Most Effective WWII American Fighter

[Pistolenschutze]

What you say is definitely true, Polish, particularly your comment on destruction of the radar installations. All that really made possible the Brit victory in the Battle of Britain was their ability to focus the relatively few planes and pilots they had on where the Germans actually were. Goering almost pulled it off; a bit more patience and he may well have.

A singular irony of the Battle of Britain was that the first bombing of London was by accident, not design. Bombers off course at night bombing a target they thought was the intended drop point, but was London instead! It was that accident which precipitated the British retaliatory attack on Berlin, which in turn prompted a full scale attack on British civilian populations in the cities. The Luftwaffe did huge damage to buildings and killed horrible numbers of civilians, but those building and civilians could not affect the outcome of the battle to any significant degree. The radar installations and airfields could, and indeed, ultimately did.

Another irony was the lack of success in the Battle of Britain itself. I would argue, and many other historians have also, that Hitler's failure there, and the stalemate that followed, is what most prompted his decision to invade Russia in the first place. No decision Hitler made throughout the war, with the possible exception of his decision to declare war on the US, December 11, 1941, had more fateful consequences than that. It was the Russian front, not the Western European one, that ultimately led to Nazi Germany's defeat.

Going a bit further with my contention concerning the need of a long-range bomber though, is the lack of it on the Eastern Front. As you know, Hitler damn near took Moscow, which would very likely have ended the Russian campaign entirely. The threat to Moscow and other Russian industrial cities prompted the Russians to move most of their heavy manufacturing industry east of the Urals. Because he had no long-range bombers, Hitler could not even touch that capacity, much less destroy it. It was in these factories that the Russians built the vast numbers of T-34 tanks and light weapons that sustained their later, highly successful, offensives.

[polishshooter]

Pshoots, I have been spending a lot of reading on any new stuff using research out of the Russia since the the fall of the wall that I can get my hands on...

We ALL have to keep an open mind, because LOTS of what we learned by rote about the war MAY be changing....similarly to how it did when we found out about Ultra in the 70s....then RELEARNED it in the 90s because SOME of the stuff we learned about Ultra in the 70s was BS fed to us because SOME of those methods were ACTUALLY still in use against RUSSIAN codes....


Like the "Myth" about them moving that heavy industry east of the Urals...

ACTUALLY they moved not ANYWHERE near as much as they bragged about at the time, during the 30s they actually BUILT most of their "new" factories there already, and kept it a "secret" as to location. NOT a "secret" like we usually think, but just a typical "soviet" secret, you didn't talk about ANYTHING...and EVERYTHING was a "secret..."


While they DID move SOME "old industry" like SOME machinery from the TULA arsenal, it went to BRAND NEW factories that were ALREADY built in the 30s, (The Ishvesk Arsenal had been TOTALLY rebuilt...) and just "augmented" production.

The "Myth" was just an Uncle Joe devised propaganda plan to build morale at home, and to show his "allies" that HE could work industrial miracles TOO... Now the Soviet production of SOME things WAS phenomenal, it WASN'T quite the "Miracle of Socialism" they claimed it to be...

And what's neat, THAT dovetails into my COLLECTION....I always wondered WHY the Russians stamped the Tula star on the few rifles they made in 42/43/44 that were made on the Tula equipment even though it was made at the Ishvesk plant by Ishvesk workers...NOW I know! To back up the 'Myth" that the WHOLE FACTORY was moved!





The SECOND one is just being scratched...hold on to your hat!


The USSR was NEVER in danger of losing the war to Hitler...

You know, I ALWAYS wondered where ALL those troops came from during the counterattacks near Moscow but especially Stalingrad, didn't you? ESPECIALLY after losing MILLIONS of conscripts and THOUSANDS of obsolete armored junk tanks and SMALL OLD horse drawn guns to the blitzkrieg in '41? And how QUICKLY those WELL TRAINED AND LED units of T-34s and KV-1s and IIs and ALL that MODERN artillery SUDDENLY showed up at Moscow and at Stalingrad?

