Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time

[lesofprimus]

The -109 was nowhere near the Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time...

[Jabberwocky]

I think the 109 one of the greats. Excellent performance, long service and chosen mounta of the highest scoring aces history has seen.

However, the 109 almost always played second fiddle to another type for most of its service, whether it was to the Spitfire, FW-190A/D, P-51, La-5/7, Yak-9 or other. Despite this, it was ALWAYS competetive and ALWAYS a dangerous opponent, no matter what period of the war. It was even dominant in some campaigns (Poland, Norway, France and Russia pre 1942 come to mind) and had enough performance and class to be consistently deadly, often in the most inexpert of hands.

The again, along with the IL-2 and some others like the Zero and Battle, it would probably go equally well on a 'Greatest Target Of All Time" list, seeing how many were eventually shot down during the course of the war.

[CurzonDax]

Actually the Fokker product that needs to be on the list is D. VII which was even mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles and I personally would pick the SPAD XIII or the S.E.5a as better aircraft than the Camel.

:{)

[Royzee617]

FCS tho I hate lists and rankings especially, IHTS the 109 is the best ever if you rank according to kills and numbers built. Maybe then the Zero. Nothing comes close to these fantastic machines, and their pilots, except maybe the Gloster Gladiators over Malta or Finland IMO!

[syscom3]

The -109 and Spit always suffered from lack of range. Thats what keeps it from being the best.

[FLYBOYJ]

Zero - over-rated....

[Royzee617]

Kills speak for themselves - there is no other criterion for success!

YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.

Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.

[elmilitaro]

true.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Royzee617

Kills speak for themselves - there is no other criterion for success!

YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.

Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.

I think what Flyboy is saying (without having to say it literally) is that the Zero was good for a short period of time. aka When is first came out and up to around early 42. What has to be kept in mind is that the USA had poor planes in the East at that time and and even worst tatics. Trying to dogfight (which they tried to do) with a Zero in 1941 was crazy. So USA pilots learnt that and stopped dogfighting it and used thatch and weave tactics and hit and run tatics and the Zero could not deal with those tactics. Not to mention the Japs had trained and combat tested pilots from China at the time and the USA had nothing but green pilots. After the USA pilots got some exp. and good tatics and decent planes they shoot down Zeros in droves. Over all from 42 forward the Zero did not have that great of a record in combat if you look at kill ratios. You mention Saburo Sakai and his record, he was a good pilot no arguing that but his kills all came before the middle of 42 and early when the oppotion was weaker. He would not have done well from 42 forward, he most likely would of been killed in combat like Hiroyoshi Nishizawa who was the leading Jap ace of the war who was killed in 44 in combat.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Royzee617

YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.

Here we go again..... I'll educate you with some earlier posts....

Over all the "Mystical" Zero never achieved better than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over USAAF and USN aircraft during its heyday which would be during 1942. As a matter of fact by the end of the Summer 1942 5th AF Fighter groups were starting to gain air superiority over New Guinea and they were doing it with P-39s, P-400s and P-40s!

You had several pilots in the theater at the time who scored kills in P-39s and P-40s and as a whole operated very effectively against Japanese forces until the P-38 entered the theater in late 42. Jay Robbins, Thomas Lynch, and Danny Roberts were all top P-38 fighter pilots but all would do well when they first arrived in the area flying P-39s (Lynch got 2 Zeros in May 42' flying the P-400). As a matter of fact the 39th Pursuit Group operating out of New Guinea did extremely well with the P-39 considering it's limitations.

Again, there were folks knocking down Zeros with 39s, 40s and 400s. They held the line until the P-38 arrived and their losses weren't reflective of what you would think the Zero could inflict....

Here's more data....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroo...of_tables.html

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s)....

FEAF
LOSSES
Jan - 0
Feb - 44
Mar - 12
Apr - 0
May - 32
Jun - 28
Jul - 11
Aug - 11
Sep - 10
Oct - 0
Nov - 32
Dec - 8

FEAF
KILLS
Jan 0
Feb 20
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 20
Jul 4
Aug 41
Sep 0
Oct 6
Nov 25
Dec 54

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations.

