Most Effective WWII American Fighter

[Pistolenschutze]

Thanks, 17! I am enjoying myself immensely here. It's so much fun to argue with Polish, however totally outrageous and illogical his positions are from time to time. For example . . .

Originally Posted by 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?

There are really two issues her, Polish, one on which we agree entirely and one on which I think you are in error. Granted, innovation was, in some ways, the worst enemy of the Third Reich. The Germans did indeed seem to subscribe to the very questionable idea that "the next" innovation will win the war. This often led to misallocation of Germany's limited resources and manufacturing capacity, in essence, having too many goals and achieving none. As for the 262, however, I think this was one idea that did justify the resources expended had that been done more sensibly. Yes, the 262 had its faults, certainly, but had the Germans concentrated on its development from its inception in 1939, and produced it in quantity (with improvements as they became available), it would have been very hard to beat in the skies over Germany. Its only lack in terms of armament was ammunition capacity, not the guns themselves. Four 20mm cannons will ruin any fighter or bomber pilot's day rather quickly. That was a correctable problem, as was its limited range. I would argue that the techinical improvements necessary to make it a truly formidable weapon were well within Germany's capability.

[polishshooter]

I may be mistaken, but didn't the 262 have 30mm guns? I seem to recall THAT was a new idea too, and lowered the capacity and firing rate even more, all to get greater results from ONE hit...I could be wrong, maybe the 30mm was on the Komet or something...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

I may be mistaken, but didn't the 262 have 30mm guns?

My mistake. You are quite correct, O great and wise Polish Person.

Specifications (Me 262A-1a):
Engines: Two 1,984-pound thrust Junkers Jumo 004B-1/-2/-3 turbojets (Modern replicas to be powered by General Electric J85 axial-flow turbojets).
Weight: Empty 8,378 lbs., Max Takeoff 14,110 lbs.
Wing Span: 40ft. 11.5in.
Length: 34ft. 9.5in.
Height: 12ft. 7in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 540 mph
Ceiling: 37,565 ft.
Range: 652 miles
Armament: Four 30-mm MK 108 cannon in nose

[Xracer]

The 262 had one other great disadvantage......it was a very difficult aircraft to fly, and required a skilled and experienced pilot.....something that was in short supply in the Luftwaffe at the end of the war.

The Allies captured a fairly large number of completed and ready-to-fly 262s that had never been flown, simply because the Krauts had nobody to fly 'em.

Another problem....the skies over Germany were black with Allied fighters.....Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Tempests, Typhoons, all elbowing each other out of the way ready to squirt anything that moved on the ground. As soon as the Germans rolled their fighters out from under the trees and out onto an airfield (or autobahn), there were frequently a bunch of Jabos ready to shoot them. Most of the 262s that were shot down were destroyed either during takeoff or landing.

Interesting article in this months' Flight Journal about the Arado 234 and the problems they had getting into the air and landing. Once airborne and up to speed, they were fine......but the Jumo 004 was very slow to "spool up" and they were very vulnerable during and right after take off and during landing.

[polishshooter]

My favorite Painting of WWII is "Yeager's First Jet..."





Chuck Yeager pulling up hard right off the deck in his 51D and the smoking 262 he pasted just getting ready to hit hard short of the runway....it's a GREAT painting, even if I couldn't afford the autographed one I saw at a show...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Xracer

The 262 had one other great disadvantage......it was a very difficult aircraft to fly, and required a skilled and experienced pilot.....something that was in short supply in the Luftwaffe at the end of the war.

You are quite correct in that, X. The 262 was a bear to fly from all accounts I've read about it. The Germans made the same mistake during the war that the Japanese did (and the Americans did NOT), and that was leaving their experienced pilots in combat constantly. The law of averages caught up with them sooner or later, leaving no one to train new pilots. Toward the end of the war not only was a shortage of experienced pilots a problem, but lack of fuel was perhaps an even greater one. My primary argument though, is that if the Germans had concentrated on development and deployment of the 262 early enough in the war, most of the problems with the aircraft would likely have been resolved, giving the Germans a distinct edge. Yes, some of the prop-driven aircraft we had could tangle with them successfully, but overall the potential of the 262 far exceeded any prop-driven fighter.

[polishshooter]

You know, while you might be right, PS, if they got it up as a fighter sooner, but I WONDER if that AR 234 X talked about MAY not have been what they should have concentrated on...

They had 2 and 4 engine models, and it WAS a truly "Fast" bomber, and they had a few pretty spectacular low level raids screaming over the treetops where they pasted some 9th AF airfields in France...I'm wondering if they would have done more damage with more of THEM earlier, and I'm thinking of interdiction raids on airfields in England, much LESS getting a few squadrons through at Normandy... the Lutwaffe WAS pretty toothless on the western front with ANY bomber.