It took a researcher who was traveling the former USSR touring "local" museums who found a Map that made no sense with Unit markings on it BEFORE Stalingrad...(And for the LIFE of me I can't remember his name OR the book! It was a NEW book in the local library about 2 years ago, I'll have to go and try to find it again...) that suddenly had him saying "Holy Crap" and digging in to the "recently opened" ex Soviet archives. (He says there are TONS of records that it will take an ARMY of historians to sort through...)


But ANYWAY, Uncle Joe, while not a great "strategist," and the fact he REALLY did not think Hitler would invade HIM in '41, was ACTUALLY preparing with MASSIVE new armies, to invade EASTERN EUROPE and defeat HITLER in 43!

He had MASSIVE NEW UNNAMED "Reserve"units, training with the NEWEST tanks and equipment, formed around cadres of battle hardened veterans from the east, who had kicked the crap out of the Japs in '40 on the Manchurian border, and was STRIPPED because he knew the Japs would never attack HIM after that.

What was the TYPICAL Uncle Joe, is that he kept it secret, and COMPARTMENTALIZED. and the units spread apart JUST enough, BEHIND Moscow and the Urals, FAR AWAY from ANY reconassaince, and the kicker? HE DID NOT EVEN TELL HIS TOP GENERALS HE WAS DOING IT.

All he had near the border was "Junk and Conscripts." Enough that he THOUGHT would deter Hitler "just in case," but HE KNEW THEY WOULD BE LOST IF HITLER ATTACKED! He just thought he never would. Stalin thought HE would be the one to break the "non-aggression pact..."

The point this guy makes is that PART of the reason Stalin did this was "personal protection," if anything ELSE happened to threaten HIM, (Like a military coup?)he had a "Secret Private Army" that he could call on to protect the State (Him!)


Anyway, the theory goes, and he had LOTS of evidence...when Hitler IS at Moscow, Stalin "activates" "just enough" new units from "his reserves" and throws them into the fight, and stops the offensive and saves Moscow...but he Still isn't ready for the BIG show...

Then comes Stalingrad, and with Kruschev and ???? (CRAP I forget!!!) BEGGING for reinforcements in the city, Stalin tells them "he has nothing left, hold on" and feed them dribs and drabs...UNTIL HE PRESENTS ZHUKOV with "new units" from the reseves and tells him to counterattack!

HITLER and his generals HAD NO CLUE they had THAT many, and THAT WELL TRAINED and EQUIPPED, "reserves!"

But what's even WORSE, was Stalin hid them form Churchill , Harriman and Roosevelt, too...IF the "allies" KNEW he REALLY didn't need those "lend-lease" supplies (he actually DID need SOME, but just TRUCKS, AIRCRAFT, and FOOD, not tanks, guns fuel or ammo!) OR a second-front...They just MIGHT recognize him as the "Post-War threat" he actually WAS, that much earlier, and his BIGGEST fear, which is the same one he "tricked" FDR and Churchill into believing it was THEIR biggest fear about HIM, that THEY would make a separate peace with Hitler if they knew Russia was THAT strong...!

It's an INTERESTING thesis, and like I said, he dug out MEMOS from Zhukov and other generals showing they had NO IDEA those "reserves" were there, or were THAT ready... plus even the names and some diaries of ALL the original commanders of each unit, that thought THEY were the "only" "secret" unit that the motherland depended upon! (AND the timeline as to WHEN they were formed! BEFORE July '41!)


I believe there are TREASURE troves of information in Russia, that will affect our ideas about "the War was really won in the East!"

Now I'm NOT sure this all adds up to his side thesis that ALL Stalin really wanted was ALL of Germany, but then JUST Eastern Europe, so MAYBE the Cold War as we know it wasn't ACTUALLY necessary...but it makes sense...IF Stalin wanted ALL of Europe, WHY demand a "second front" which would place potential ENEMY forces in an area he eventually wanted? HHMmmmm...




But, his MAIN thesis is that Stalin wsa a 'Devious B@st@rd" who lied to EVERYBODY even his GENERALS, and played Roosevelt, Harriman, and Churchill "like a fiddle..." so I DON'T think he had an "Agenda" to rewrite history, PLUS his research was pretty good...




I just WISH I could remember the Book! I THINK if I remember it it's called 'Stalin's Secret Reserves" or something likek that....Oh well, I WILL find it...

