What Aircraft of World War Two had the BEST kill ratio...

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by polishshooter, Sep 20, 2006.

?

Which WWII Aircraft had the best kill ratio of the war?

  1. Noth American P-51 Mistang

    27 vote(s)
    43.5%
  2. Messerschmidt Bf109

    12 vote(s)
    19.4%
  3. Chance Vought F4U Corsair

    17 vote(s)
    27.4%
  4. Brewster Buffalo

    6 vote(s)
    9.7%
  1. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    This one might be fun....

    I'll give you a hint, it was 26-1....
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2006
  2. Unquestionably, it was the F4U, Polish, at least if we are talking about the ratio of kills as opposed to the total number of kills.
  3. armabill

    armabill Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Glenolden, Pa.
    Looks like a tie score now.
  4. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    It's the ratio of kills to losses....;)
  5. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Give up?;)


    26-1 kill ratio, for the ENTIRE war, ALL theaters....



    The Brewster Buffalo....no joke. (Of course it took the FINNS flying against the RUSSIANS to get it....if we didn't try it against the Zero in Rangoon or at Midway it would have been HIGHER.....)
  6. Polish, the Brewster Buffalo was arguably the WORST fighter aircraft used in World War II!! Yes, the Finns did use it with some success against obsolete Russian aircraft, but it failed miserably everywhere else it was flown. You might find this article interesting:


    http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm
  7. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Ahhhh, PS, my friend, you KNOW how much I like to give CW a little GOOSE every now and again....:D


    Don't be SO hasty on the Buffalo!

    And even the article YOU cite says so!


    It only faced the Zero when EVERY plane we had was getting it's clock cleaned...BEFORE we stopped trying to dogfight and turn with it (and started LISTENING to Chennault...)....and it REALLY only had two fights with Allied pilots at the controls...first the British in Rangoon, who actually claimed when they saw the Flying Tigers DIVING to attack and diving AWAY that they were COWARDS (it was STILL a shootable offense in the RAF to "dive away" from a fight!) who tried to turn and burn at low altitudes with the Zero, and got blown away....BUT interestingly, when they put in the 40 SPITFIRES with pilots who had fought in the BOB they lost 27 of them in a couple of WEEKS with no kills trying to dogfight the Zero!

    Then of course, Midway, basically GREEN pilots, but more Buffalos made it back from the first and only interception than Wildcats....but remember, of course, AGAIN they were still climbing out, the Zeros had speed AND altitude, it was suicide for BOTH of them!


    The only REAL sustained action it had WAS with the FInns, where it ran up such a great record...AND they found out that not ONLY was it as rugged as any OTHER American fighter, it was also SMALLER and LIGHTER than any other, and MAY have been the most maneuverable of them all!

    Don't forget the Brewster BEAT the F4F in the first Navy trials, and was adopted first, Grumman had to make an IMPROVED Wildcat to beat it again, while Brewster actually slowed it DOWN with later changes and increased weight...the EARLY model was actually better, and one Marine in your article even claims it would have been BETTER than the WIldcat off Guadalcanal...faster and more maneuverable....



    No I'm NOT saying it was GREAT, (like the P-40 or F4F-4 or FM-2:cool: ) only that it WASN'T as bad as "generally accepted...."


    And it DID have the best kill ratio of the war!:p


    http://www.chuckhawks.com/brewster_buffalo.htm
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2006
  8. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    New Mexico
    :) This one did:)



    PS If you want a full size pic, I'll e-mail it to you. Just ask

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 28, 2006
  9. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    New Mexico
    How about this shot?

    Attached Files:

  10. F4U Corsair. The Japanese called it, "Whispering Death." :D
  11. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,850
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I would opt for the Corsair, too.

    One needs to answer this question considering all the practical applications, not just raw statistics. Statistically the Brewster Buffalo has the edge but practically speaking over the entire course of the war, nothing touched the F4U!
  12. I must agree, Marlin, though the F4U did have its shortcomings in some areas, particularly carrier operations. Since it is a tail-dragger, carrier landings were difficult. It was the British who finally figured out that the Corsair could be landed on carriers if the pilot made an off-center approach, and the aircraft was used on U.S. carriers during the latter part of the war. Where the Corsair really shined though was as a ground attack aircraft. With the P-51s dedicated to bomber defense, the F4U could be turned loose on targets of opportunity, and with four .50s, together with rockets and bombs, it was hugely destructive against vehicles, trains, and any sort of ground installation.
  13. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Marlin, I made the poll, I get to set the definitons and parameters, so THERE....:D


    The CORRECT answer to "Which plane had the best Kill ratio of the war," which was 26-1, no other aircraft came CLOSE.... is the Brewster Buffalo.


    You CW guys can SQUIRM all you want, and wiggle like a word-parsing Liberal:p

    But STATISTICALLY you cannot refute it....

    Which leads to the LESSON I intended to teach, the Buffalo, in the right hands, was NOT quite the "pig" it has been portrayed in MOST of the American and British histories...:cool:

    Flown by American and British pilots of 1941 and 1942 maybe, but in the time it fought against the Japs, EVERY contemporary allied fighter in the hands of similarly trained pilots faired as bad or WORSE, INCLUDING the P-40, (EXCEPT for the AVG)the Wildcat, the Hurricane and the Spitfire!


