to that effect.
Now within the plane set the F4U-4 is clearly the superior plane, but leaving that aside a man in a pony has nothing to fear but a better pilot.
-
Brewster B-239.
Best K/D :rock
-
"Pure" dogfighter, no categories or time periods? I'd have to say the 163 by far.
-
"Pure" dogfighter, no categories or time periods? I'd have to say the 163 by far.
Outside of range yes, what was the attrition rate for landing?, I know the 262 had significant loses...given the 163's very limited range I'd say that its a very vulnerable bird. However if a 163 could have been fitted with a single jet engine I think it might have been a very formidable fighter even at a lower speed. Easily the best airframe of the war IMO.
-
"Pure" dogfighter, no categories or time periods? I'd have to say the 163 by far.
I don't think the Me163 could really "dogfight" in the traditional sense at all, so no.
-
It seems to me that we need to define what dogfighting is.The discussion is best dogfighter,not best turner.Using E and going vertical is no different than turning.It's employing your fighter's strengths to exploit another fighters weakness.
The fact that that F4U can't match the Zero in the one thing it does well doesn't make the Zero a better "dogfighter" imho.
-
I'd have to say the KI-84, the Zero, the Hellcat and the Spitfire. Best at doing everything a fighter really needs to do.
Hellcat is kind of a special case- it's "good" but not great at everything, which is what makes it cool :)
-
1) speed
2) range
3) effective firepower
When you take all these things into consideration one plane stands out....the Pony.
I'm all teary eyed from reading this. *sniff*
My pony is getting some love.
-
I don't think the Me163 could really "dogfight" in the traditional sense at all, so no.
Well, look at the criteria here.. The 163 is so good that it's the exception to even this absolute comparison. It outturns, out guns, out maneuvers and out thrusts everything. Otherwise, I'd say the 262. It decides the fights' outcome.
I think you guys need to constrain this comparison a little more, otherwise the late war optimized air superiority designs make any of the capable approaches like the Zero just benign. The same way the paradigm later shifted to pushing buttons to kill things before they're even visible to the naked eye.
Put Germany and the allies back in WWII, and make it a purely dogfighting war. No attrition by carpet bombing or ground warfare or anything. The Komet just wipes the floor with everything, given 1:1 odds, IMO. This comparison needs better criteria if you're going to rule out the 163.
And making Speed, Range, Firepower the criteria still doesn't rule out the 262 as an arguable alternative to the P51. I also think the Tempest and maybe F4U4 (I've never flown the latter above 25k) beat it on these criteria. The P47N flown that high up is probably also a contender. None of them compare with the 163, though.
-
Best prop fighter. :P ;)
-
That's one way to do it, yep...
-
And the sound of F4U-4 pilots gnashing their teeth continues... :)
-
My money's on a Colby but pound for pound all bets are off if a good Irish staffie shows up!
ooops,wrong kind of dogfight. :devil
-
My money's on a Colby but pound for pound all bets are off if a good Irish staffie shows up!
ooops,wrong kind of dogfight. :devil
Irish wolfhound used to be put in arenas in roman times and are supposed to have killed lions which I find hard to believe but it is certainly possible as the breed has been around since maybe 3000BC can kill a wolf like a cat kills a rat and its probably mellowed down and become smaller since. They were also used for de-mounting fully armoured nights knights on horseback and for anti-chariot work! They defo were used a lot in Africa and did kill male lions (perhaps in groups) or chased them away. Irish staffie is an odd breed but you dont wanna piss off a wolfhound even though it takes some doing ;).
Back on topic I'd say the spitfire xiv or fw190a9 up high, but pure turning dogfighter (which i think you mean) hurricane or zero. The N1k2-j might deserve a mention also but due to 400-500 being produced hard to tell as well as the fact most of the good pilots would've been dead by the time it came around even though it was issued to elite units.
-
Point of order, probably; a few of the posts above have been trying to point out the difficulty of comparing apples with oranges, in terms of early or late-war aircraft. The better question to ask is, what is the most influential dogfighter of World War II?
I have an illustrative example from World War I: I think a good argument could be made for the Albatross D.XII which was specifically mentioned in the Versailles Peace Treaty. On the other hand, the Sopwith triplane probably advanced the state of the art for aerial furball combat more than any other plane - most sources credit it as the direct ancestor of the Fokker Dr.I. All by way of showing that it's perfectly reasonable to consider the pros and cons of early and late war aircraft, if you define your terms with more accuracy. ;)
You all rock. :rock
-
Stictly by the numbers it was a F6F Hellcat. It scored more kills and produced more aces than any other plane in WWII.
From the heart I'd have to say the Spitfire due to it's iconic stature during the Battle of Britan.
But as others have already mentioned, at least until the introduction and deployment of the F6F, it was probably the Zeke.
