4 Most Important

renrich · 03-22-2008, 05:29 PM

The force that kept Hitler from invading Britain and the reason Nazi Germany never seriously considered the invasion was the Royal Navy. To say that the Hurricane kept the invasion from happening is an overstatement.

Flyboy2 · 03-22-2008, 06:38 PM

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?
The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

kool kitty89 · 03-22-2008, 06:38 PM

Both the P-47D with wing plumbing and the P-38 had the range to compete with the P-51 for escort. The P-38 had much longer max range too (albeit a lower normal cruise speed) and both the P-47 and P-38 were better armmed, had better survivabillity, and better ordinance capacity. (especially the P-3

But the P-38 was about 2x as expensive as the P-51 and the P-47 ~1.5x as expensive, and the P-38 took more training to fly. Both planes would consume much more fuel per plane per sortie than the P_51 as well. But from a pilot's point of veiw the P-47 and P-38 were more likely to make it home, and you also have to considder the value of the pilot.

It's not a USAAF a/c but I'd bet that with full external fuel the F4U could compete with the P-51 in range as well and altitude performance would be almost as good as with the P-51 and good enough to do the job.

The thing about the P-47 though was that wing tanks were not being fitted standard until the P-51 was already begining to replace it. With 2x 150 gal wing tanks and a 75 gal belly tank the early P-47D's (with wing racks but w/out increased internal fuel or Bubble canopy) could range the same as a P-51B/C/D with 2x 75 gal wing tanks and a fuse tank. But if 150 gal tanks were used on the P-51 it could range farther than the late P-47D with max fuel and almost as far as the P-47N and P-38L.

And there was no real replacement for the Hurricane: a plane with adequately decent performance that was easy to fly and could be built in the numbers necessary to defent Britain. The only other plane in the time period that could have been enough with the spit and it alone and could be built in the numbers needed would have been the Gloster F.5/34 and even then only if it had been converted to a decent engine. (Pegasus, or Taurus)

Flyboy2 · 03-22-2008, 06:46 PM

The P-38 was heavy and not a good dogfighter, especially in Europe. Although Richard Bong flew it, it was never as good an aircraft at dogfighting as the P-51.
The P-47 was a great aircraft but had nowhere near the manuveurbility of the P-51. It may have had the legs, but not the dogfighting ability. Without the P-47 on escort duty, the Mustang could have picked up the slack.
Both are great aircraft, but they are outclassed by the P-51.

kool kitty89 · 03-22-2008, 07:01 PM

The P-47 rulled slightly better, could out dive the P-51, was as fast and climbed well enough to fight axis planes. The P-38 could out turn and out climb the p-51 and was as fast in level flight. (the p-38 with boosted ailerons still rolled more poorly below 340 mph) All 3 a/c could do ~440 mph with max boost at critical altitude in clean configuration an wing racks.

The F4U could out-roll, out-turn, and climb and dive with the P-51.

Here's another thing to considder: ~70% of pilots shot down didn't see their opponent. If a P-51 was bounce it was almost certainly going down. A P-38 would likely be crippled but may escape on 1 engine. (and likely be scrapped) the P-47 could likely take the damage long enough for the pilot to get away and continue to fight. (except aganst 30mm hits, or a 190 with 4x 20mm or a 3x 20mm 109 firing all guns)

I forgot to mention the P-63, it too could compete with the P-51 in range. Although it was slower above 20,000 ft it still performed well and was more agile as well. Critical altitude for WEP was similar to that of the Fw 190A series. Plus the P-63 could hve used the Merlin as well. And for the 37mm cannon, this was retained for the close support role but a 20mm cannon could easily be fitted as well, and with more ammo than the P-38's.

The Main advantage of the P-51 is that it did alot of things well but not the best. It was long legged (but less than the P-38 ), as fast as contemporary US fighters, was fuel efficient with its low drag frame, tougher than the Spit, 109, but not the P-38, P-47, or Fw 190A, it was realatively easy to fly, was reasonably agile, was cheaper to build than the P-47 or P-38, had good dive characteristic (less than the P-47, but better than the 38, and equal to the Fw 190 an with better control), it had a decent armament but less than many others (partiularly in the P51A/B/C), it also wasn't all that great down low when compared to the P-38 P-63 F4U Fw 190 or Me 109.
However, besides the cost, the other biggest advantage of the P-51 over the P-38J/L, P-47D, and P-63 was that it carried a much larger pecent of fuel internally, allowing it to go much longer after dropping tanks.

For over watter flights the better reliability of the radial engined P-47 and F4U and the Tin P-38 could not be over exadurated.

evangilder · 03-22-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?