[polishshooter]

And this will be short, I Promise! AND on topic...

(You know I like the oddball, little discussed DETAILS....)


It is REALLY amazing about how much that first tanker of 100 octane Aviation fuel we shipped to England and got there JUST before August '40 affected the BofB...

JUST before the battle, MOST Hurricanes and Spitfires had just been upgraded with Hamilton(?)(help me out, X!) Standard constant speed props...and THEN started using the high test...


German pilots who had faced Hurries over the continent with not too much worry, and Spitfires over Dunkirque thought they were facing NEW AND IMPROVED models, Both had up to 25mph higher top speeds at altitude!


The German's never got it, and only started using 100 proof fuel MUCH later, and then never had enough of it to make a good evaluation, so used 87 octane MOST of the war......interestingly, US planes had been using it for YEARS before the war....

(Oops, does that mean if WE had only 87 our planes would have actually been DOGS??? ) (Just thought of THAT...)

[Xracer]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

The German's never got it, and only started using 100 proof fuel MUCH later, and then never had enough of it to make a good evaluation, so used 87 octane MOST of the war......interestingly, US planes had been using it for YEARS before the war....

(Oops, does that mean if WE had only 87 our planes would have actually been DOGS??? ) (Just thought of THAT...)

Polish....go to the library and take out I Could Never Be So Lucky Again, the autobiography of Jimmy Doolittle.

He worked for Shell in the '30's and in book he details the adoption of 100 Octane by the U.S. aircraft industry and the U.S. Military. Too long a story to tell here, but 100 proof was originally formulated to develop higher power in the engines of the day for air racing....which was really big in the '30's. The availibility of higher octane fuel allowed the manufacturers to then design and build more powerful engines.

In other words, the tail wagged the dog. 100 octane wasn't developed to fuel more modern & more powerful engines.....more modern & powerful engines were designed to take advantage of the new fuel available.

Not sure about the Hamilton CS props.....I know that they were supplying props for a number of Brit aircraft before 12/7/41......and the Brits sure needed 'em. The early Hurricanes had two-bladed wooden props! Almost anything would be an improvement over that!

[Pistolenschutze]

An interesting post, Polish. You raise a number of worthy issues.

Let me start off by saying that any new evidence of paranoid conniving on the part of Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili would not surprise me! While in graduate school a few years ago I took an excellent history course entitled simply "Stalin." It was there I first began to realize the full extent of this man's capacity for deceit, his propensity for violence, and his utter disregard for diplomatic conventions. I soon came to the inescapable conclusion that Stalin made Hitler look like Mother Theresa by comparison. It is widely accepted that Hitler killed something like 11 million in the Camps, all victims considered. It is known now that Stalin killed at least 20 million of his own people just during the collectivzation of Russian agriculture in the '30s.

I'm not sure I can buy all of the theory you present about Stalin's massed and unused reserves, and the contention that Russia was never in danger of loosing the war, at least not without considerably more evidence. It is true that Stalin had huge numbers of men stationed in the Far East for defense against a possible Japanese attack. Those reserves were later released for use against the Germans when it became obvious that Japan was no longer capable of mounting an attack in Siberia, and after he signed a secret, non-aggression agreement with Japan later in the war. I must admit it is possible though, since it certainly sounds like a strategy he might use. Stalin truly loved "wheels-within-wheels" machinations and strategic plans. You are correct; there are veritable mountains of material opened to researchers since the demise of the Soviet Union, and historians will have a field day with that material for many decades to come. Interestingly, one of my former history professiors is currently involved in that research. He's the one from whom I took a course entitled "Hitler" when I was working on my MA in history. Brillant man. Dr. Raack was his name.

On the question of whether Stalin moved the factories, or whether they were already in place, I will await the judgment of history. It could be true because even Stalin's right hand never knew what his left was doing. Whatever the case, I submit that my original point is still valid. Hitler had no bombers capable of striking those factories and that contributed strongly to the defeat of his armies in Russia. Once again we see a logistical factor at work here, one that is too often ignored by amateur historians--simple demography. German simply did not have the manpower available to it to take on a two or three front war and sustain it. The Russians, and the Americans for that matter, had far more cannon fodder to feed into the maw of battle than did the Germans.

