Your Favorite Attack Aircraft of WW2, all sides welcome

[plan_D]

The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days.

And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...

It's all well and good that you've spent years reading up on aviation of World War II and how they performed. And discussed with your fellow historians in some university lounge about what coffee to drink, then about aircraft, then about the young new girl called Mariah that you'd "Oh so love to take to Starbucks to write a haiku with over maple nut crunch coffee while wearing a beret," - all nice ...but if you can't read someones post. Then why?

Again, where did I say the P-51 was slow? At any altitude?

And after you've read that, remember ...calm down, you'll live longer.

[NAVAIR]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days.

And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...

First operational sortie for the Spitfire F Mk.21 was April 10, 1945. Read the 91st squad ops sheet below. Go towards the bottom... first operational sortie for Spit F Mk.21 was? That's right, 4/10/45. Who needs a calender when you have the record in front of you? Research, Research!



You said, "The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents."

And....

"The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep."

First statement is baloney. Second statement is subjective.... Any aircraft caught low and slow would be in trouble. Mustangs were fast enough and handled well enough to be among the toughest to beat, even if caught under less than ideal circumstances. Also consider that P-51s usually operated in squadron strength... Anything German encountered was in deep bandini.

My regards,

Navair

[plan_D]

Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "deploy" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before.

The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190?

And, of course, the P-51 is operating in squadron strength. Safety in numbers, can't leave home without it.

By the way, the last post was better. At least you were attacking something I actually said.

[NAVAIR]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "deploy" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before.

The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190?

And, of course, the P-51 is operating in squadron strength. Safety in numbers, can't leave home without it.

By the way, the last post was better. At least you were attacking something I actually said.

From the DOD's Military Leadership Handbook...

Deployment:

(1) Act of positioning combat assets, battalions and smaller units in width or depth, or both, to increase readiness for impending or contemplated action. Postioning of units declared combat ready.

(2) In naval usage, the change from a cruising approach or contact disposition to a disposition for battle. Structuring naval forces for immediate engagement.

(3) In a strategic sense, the relocation of land naval and air forces to desired areas of operation.

(4) Designated location of troops and/or military units as indicated in a troop or jump-off schedule.

So, within the context of the above, both of us can find something to support an argument. I concur that use of the term "deployment" may too ambiguous. But the fact remains that Spitfire F Mk.21s were a non-factor in WWII. As for me, I'd rather be flying a Spitfire LF Mk.XVI or LF Mk.IX for low level attack missions, those things were monsters down in the tree tops.

At the risk of drifting even further off topic, I will briefly discuss the P-47-190 match-up.

As to the P-47 not being good on the deck... I disagree. In a fight between the typical Fw 190 of the 1944-45 period and and its counterpart P-47, I'd pick the Thunderbolt. This means the Fw 190A-8 vs the P-47D-28. Deck speeds are similar (351 mph for P-47, 355 for 190). Acceleration and climb are also similar. However, the 190 rolls faster. It needs to because the P-47 has a slightly lower wing loading at 47-48 lb per sq/ft vs 49-50 lb per sq/ft. Plus, the P-47 has a very useful flap system that has a maneuver setting that really aids in turning. on the other hand, the 190's flaps generate lots of drag and little gain in lift by comparison. The fact is that the P-47 can turn tighter circles and scrub speed faster while doing so, which tightens the turn even more. If we could find a 190A-3, then I might concede an edge to the 190, but A-3s were long since used up.

Bf 109s (say a G-6 or G-14 model) would be a greater threat than the 190. Better turn, climb and acceleration than both the P-47 and the 190.

Probably the best way to verify this would be via a simulation. However, you would have to have one with a correct physics model. Warbirds doesn't. Neither does IL-2/FB. Too gamy. The best flight physics in a combat sim can be found in Aces High. NASA Engineers from Dryden think so. In Aces High, the P-47D (either a -25 or a -40) holds the edge over the 190A-8. Not by a huge margin though, so the better pilot can still prevail.

So, I would say that the P-47D was able to match the 190 down low, and was better should the fight deteriorate into a turning contest. If we use the P-47M, the 190 is hopelessly out-classed. Nonetheless, while the P-47M was a much bigger factor than the Spit21s (it equipped the entire 56th FG), it was still a very minor player in the ETO (destroyed about 200 aircraft in air and ground combined).

My regards,

Navair

[book1182]

OK you two wimps, break it up!!! Let's get back to the aircraft. No body has said anything about the FW-190F. I think this was the ground attack version of a the very successful fighter. I would have loved to been in one of those. It would have to be up there with the Typhoon in the category of aircraft that could also dog fight.

What do you all think?

[Erich]

how about a Fw 190A-8/R8 to throw another curve........ ?

[pbfoot]

the ju 87 had the most effect on the war overall

[book1182]

I disagree with you on the JU-87. It just didn't have the survivability of the fighter-bombers. It was shot out of the skies of England and they tried to operate them at night in Russia. Doesn't sound like I plane I would want to fly in.

[102first_hussars]

I agree the JU-87 had an influence during 1940 and the Russian campaign,
but it was quickly obsolete.

I am at a cross between the IL-2 sturmovik and the Typhoon.

[Erich]

Ju 87 obsolete ? hardly not with the 10th Panzerstaffels running around destroying T-34's and Stalin's on the Ost front well into 1945. The NSG's fitted with D-3's and D-5's were a thorn in the side of the Allied ground troops flesh as they progressed into the Reich. so much so that Patton insisted the US P-61 squadrons 422nd and 425th do all they could to bring them down and clear the front lines of communication

[pbfoot]

ask the poles french belgians dutch greeks yugoslavians and russians i think the ju87 was something they remember its a ground attack aircraft top cover was some elses job

[NAVAIR]

Originally Posted by book1182

Let's get back to the aircraft. No body has said anything about the FW-190F. I think this was the ground attack version of a the very successful fighter. I would have loved to been in one of those. It would have to be up there with the Typhoon in the category of aircraft that could also dog fight.

What do you all think?

I did mention the 190F, but it got lost in other debates.

"Fw 190F series: As much as 1,800 kilos, or one 1,000 kilo and four 50 kilo bombs on wing racks. Could also carry air-to-ground rockets."

My regards,

Navair

[plan_D]

The Spitfire F.XII was also a neat little performer down low, to put it lightly. Surely there were some earlier Fw-190s in service during 1944-1945? A-4s, A-5s, A-6s or even a few A-9s?

[P38 Pilot]

Originally Posted by Erich

Ju 87 obsolete ? hardly not with the 10th Panzerstaffels running around destroying T-34's and Stalin's on the Ost front well into 1945. The NSG's fitted with D-3's and D-5's were a thorn in the side of the Allied ground troops flesh as they progressed into the Reich. so much so that Patton insisted the US P-61 squadrons 422nd and 425th do all they could to bring them down and clear the front lines of communication

I agree. The JU-87 was not obselete. It just couldnt defend itself against more superior aircraft. The JU-87 was the ultimate aircraft of choice during the Blitzkrieg of 1939-1942. Feared by the sirens it made while diving and would definetly blow the hell out of a tank especially those in the Eastern Front.

[syscom3]

I would put the P47 and Typhoon well above the JU87 in any catagory.