If the B-17 was that important, why did they build more B-24s? You mention a Hudson, but not a B-25?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Although the Lancaster was primarily a night bomber, it excelled in many other roles including daylight precision bombing, and gained worldwide renown as the "Dam Buster" used in the 1943 Operation Chastise raids on Germany's Ruhr Valley dams.

So following that logic, the B-17 wasn't as good because it was only used in the daylight hours, right?

The B-17 was a good bomber, but better than a B-29? Nope.

pbfoot · 03-22-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?
The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

I think you should read some of the threads devoted to the Lanc B24 B17 debate you'll be enlightened , if you look back in some of the older threads you'll learn about many of the questions you ask about. I believe the following is the 3rd or 4th thread devoted to the debate
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...ster-3442.html (B-17, B-24, or Lancaster)

comiso90 · 03-22-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Are you saying the Lanc was not capable of daylight flight?

Dont confuse doctrine with aircraft capability.

Bomber Command doctrine and lack of long range escorts dictated nigh time use.

If the B-17 was never developed, more lancasters could have been built, perhaps in America and escorted by mustangs during the day.

More B-24s could have filled the gap.

The B-17 was a great aircraft but not essential to the war effort... it had replacement aircraft equal to the task...

IMO, it's a pretty plane with too many fans

Hell, the Lanc was better except for the defensive armament.

pbfoot · 03-22-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comiso90

Hell, the Lanc was better except for the defensive armament.

I remember your comments when you looked at the rear turret of the lanc about the tiny 303's

kool kitty89 · 03-22-2008, 07:38 PM

And besides the Hurricane, lets not forget all the US a/c that held the line when there were no good alternatives 'till superior, fully capable a/c came along.

The P-40 was the only really "modern" fully equipped a/c (the P-39 was too small and lacked range) the USAAF had to deploy in large numbers when we entered the war up to early 1943. There was no better alternative available and it did indeed "hold the line." (particularly in the PTO, and moreso with propper hit and run tactics against the Japanese)

The Wildcat, the only "modern" fully equipped carrier based fighter available in the numbers needed to equip the USN and USMC 'till late 1943. (the F2A was poorly developed and Brewster could never hope to make enough) It was enough to hould out against the Japanese until the F4U and (mostly) the F6F were there. And once group and hit and run tactics were developed, they were found to be fairly sucessful as well.

Without having some "good enough" fighters able to be produced in large numbers immediately, we wouldn't have been able to do much, particularly in the PTO. (and that goes double for the commonwealth P-40's)

comiso90 · 03-22-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I remember your comments when you looked at the rear turret of the lanc about the tiny 303's

yeahh..

I'm thinking someone wanted to use the Lanc for dear hunting instead of shooting fighters!

Retrofit with 50 cal and i think it's beat only by the B29

Flyboy2 · 03-22-2008, 07:52 PM

OK GUYS I'M SORRY!!
I just really think that the B-17 was important for the time it was used in. Sure the B-24 and Lanc may have been a better weapon system but we CANNOT FORGET ABOUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE THE B-17 PLAYED IN THE EARLY BOMBING CAMPAIGN. That is why I chose the B-17, if it was such a bad airplane, why did we deploy it. I really don't want to get into a B-17, B-24 and Lanc debat. Every aircraft served its purpose and well. Using the B-17 was not like using a Manchester if you know what I mean. Oh, and its not fair to compare a B-17 to a B-29, their a generation apart. If you look at my earlier comments you'll see I replaced Il-2 with B-29 on my list.

But I'm telling you, thier is no debating that the P-51 was possibly the most effective USAAC aircraft in Europe. (Its defiantly better than the P-63!) Somebody has to agree with me on that right?

kool kitty89 · 03-22-2008, 07:53 PM

The lanc also lacked the High altitude performance of the B-17/24 and still there was nothing touching the B-29 (the B-32 was quite problematic and less capible)

The liqid cooled Merlins were more volnerable as well, and the Bristol Hercules was even worse at high altitude.

comiso90 · 03-22-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

That is why I chose the B-17, if it was such a bad airplane, why did we deploy it.

Thats a leap... no one said it's bad. It was a great aircraft. I just dont see how it could be considered vital when it has peers with redundant capabilities.

No aircraft that has equals (or even close to equals) should be in the top 4.

evangilder · 03-22-2008, 07:58 PM

Nobody was saying the B-17 was a bad plane, we were only pointing out that it was not one of the four most important aircraft of WWII. If the USAAF had not had the B-17, the daylight bombing campaign would still have happened. The truth of the matter is that is was the combined effort of numerous bombers and fighters over a course of years to achieve victory in Europe.