New evidence does show clearly that the non-aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler in 1939 was one neither side intended to keep longer than it was convenient to do so. Stalin thought he had put one over on the Germans right up until the Panzers and Stukas began moving across the Russian Steppes. Hitler simply struck first, and Stalin simply couldn't believe Hitler had put one over on him instead of the reverse!

As for Stalin's actual need for the Lend-Lease supplies, you may be correct. He did later say, and it is something I thought very interesting, that the one type of supplies that was actually essential to the success of his armies was not ammunition, tanks, or even medical supplies, but SPAM! That rather loathsome concoction of pork and beef leftover "body parts" pasted together with grease, but a concentrated source of protein.

A side note to your post on the hi-octane gas (you are right, by the way) is that the common conception of Spitfires being the main British fighter during the Battle of Britain is simply wong. It was indeed the Hurricane. I think it is worth considering the possibility though, that the reason the Germans did not use the 100 octane fuel may have been because they lacked the ability to produce it in quantity. Lack of oil was a constant problem for the Germans because Germany herself has virtually none. The Germans were using gassification of coal to make gasoline during the latter part of the war, after they lost control of the Hungarian oil fields. Indeed, one of Hitler's worst strategic mistakes during the war was the splitting of his armies to allow for the invasion of the Caucasus region with its oil reserves. Never split your forces in front of superior numbers, unless, of course, you are Robert Edward Lee at Chancellorsville.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Xracer

Go to the library and take out I Could Never Be So Lucky Again, the autobiography of Jimmy Doolittle.

I read it, X, and have it in my library. Great book, and Dolittle a fantastic airman and warrior.

Question: I'm not a flyer so some of the technical stuff is only vaguely familiar to me. Was this Hamilton prop you are talking about the same type of 4-bladed prop they attached to the P-47 to improve performance in the climb? Just curious.

[Slider]

Absolute best overall fighter.........Mustang "D" model.

Personally I think it's a toss up between the Mustang and the "D" model Thunderbolt with the paddle blade prop, it gave the bolt awesome climbing ability and according to Robert Johnson nothing in the air at that time could out roll a P-47.

You could toss around arguments forever between the different fighters.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Slider

Absolute best overall fighter.........Mustang "D" model.

Personally I think it's a toss up between the Mustang and the "D" model Thunderbolt with the paddle blade prop, it gave the bolt awesome climbing ability and according to Robert Johnson nothing in the air at that time could out roll a P-47.

You could toss around arguments forever between the different fighters.

I agree that it would be very difficult to argue against the Mustang if we are looking at the question only from an aeronautical engineering perspective, Slider. Certainly no prop-driven fighter of WWII could stay with it. Yet it is also true that the Mustang did not enter service until the latter part of the war, while the P-47 was there from 1943 onward. Johnson also noted that nothing could stay with the Thunderbolt in a dive, either. And after they changed the prop, it could outclimb anything the Luftwaffe had in the air.

[Xracer]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Question: I'm not a flyer so some of the technical stuff is only vaguely familiar to me. Was this Hamilton prop you are talking about the same type of 4-bladed prop they attached to the P-47 to improve performance in the climb? Just curious.

The first Hurricanes had a two-bladed wooden prop. Then went to a 2 blade metal prop, then a 3-blade. I think (but am not absolutely sure) that the 3-blade was a Hamilton....or was possibly built under license from Hamilton.

The 4-blade "Paddle Prop" for the '47 was a whole different kettle of fish. That was developed for the Thunderbird alone (though I'm not sure it was a Hamilton), and AFIK, the '47 was the only aircraft to use it......although Hamilton also developed a "special prop" for the F4U Corsair.

[Pistolenschutze]

Thanks, X. I always wondered about that. Robert S. Johnson talks about that 4-bladed prop in his book Thunderbolt, and praised it mightily for the increased performance it gave to the P-47. When that plane first appeared on the scene, the Brits thought the Germans would eat it alive. They soon found out differently, and so did the Krauts!

[polishshooter]

Yeah, it's been a while since I read my copy, but isn't it there where i read that at the first field where 47s were based, there were some Spitfires whose pilots laughed and openly derided the 47s until challenged to a mock dogfight, and when the Spits kicked theirs into their tight spit turns they got surprised as heck when the 47 was RIGHT on their 6 even thought they KNEW it couldn't turn?