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943).

Now let's talk about the USN!

This cut and paste is from R Leonard - he has mounds of archives and records as his dad was a WW2 navy ace....

Japanese Major Aircraft Types Losses to Major USN Combat Types in Air-to-Air Action:

F6F - 5163
F4U/FG - 2137
FM - 422
F4F - 905
S2BC/SBW - 43
SBD - 138
TBF/TBM - 98
PB4Y - 210
PBY - 13
PB2Y - 5
PBM - 11
PV - 5
Total - 9150

At the same time the USN Losses and resultant Japanese:USN Ratio: -

F6F – 270; ratio = 19.1 to 1
F4U/FG - 189; ratio = 11.3 to 1
FM - 13; ratio = 32.5 to 1
F4F - 178; ratio = 5.1 to 1
S2BC/SBW - 18; ratio = 2.4 to 1
SBD - 79; ratio = 1.7 to 1
TBF/TBM - 47; ratio = 2.1 to 1
PB4Y - 28; ratio = 7.5 to 1
PBY – 36; ratio = 0.4 to 1
PB2Y - 0; ratio = 8.0 to 1
PBM - 3; ratio = 3.7 to 1
PV - 6; ratio = 0.8 to 1
Total - 867; ratio = 10.6 to 1

Japanese Losses by Type to USN Aircraft -
A6M Series - 3896
Ki-43 - 529
Ki-61 - 477
Ki-44 - 385
Ki-27 - 145
Ki-84 - 144
J2M - 49
N1K - 35
C6N - 55
Unident SE VF/VO - 247
D3A - 801
D4Y - 271
B5N - 203
B6N - 174
Unident S/E VB/VT - 51
A6M2-N - 71
E13A - 128
F1M - 47
Unident S/E Float - 96
G3M - 34
Ki-21 - 88
G4M - 477
Ki-46 - 82
Ki-45 - 77
J1N - 41
P1Y - 149
Ki-48 - 57
Ki-49 - 25
Ki-67 - 10
Unident T/E Combat - 227
Flying Boats - 69
Transports - 80
Trainers - 29
TOTAL - 9249

Do the math and factor in the Zero and you will find it suffered sadly. Never the less it could be deadly in the hands of a formitable pilot as you mentioned like Saburo Saki but he was one great pilot that made his mark but couldn't turn the tide, so with all this,


You were saying?!?

[Hunter368]

Ohhhhh crap Joe thats a good one. This is what happens when you talk about something you don't know about. Alittle bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nice one Joe, he must of ticked you off for you to do all that number crunching hehe. I laughed so hard Joe that is sweet.

LMFAO.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Royzee617

Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.

Range counts for a lot. It means youre on offense. You can attack your opponent from any direction on the map.

Remember one thing about your -109's........ they werent exactly instilling terror in the hearts of the escorting US Fighter pilots.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Range counts for a lot. It means youre on offense. You can attack your opponent from any direction on the map.

Remember one thing about your -109's........ they werent exactly instilling terror in the hearts of the escorting US Fighter pilots.

The 109 was a very dangerous foe at any point in the war, if you are not sure about this ask any USA pilot personally, I have. But you are right the 109 had slipped alittle at that point of the war, it no longer could be considered the best fighter in the world (even if u liked the 109). Endurance is very important like you said, look at 109 in BoB, see Spitfires in 41 or P47 trying to escort B17 in 43. Endurance counts bigtime.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Ohhhhh crap Joe thats a good one. This is what happens when you talk about something you don't know about. Alittle bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nice one Joe, he must of ticked you off for you to do all that number crunching hehe. I laughed so hard Joe that is sweet.

LMFAO.

LOL - Thanks! I wasn't ticked, but we went though this a few times here!

[lesofprimus]

Yup... The -109, while a great airplane, was more lethal because of the pilot flying it than the actual airframe itself... I have talked to many pilots and aces, and none were too concerned about the -109, but mention the -190 and its a slightly different conversation...