    I did NOT say "the best plane of the war" "the most versatile plane of the war" "the most manueverable," the most ANYTHING....OR the "prettiest," or "most popular...." or the even MORE self-prejudicial, "your favorite....;)"



    JUST the best kills to losses ratio....and MOST of you guys FLUNKED, mainly due to (well informed but nonetheless self limiting) prejudices and preconceptions....;) :D

















    But don't worry, I was just as flabbergasted when I read it the first time too....:D :D :D :D :D :D
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2006
  14. Now here is the REAL Brewster Buffalo, Jordana, of course, and the kind of buffalo that can really charge! :D

    [​IMG]

    +

    [​IMG]

    By the way, rumor has it that the Brewster Buffalo flew ALMOST as well as this one would! :D ;) :p
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2006
  15. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    See? MORE CW!:p

    The WILD Bison was actually swift and Nimble, and DANGEROUS to hunt...


    (Until of course they invented the .45-90, .50-110, etc....:p )




    And I might be showing my ignorance, but who is this Jordana chick? She's definitely cuter than a F2A, I'll give you that....:cool:




    Now having successfully defended the "Honour" of the warrior Buffalo, I should go on to defend the Airacobra next...;)


    You KNOW it wasn't ALL bad....and actually had some kills in US service, even WITHOUT Bong flying it. And it ALSO has some "Foreign Service" that was pretty stellar too...like it was the PREFERRED fighter of Russian Aces and "Guards...."






    (Of course, the jury's still out on whether that says more for the BELL, or for "Russian Aces....";) )
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2006
  16. Just FYI: Jordana Brewster is a Brazilian/American actress, best known in the U.S. for her roles in "The Fast and the Furious" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

    Dangerous, Polish? Well, yeah, I guess they are if you're dumb enough to try and pet the beast up close and personal . . . kinda like the Brewster Buffalo: Stand still in front of its guns and it'll get ya every time. :D ;)

    The P-39 Aircobra was actually a fairly good design for its time, Polish, first aircraft to us a tricycle landing gear, but it was essentially obsolete when WWII began. The Russians used it with some success, that is true, and it was heavily armed: A single 37mm cannon, two .50s, and four .30s. It saw some action in the Pacific in the early campaigns, but it was totally outclassed by the Zero.
  17. 17thfabn

    17thfabn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    Not having a turbosupercharger limited the preformance of the P-39.

    When the P-39 first came out it's preformance was on par with most contemporary fighter aircraft. Events moved quickly in World War II, and by 1942 when the U.S. became heavily involved in WW II it was out classed.
  18. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Actually, the Pre-war economic decision to go with the single stage blower on the Allisons probably may have been one of the BIGGEST, but obscure mistakes we made in the war....it not only limited otherwise GREAT designs like the P-40, the P-38 and -39, it ALMOST made the P-51 nothing but a pretty, but mediocre close support DIVE BOMBER....and I'm not COMPLETELY sure but I THINK the export 39s (P400s) had NO turbocharger...which limited them to combat at 12000 or less, and they had to struggle to get THERE!

    It's amazing our early fighters did as well as they did, BUT one of the little known facts is the performance of the Zero fell off TREMENDOUSLY at altitude, so even at heights that made the Allisons nauseated, the Zero was a pig TOO....and at lower levels, the Allisons SHINED with power, so while the Zero was nimble as heck at SLOW speeds, if the US pilot kept his power up and his nose generally down, the Zero's performance at HIGH speeds even down low was pretty mediocre at best....so American fighters actually did pretty well, once we LEARNED that....and if you read about most combat over the Solomons or New Guinea, it might START high. but ALWAYS ended up "over the weeds" in a few minutes, a LOT of pilot's anecdotes mention that....


    And the SAME Allisons did WELL over Africa and the Meditteranean against top shelf German stuff, again because the altitudes were generally low, because the GERMANS had no high level bombers, so were mostly tactical or torpedo down low....



    It was ONLY over Europe where WE chose to attack over 25000 where we REALLY found out the Allisons sucked...even the P-38, which did SO well in the Pacific, and the Germans called the "Fork-tailed Devil" over the Meditteranean, SUCKED over Germany.....



    So WHY would the Russians like the P-39? They generally fought at LOW LEVEL, balls to the wall from takeoff to landing, bore in and SHOOT, screw the maneuvering...and not only did it have the firepower, it had the low level speed and could take a hit and come back....so it really makes sense if you think about it...it was the BERRIES for that kind of fighting....
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2006
  19. I don't really disagree with your assessment above, Polish. Aeronautically, the P-40 and P-39 had considerable potential. What made them such dogs in action was the inadequate Allison powerplant and lack of supercharger for high-altitude combat. American designers assumed that most aerial combat would be fought at relatively low altitudes--as indeed some of it was--but over Europe that proved to be untrue. Even the P-51, considered by most to have been the best prop-driven aircraft of the war, was originally a dog. That didn't change until they substituted the British Rolls engine as its powerplant.
  20. 17thfabn

    17thfabn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    My ulitmate U.S. Army Air Forces air supperiority fighter would be a P-38 with Rolls Royce engines.
    The late war P-38L with Allison engines rated at 1,475 h.p. could do 414 m.p.h.
    The Rolls Royce engine used in the P-51 was rated at 1,695 h.p.
    If having engines that were 15% more powerful would result in an airspeed that is 15% higher, such a P-38 would have a top speed of approx 470 m.p.h. ! This would be the fastest propeller driven fighter of the war!
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Effectiveness of World War II aircraft against tanks Nov 26, 2007
General Military Arms & History Forum World War II Military Aircraft Trivia?-US ONLY Mar 3, 2003
General Military Arms & History Forum Aircraft designation May 20, 2009
General Military Arms & History Forum Futuristic USAF Aircraft from the 60's Mar 21, 2008
General Military Arms & History Forum Most Overrated Aircraft of WWII... Sep 10, 2006

Share This Page