Or that might have been in "Aircraft vs, Aircraft," I forget, I read it somewhere.

Absolutely no way a 47 could TURN with a spit OR a 109...but it didn't HAVE to! They'd just snap roll AWAY from them, pull through and end up INSIDE of their turn!


But what I liked was those big Radials...and the stories of Jugs with 20mm cannon shells taking off whole jugs and cowlings and them flying home seeing pistons and rods flapping in the breeze!


AN in-line would have scared the bejeezus out of me, one lucky .30cal hit in a coolant line, radiator, or even oil line, much LESS through a block or cylinder head and you AIN'T coming home...

In Eurpope I'd have wanted a Jug, or else a 38 (that carried a spare) , in The Pacific, "Anything Grumman" or else a F4U.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Yeah, it's been a while since I read my copy, but isn't it there where i read that at the first field where 47s were based, there were some Spitfires whose pilots laughed and openly derided the 47s until challenged to a mock dogfight, and when the Spits kicked theirs into their tight spit turns they got surprised as heck when the 47 was RIGHT on their 6 even thought they KNEW it couldn't turn?

I seem to remember the same thing from my reading of Johnson's book, Polish. The '47 couldn't turn worth beans, but it certainly could use its tremendous power advantage to overcome the maneuverability factor against the MEs and FWs, as well as the Brit aircraft.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But what I liked was those big Radials...and the stories of Jugs with 20mm cannon shells taking off whole jugs and cowlings and them flying home seeing pistons and rods flapping in the breeze!

Yup, that P&W radial generated power to spare. NOTHING could stay with the '47 in a dive, as Johnson noted in his book. The Germans often tried to use the diving tactic to disengage, as they had successfully against the Hurrys and Spits. Doing so against a '47 was nearly always fatal. Johnson uses one whole chapter in his book to recount his own experience with getting shot to hell and still making it home in a '47. The German literally ran out of ammunition trying to knock down Johnson's '47, but never managed to get the job done.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

In Eurpope I'd have wanted a Jug, or else a 38 (that carried a spare) , in The Pacific, "Anything Grumman" or else a F4U.

Not a P-40, Polish???? Sheesh, I though for sure that would be your aircraft of choice (once!)

[polishshooter]

No No No, all I was saying is the P-40 WASN'T as bad as everyone thinks, and only that it WON THE WAR for us against the Japs (along with the Wildcat of course!) THAT's all...


(But I think I woulda preferred to be in a 'cat than a 40 'cause of the radial...although there were surprisingly MANY 40 drivers that would and still will if they are still alive, swear by the 40 and say it WAS a helluva plane and Zero killer. ) EVERY one of them say they could (if the pilot did his job) mix it up with the Zeros if you kept your speed up until one of them screwed up and got mad and "elected" a head on pass, then the Jap was dead meat...and if a Zero got on your tail (which happened quite a bit,) when trying to mix it up, you could ALWAYS dive out if you had kept your speed up... I guess THAT was the difference, keeping the speed up, and diving away before you scrubbed off too much in the turns, but for a LITTLE while, you COULD turn with a Zero at speed with a 40 (as well as a 'cat!)...NOT just dive and shoot and dive away after one pass like everyone believes...

And was it Ohare or Thach, I can't remember, who said the old line "Turn into the bastards! DOGFIGHT them. They are ALL paper kites and CAN'T take a turning dogfight! And SO WHAT if they get in a few hits, you can take more than them, and STILL dive away whenever you like!" in the Coral Sea after all the USN pilots at first were doing the "Dive, shoot.scoot" methods they read about from the AVG in China! There was a HELLUVA lot more "dogfighting" against the Zeros in New Guinea and off Guadalcanal than we think...remember the old "Conventional wisdom" is oft times WRONG?"

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And SO WHAT if they get in a few hits, you can take more than them, and STILL dive away whenever you like!"