I read a recent book called 'The War comes to Plum Street" which traces families from New Castle Indiana through the war, and some of the guys who got drafted ended up in AA units with 40mms, who made it over to France, but didn't get much use until suddenly they got sent to Remagen REAL fast after the Germans made the first few attacks on the bridge with the Arados...even though they never figured out how to TRACK them, if they came back again...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

They had 2 and 4 engine models, and it WAS a truly "Fast" bomber, and they had a few pretty spectacular low level raids screaming over the treetops where they pasted some 9th AF airfields in France...I'm wondering if they would have done more damage with more of THEM earlier, and I'm thinking of interdiction raids on airfields in England, much LESS getting a few squadrons through at Normandy... the Lutwaffe WAS pretty toothless on the western front with ANY bomber.

You make an excellent point, Polish. I've always thought one of the key factors in the defeat of Germany was the lack of a truly efficient bomber. England came within a hair's bredth of loosing the war in 1940, and part of the reason it didn't was the lack of a sufficient German bomber force to finally destroy the RAF and Britain's industrial base. In many, many ways, the greatest ally the Allies had was Hitler himself and his half-baked schemes to create superweapons, none of which were given sufficient focus to make any difference.

[wolfgang2000]

Pistol, 2 things.

It has been a while since I've read anything on WWII fighters. If I remember correctly the P38 didn't do well in europe because of a heater problem. This problem affected the engines, (the supercharger I think), and the cockpit. Once it got to the pacific they loved it.

I read your post of Stalin with great interest. I've never heard or read that line of thinking before. What book was that in?

[Pistolenschutze]

The P-38 had some success in the North African campaign, but you are quite correct; it was never utilized extensively in Europe as I recall. I suspect the primary reason it wasn't was mostly because of logistics rather than engine performance. Remember, the U.S. was fighting a two-front war, and equipment had to be allocated as effectively as possible. It does seem to be true that the aircraft performed better in the warmer climate of the Pacific and that may have been one factor in the decision to commit it there rather than in Europe. By 1943 the P-47 was coming online and was a better match for the German 109s and 190s in European conditions.

One very good source of information on Stalin and the development of the Soviet Union in general is A History of Twentieth-Century Russia by Robert Service. This work spends considerable time on Stalin, but also gives the background that made the Stalin regime possible in the first place, along with its aftermath.

[polishshooter]

It was the Allisons....No US plane with an Allison and their simple single stage blowers were any good at altitude...and MOST combat over Europe was at 30000 and up...but over the Mediterranean for some reason the average contact was at about 20k where the Allison shined. That's why the Mustang was almost cancelled, it wasn't much better than a P40 with it's original Allison, in fact the "A" model was actually turned into a divebomber and further orders were ALMOST cancelled before somebody got the idea of trying the Rolls Royce Merlin. I believe they tried to get them to work with multi stage superchargers but could never get one to work reliably on one...

In the Pacific the Zero (and many other Jap fighters designed to be manueverable FIRST, light with BIG wing area) was actually a pig at anything OVER 20-25k, and even at high speeds, even the Wildcat and P40 could turn with it at speed and especially at altitude, so most fights with Zeros STARTED at about 20-25K and ended up at the treetops, so the Allison did well....except with the P39, which had no blower at all, so was worthless at anything over 10 and very little use at that, but it was a terror at a few feet above treetop, which made it a great ground attack and was actually the preferred fighter for RUSSIAN Guards ACES, who liked to fly and fight low too....


And yeah, there were heater problems with the 38 too, something about problems with ducting the heat crossways from the engines to the cockpit "tub" instead of like most planes where the pilot is SITTING on or right behind the engine...but I think they figured out a "remote" electric heater later, plus the pilots earlier started wearing the "heated" suits bomber pilots wore too, even though the cockpit would have been pretty CRAMPED with one on...


And there actually WERE quite a few P38s over Europe too, until the Mustang they were the ONLY ones that could escort to Berlin, the 47s could ALMOST make it, but not all the way, but even later some 8th fighter squadrons still used them, plus MOST US photo recon was done by the F-8 Lightnings...

And I was surprised at how many fighter bomber units the 9th AF had that flew 38s for the "real" fighter bomber missions (actual interdiction, on-call close support and anti-armor, not the "targets of opportunity" the 8ths escorts might pop on the way home) that the 9th did, especially after they moved to France after DDay until the end of the war, so TECHNICALLY that "Tiger" SHOULD have been pasted by a LIGHTNING (or a Jug) and not a 51 in "Ryan..."

[Pistolenschutze]

Interesting post, Polish. I do seem to recall that the range of the P-38 did allow it to accompany the bombers further than any other fighter until the appearance of the P-51. Indeed, that range capability was well displayed with the successful, extreme-range mission sent against Yamamoto which used P-38s equipped with additional fuel tanks.