-
Stictly by the numbers it was a F6F Hellcat. It scored more kills and produced more aces than any other plane in WWII.
I think with a little research you'll find that comment isn't true. I can't speak to the ace part, though it is unlikely, but for most kills, that goes to the Bf109.
Think beyond the US armed services.
-
OK (from various sources)...
The F6F Hellcat had the highest Kill/Loss ratio of any American fighter plane in Army, Navy, Marine or Air Force service during WWII.
No fewer than 75 percent of all enemy aircraft in the entire conflict were downed at the hands of Hellcat pilots (EDIT: The F6F accounted for 75% of all aerial victories recorded by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific), credited with some 5,156 total kills in the war for a mind-boggling kill ratio of 19:1. 307 Hellcat pilots were made aces thanks to the fine machine. The aircraft were duly noted for their role in supporting Task Force 58 to which some 400 Japanese aircraft were destroyed in a single week.
Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers and destroyed 5,163 (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 305 Hellcat aces.
The Corsair was an extremely impressive aircraft, but all admitted it was unforgiving, and for the cost of two Corsairs the Navy could buy three Hellcats and get them quickly. The Hellcat was much easier to fly, which was far from a trivial consideration when the US was turning out pilots on an assembly line and throwing them into combat, and its availability rate and survivability were outstanding.
In sum, it appears that the Corsair had the edge in sheer capability while the Hellcat had the edge in simple utility. Given that the Hellcat fought in greater numbers, there is no doubt it carried the greater weight in winning the war in the Pacific.
... Still pretty damn impressive.
-
The F6F Hellcat had the highest Kill/Loss ratio of any American fighter plane in Army, Navy, Marine or Air Force service during WWII.
The FM-2 beat out the F6F by a CONSIDERABLE margin (think I saw somewhere estimated as high as 30-40:1).
Given that the Hellcat fought in greater numbers, there is no doubt it carried the greater weight in winning the war in the Pacific.
The F4F won the fighter war in the South Pacific. Guadalcanal was the meat grinder that broke the back of Japanese air power in the theater, and was to the cream of Japan's fighter pilots what Midway was to their carrier forces. Before Guadalcanal the Allies could STILL have lost the war. Guadalcanal guaranteed that they would WIN, and it was the WILDCAT that saw them through that campaign. Later fighters were really just the final nails in the coffin.
-
Think beyond the US armed services.
Woah, there... what are you trying to say??? :noid
-
OK (from various sources)...
The F6F Hellcat had the highest Kill/Loss ratio of any American fighter plane in Army, Navy, Marine or Air Force service during WWII.
No fewer than 75 percent of all enemy aircraft in the entire conflict were downed at the hands of Hellcat pilots (EDIT: The F6F accounted for 75% of all aerial victories recorded by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific), credited with some 5,156 total kills in the war for a mind-boggling kill ratio of 19:1. 307 Hellcat pilots were made aces thanks to the fine machine. The aircraft were duly noted for their role in supporting Task Force 58 to which some 400 Japanese aircraft were destroyed in a single week.
Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers and destroyed 5,163 (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 305 Hellcat aces.
The Corsair was an extremely impressive aircraft, but all admitted it was unforgiving, and for the cost of two Corsairs the Navy could buy three Hellcats and get them quickly. The Hellcat was much easier to fly, which was far from a trivial consideration when the US was turning out pilots on an assembly line and throwing them into combat, and its availability rate and survivability were outstanding.
In sum, it appears that the Corsair had the edge in sheer capability while the Hellcat had the edge in simple utility. Given that the Hellcat fought in greater numbers, there is no doubt it carried the greater weight in winning the war in the Pacific.
... Still pretty damn impressive.
None of which backs up your claims I was responding to.
-
None of which backs up your claims I was responding to.
That's why I said OK... but still pretty impressive. Sheesh.
-
That's why I said OK... but still pretty impressive. Sheesh.
It's not worth arguing with them. They'll contradict themselves, which they've done already in this thread.
:salute Bald, they just HAVE to be right. Let them and laugh at them.
-
And here I thought everyone despised the little A6M I putt around in all the time, nice to see it getting recognition.
+1 to the A6M.
-
How come I am not seeing any P-38 love here?
I mean they did have the top two American Aces in the War.
It does everything well, not great but well.
-
It's not worth arguing with them. They'll contradict themselves, which they've done already in this thread.
:salute Bald, they just HAVE to be right. Let them and laugh at them.
I have no idea what you are on about. He made a claim that was wrong, I said so, he posted a bunch of stuff while never acknowledging that he had been wrong, I misunderstood that and explained his post didn't back up his earlier claim.
Nobody is disputing that the F6F Hellcat was a great fighter. That is self evident.