I think there is more to that than even you claim, Polish. One of the chief advantages we had throughout the war is that, as much as possible, we built aircraft intended not only to shoot down the other guy, but also bring home the pilot to fight another day. That's something the Japanese, and to a lesser extent, the Germans, never seemed to learn. Our planes had self-sealing gas tanks, and armor behind the pilot. That added weight did impact performance somewhat, but it was well worth it. More importantly, our pilots came home after a tour a duty (35 missions, if I recall correctly) while the Japanese and German pilots were simply in it until either the war ended or they were shot down and killed. Most of our top aces survived the war, while the majority of Japanese and German high-scorers did not. Yes, there were exceptions, such as Saburo Saki, but most went down in flames before war's end.

[polishshooter]

"Turn into the bastards! DOGFIGHT them. They are ALL paper kites and CAN'T take a turning dogfight! And SO WHAT if they get in a few hits, you can take more than them..."


Incidentally, this is my philosophy TODAY when confronting Liberals in arguments as well...


(WHY does it seem somehow so DIRTY to quote yourself????)

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

(WHY does it seem somehow so DIRTY to quote yourself????)

Not to worry, Polish. If all else fails, you can always quote me (for a small pecuniary renumeration, of course), in which case you would end up with unassailably accurate opinion at least. In the last two weeks you and I have probably written a book between us just arguing about tanks and aircraft. How about we argue about German planes now? My choice for best overall fighter: The ME-109, despite its limited range. I think that 20mm cannon made it hard to beat when push came to shove, and its performance was outstanding against anything we had until the P-51. As for true performance, the ME-262 beat anything in the air. Had Hitler put that aircraft into production early enough, and improved its range, I seriously doubt anything we had could have coped with it, including the P-51.

[polishshooter]

The long nose Ta-152 I believe would have been the one they would have wanted to concentrate on if they could..to match allied numbers and quality.

The 109 to me is just like the P-40 and Wildcat to us...there ALL the way, (LONGER even...) and did the job to the end with a "good pilot..." Actually the ONLY problems were it's range was WAY to short to be an escort, no loiter time at all, and it was really all they had when they REALLY needed an escort, and that "mixed" armament really never worked out for anybody or any plane that had it except maybe the P38, and even then it would have been good WITHOUT the cannon...


Yeah the 262 WAS "state of the Art," but I'm not sure it was "the answer..." It actually wasn't REALLY a "fighter," more of an interceptor like a Delta Dart or Dagger...it couldn't be CAUGHT at full throttle going or coming, but it was good for only ONE high-speed pass, maybe two if they could turn and get back... but ANY turning and scrubbing of speed made them pretty "mortal" for late model P-51s, and their acceleration was SO slow they were dead meat at slow or landing speeds for ANY allied flyer, which is when most of them were shot down. And it's turning radius at ANY speed rivaled a bomber's...All it really HAD was speed and 30mm cannons...with too few shells! And with those scary but not too effective "formation bombardment" rockets under their wings, they really were not that fast as compared to when "clean" so they could be jumped by P-51s before they fired them then roared in with the (one) high speed pass...and that "high speed" went both ways on that pass, any good set up was fleeting, and the firing rate so slow with those cannons that even IF a good shot happened, a 17 or 24 just MIGHT (and usually did!) "run through the raindrops..." Yeah, all it took was usually ONE hit, but that one hit was hard with slow firing cannons at high speed!

I dunno, I'm NOT so sure the 262 wasn't another German experimental "waste of time and resources..." at a time they couldn't AFFORD the "experiment." Granted, if they got them UP and operational as "interceptors" in 43-44, maybe we could have judged better, and seen if the "interceptor" concept really ever worked!

That DO-335 I think was the one that was IMPRESSIVE, if they could have gotten the kinks out.

The ME-263 Rocket interceptor was really interesting, even IF it was a "flying bomb..." I'm REALLY surprised either we or the Russkies didn't experiment with "Rocket 'ceptors" after the war, especially with the emphasis on long range bombers after the Soviets developed the atom bomb (with the help of Ethel and her hubby of course)


But that "Volksfighter" was a joke and a waste of good ME262 engines! IMAGINE, thinking "lesser trained" pilots could fly a plywood jet fighter into combat...and they thought the BAKA was a "suicide" plane for the Japs...