The extreme cold at the altitudes where fighting commonly took place over Europe is an often underestimated problem. Even the electrically heated suits the bomber crews wore were not enough to mitigate it entirely. It was sometime so cold that icing of the .50 cals on the bombers was a problem.

[Marlin T]

Here is my vote.

Hope you all enjoy as much looking as I did taking them.

But then again, this one was a great plane too. http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=26927

[polishshooter]

Hey Marlin, Somethings missing...


A couple of Swastika flags under the canopy, and maybe a silhouette of a locomotive or two...

[polishshooter]

And actually, PS, I read that jury rigging drop tanks was well along in the Pacific before they got them to work in Europe, some of the ranges 38s and other planes operated in New Guinea and the Solomons is astounding. And you will see early mention in Europe that even 38s couldn't reach Berlin, even though they were ROUTINELY flying and fighting that far in the Solomons.

But the "main event" players in Europe didn't want to hear much from the Pacific, after all, since it was "Germany First" the FIRST string is obviously "over here," so what can we learn from the SECOND stringers and rejects...

The same mentality that gave us an hour or two at the most of naval prep at Normandy, with less BBs than we used at TARAWA for gosh sake, when in the Pacific they learned a YEAR earlier at Betio and Kwajelien that 5 or 6 was MINIMUM, much more if possible! Plus Marines and Soldiers by '44 were going ashore with DRY feet, Higgins boats were only used LATER for supply, and later waves, while the first waves went in on LVT/As escorted by LVT/A2s with 37mms, or 75mm howitzers, and some even with FLAMETHROWERS. And escorted by the Esie-Item gunboats cruising RIGHT off the beach with massive 4.5 rocket salvos and 40mms and 20mms RAKING it...(MacArthur actually came up with that one, and the navy jumped at it...)

I always wondered WHY there wasn't an investigation into that, a LOT of GIs died needlessly on June 6th in Normandy. Heck, they didn't even HAVE to talk to the Jarheads if they were that stubborn, the ARMY actually performed more amphibious operations in the Pacific than the Marines, ANYWAY!

And the DD tanks, WHAT a joke! THAT one SHOULD have been investigated!

[17thfabn]

Charles Lindbergh working as a civilian consultant taught P-38 pilots in the Pacific theater of Operations techniques to get maximum range from their planes. He was out of favor for supposed pro Nazi beliefs. If he had been able to teach these techniques to pilots in the Mediteranian and European theaters of Operations 8th airforce bombers might have had escorts available earlier, reducing their loss rate. Hard to believe politics could interfer with sound military ideas

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

Charles Lindbergh working as a civilian consultant taught P-38 pilots in the Pacific theater of Operations techniques to get maximum range from their planes. He was out of favor for supposed pro Nazi beliefs. If he had been able to teach these techniques to pilots in the Mediteranian and European theaters of Operations 8th airforce bombers might have had escorts available earlier, reducing their loss rate. Hard to believe politics could interfer with sound military ideas

Very true, he did 17. In fact, Lindburgh got at least two "unofficial" kills of Japanese fighters while accompanying combat patrols during his training operations in the Pacific. Lindburgh was a stange man. He publically took a pacifist position on the war and does seem to have admired the Nazi regime before the war. Yet when the chips were down, he made his contribution. He was not the only one. Henry Ford was also one who admired Hitler and was an avowed anti-semite.

[Marlin T]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Henry Ford was also one who admired Hitler and was an avowed anti-semite.

Come on. Really?

[Xracer]

Yes, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F...rn_Independent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F...ord_and_Nazism

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Marlint

Come on. Really?

It's not well publicized, Marlint, but yes, Ford was an avid anti-semite. In fact, he later disseminated anti-Jewish pamphlets and materials to his workers, was heavily criticized for it, and forced to publically retract and apologize. I find it hard to believe he ever really changed his views on the subject though.

[Bill]

The eighteen to one kill ratio of the HellCat I believe is a record for all WW2 fighters.
Bill

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Bill

The eighteen to one kill ratio of the HellCat I believe is a record for all WW2 fighters.
Bill

True, Bill, but to get a fair picture one must factor in whom they were fighting. By the time the Hellcat came on the scene is serious numbers, most of the really skilled Japanese pilots had already gone to meet their ancestors.

[22WRF]

You missed the great one in the poll should hvae been there in place of the Hellcat

[17thfabn]

22WRF is there something wrong with the wings on that plane, it looks as if they are bent ?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

22WRF is there something wrong with the wings on that plane, it looks as if they are bent ?

Pappy Boyington and his Black Sheep didn't think they were "bent."