-
The F6F Hellcat did have a 19 : 1 kill ratio
second closest was the corsair with 12:1
i think these would be the best in the certain
1) Best low to medium altitude fighter: Yak-3 / 9U
2) Best high altitude fighter: Ta-152H
3) Best bomber escort fighter: P-51H
4) Best ground attack dogfighter bomber: P-47
5) Best fighter-vs. fighter: Grumman Hellcat
6) Best photo reconnaissance fighter: Late model Spitfire
7) Best overall fighter of WWII for all missions taken together: Ta-152H
-
how did you come up with that ta-152 best overall :O
-
i think its a really good plane for the missions it flew
-
i think its a really good plane for the missions it flew
It flew so few missions I have no idea how you can claim that.
Capt. Eric Brown said the best fighters of WWII that he had flown were the F4U-4, Fw190D-9 and Spitfire Mk XIV as I recall.
-
how did you come up with that ta-152 best overall :O
Probably the same way he came up with a bomber escort that never saw action. Came too late in the war to see action in the ETO and PTO and was deemed unsuitable for action in Korea.
ack-ack
-
mike vick
-
except he was never in WWII he was in VA
-
How come I am not seeing any P-38 love here?
I mean they did have the top two American Aces in the War.
It does everything well, not great but well.
Incredibly difficult aircraft to fly but in hands of an expert pilot is was pretty unbeatable as it could do things a lot of aircraft couldn't.
-
The FM-2 beat out the F6F by a CONSIDERABLE margin (think I saw somewhere estimated as high as 30-40:1).
Given that the Hellcat fought in greater numbers, there is no doubt it carried the greater weight in winning the war in the Pacific.
The F4F won the fighter war in the South Pacific. Guadalcanal was the meat grinder that broke the back of Japanese air power in the theater, and was to the cream of Japan's fighter pilots what Midway was to their carrier forces. Before Guadalcanal the Allies could STILL have lost the war. Guadalcanal guaranteed that they would WIN, and it was the WILDCAT that saw them through that campaign. Later fighters were really just the final nails in the coffin.
You have to examine the aircraft that were typically encountered by the FM-2. They flew from escort carriers, which meant that they spent the bulk of their time supporting ground ops, covering TBMs, and flying BARCAP for the CVEs. There weren't many fighters to be engaged. Mostly, they killed bombers and suicide aircraft. If you check the Navy Statistical Digest, you'll find this was the case. FM-2s never got anywhere near a big fight... The CVEs were too slow to sail with the fast carriers. Also consider that the statistical sample is very small. A dozen FM-2s on 15 CVEs doesn't add up to many aircraft. FM-2s did well, but the opposition wasn't especially deadly overall.
I would also argue that the F4F didn't break the back of Japanese air power. They held the door, but could not push out. There were many contributors to crushing Japanese air power. However, you have to separate the services. Wildcats rarely encountered the JAAF. They mostly dealt with the IJN. F4Fs were not very good as escorts, simply because they were hard pressed to defend themselves. I read somewhere that the the SBD killed more IJN pilots than the F4F. How so? It killed them while they were aboard their carriers. Nearly 20% of IJN carrier pilot casualties were the result of going down with their ships.
There can be no question that the F6F was responsible for the bulk of the devastation to Japanese air power. Hellcats shot down more Japanese aircraft than the F4F/FM, P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and P-51 combined. Over 5,000 kills.
My regards,
Widewing
-
IAR-80 and Ki-100
-
IAR-80 and Ki-100
Ki-100 = Ki-61-II with a reliable engine.
I don't think it comes anywhere near the best Japanese fighter (when both are operable) let alone the best dogfighter of WWII.
-
Early War Russian Planes
-
I'll tell you the best dogfighter of the war... The B-17E! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO-u2nE_Cjw&feature=related
-
The F6F Hellcat did have a 19 : 1 kill ratio
second closest was the corsair with 12:1
i think these would be the best in the certain
1) Best low to medium altitude fighter: Yak-3 / 9U
2) Best high altitude fighter: Ta-152H
3) Best bomber escort fighter: P-51H
4) Best ground attack dogfighter bomber: P-47
5) Best fighter-vs. fighter: Grumman Hellcat
6) Best photo reconnaissance fighter: Late model Spitfire
7) Best overall fighter of WWII for all missions taken together: Ta-152H
I beg to differ, the best photo recon fighter was the Mosquito, which in certain configs was a fighter
Also, the TA wasn't the best over all because it couldn't do ground attack. I maintain that the P-47 or 51 is the best over all.
-
Don't the F7F or F8F beat both the P47 and P51 at pretty much everything?
-
Don't the F7F or F8F beat both the P47 and P51 at pretty much everything?
Don't think they had the range, but other than that, yes.
Of actual WWII fighters I'd put the F4U as the best.