But back to the 109, isn't it ironic if not for a BRITISH Kestrel for the engine and an AMERICAN CS prop, the PROTOTYPE might not have flown and the Luftwaffe may have adopted a BIPLANE, (like they actually wanted!) instead??? Just MAYBE if they do, we see Hurris and GLADIATORS fighting ME-110s and HE-whatever BIPLANES over Britain in 1940...

[JohnK3]

Oh, geez, Polish! The mere thought of flying in a Me263 with all those hypergolic chemicals just makes me cringe!

One of my other hobbies is high-powered rocketry. I'm an amateur rocket scientist. I've read tons of information on the stuff the Germans used in their liquid-propellant rockets. Various mixtures of Hydrazine, Fuming Nitric Acids of various sorts, kerosene, high-test hydrogen peroxide, etc. If you were in one of those little flying bombs and even just sprung a leak in the wrong place...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

Various mixtures of Hydrazine, Fuming Nitric Acids of various sorts, kerosene, high-test hydrogen peroxide, etc. If you were in one of those little flying bombs and even just sprung a leak in the wrong place...

Hmmm, are you two talking about the Komet? If so, I certainly agree with you! That thing used hypergolic fuels, for God's sake. One mistake and it was KABOOMsville!

The ME-262, however, wasn't fueled so dangerously and was powered by a turbojet engine burning conventional fuels. The 262 began as a preliminary design in 1939, though without the jet engine. The first prototype flew in 1941 with a piston engine, not the turbojet it was later fitted with. Hitler was the main reason the plane did not see combat soon enough to make any substantial difference in the war's outcome. He saw it as a bomber and ordered that it be developed as one, so for much of its life, the 262 was inappropriately used. As an interceptor, though, I think the 262 held great promise. It had short "legs," that is true, but while attacking it was very hard to counter. The gunners on the 17s and 24s had a very difficult time hitting it, and rarely did. It's frightening to think what might have happened had the Germans concentrated on development of the 262 (and any successors) early enough to make a difference in the strategic bombing campaign over Germany. By the time it was truly operational as a fighter though, it was like sending a single squad of Marines to take on the whole Japanese army. Man for man they were better, but there weren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.

[polishshooter]

Like I said before, I still don't think they WERE the answer...wrong armament for ONE high speed pass...just think what they could have accomplished CANCELLING work on the 262, Komet, and all the other crazies and putting ALL that R+D, treasure, and manpower behind the more conventional TA-152 that MAY have been a match for the 51?


Or MAYBE behind the 4 jet Arado Bomber???


Hitler WAS right, actually, they DID need a bomber that would "get through..." the entire war!, it's just that the 262 was NOT it...


But just like the German Tank industry, always trying for "one better..."


Someone should have reminded the Germans that in war "The 'perfect' is the enemy of the 'good.' " In other words, something good NOW that can do a "good" job NOW, is one helluva lot better than something PERFECT that can do it BETTER, LATER...especially if there may BE no LATER... but then again, I guess it's a good thing they never figured that out...

[17thfabn]

I think the P-47 is the best due to it's multi role capabilities.

It carries a much greater punch for ground attack than the other aircraft listed except the P--38. And it is the best able to with stand return ground fire due to being the only one of this bunch with a radial engine. The dual engine of the P-38 was some times seen as a disadvantage, because it gave enemy gunners twice the chance to hit something vital. It is hard to fly home on one engine. Their is little arguement that of the listed fighters the P-47 is best for ground attack.

For air to air combat the picture is less clear. The P-51 was an excellent fighter with great speed and maneverability. The P-51 could out turn the 47, but the 47 could out dive anything. The 47 had a slight fire power advantage with 8 .50 cal machine guns vs. 6 for the mustang. The last model of P-47 the N had a top speed of 460 mph, the fastest piston fighter of WW II!

[polishshooter]

Good to hear you again. 17th!

[17thfabn]

Good to hear from you also Polish! You seem to disappear then come back with a flury of activity.

[polishshooter]

Yeah, I used to go off on "long hunts" didn't I....


...but NOW I have a new 'puter and high speed, I may be around awhile until everybody get sick of me! (Or until my wife pulls the plug because I ain't doing anything around the house, AGAIN.... )

[17thfabn]

Welcome to the forum pistolenschutze.