Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[Treize]

LoL, I was definitely in the minority saying "Tempest" wasn't I...

Still stand by it though, as far as combining overall speed, climb rate, maneuverability (not the best turner out there, but decent and rolls pretty well) and knock-down punch goes.

190D9 would be second.

Despite my avatar and bias, I wouldn't even put the 51 in the top 5. Its not a dogfighter, except in the hands of a real expert. high wing loading, poor climb, touchy handling characteristics...

[renrich]

For what it is worth, at the Joint Fighter Conference, October, 1944, a large group of pilots evaluated and ranked fighters as to certain characteristics. Best all around fighter above 25000 ft: P47D,P51D,F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4,P38L Best all around fighter below 25000ft: P51D,F4U1D,F6F5,F4U4 (P38 and P47 not mentioned)

[drgondog]

I would be sorely pressed to not name Tempest based on High/low all around capability, but I couldn't remove the Spit or the F4U-4 or even the 51 but I would prefer the B w/Malcolm Hood.

This one goes back to Mission because I don't think any single one excelled at 30K, 15K or the Deck, nor can you include any of the above except Spit if you say it has to dogfight over water (as in a LOT of it)

So, unless you limit once again ops only with dry feet the silly old Corsair or Sea Fury is your huckleberry.. pesky questions

Regards,
Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.

So, how many German fighters did the Spit XIV shoot down as compared to P47D and P-51B/C (same ship different plant)..results are possibly an important factor in this discussion as all pilots are not equal and certainly not the engagement factors - and being able to go a long way and engage on even near equal terms is a huge advantage.

I would Not say the 51 (any variant) was a better dogfighter than the Spit - except for one very important factor - the range. The 51 was a better dogfighter over Brunswick, Stuttgart, Munich and Berlin simply because it was there and the Spit XIV was not.

When the XIV could engage at altitude or on the deck it was better than the 51. If it had to fight some Yaks and Laags on the deck, maybe not?

Anyway I'll vote for the XIV as the one I would lean to if I had to put my butt in the seat in a real fight.

Regards,

Bill

[Erich]

as for battling the Soviet a/c at medium to deck level.........I'll take the Fw 190Dora every time. JG 3 accts prove this

[Jackson]

was the Dora competitive over 30000 feet with a P38L?

[Erich]

question would be this : did any Dora 9, 11 or 12 unit ever come in contact with any P-38 variant of the 15th Af ? in my opinion..............no

so how do you compare ? we do know that 15th AF units flying Stangs like the 31st fg were engaged with Doras even as early as January 20, 45 against II./JG 301 and even this Luftw. unit may have been in contact with P-38's. I doubt it seriously but it may have. Most Dora units were in touch with RAF/RCAF birds and with the Soviets in 45. JG 301 was on par with the US 8th AF daily

[Jackson]

I dunno, it soo hard to compare,

Lke the 51-H, I have heard that it shared NO compnents with the 51D...

But heck, the F100 has a few P51D parts, like the rudder pedals..

How much did the Ta152 share with the Dora? The 152 never even got the chance to air out its developement problems, many were simply gounded.

The P38 L , well, it was way past the pre "J" model problems.

To me the 152 was a 'shoulda woulda coulda" maybe.. Yeah I have heard about it fighting down on the deck, but I never heard of it getting anywhere never a P38 L at altitude.

Think about it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And why do you bring that up Jackson? Whats your agenda hear? You bring up a 152 with Erich when he was not even talking about a 152...

He said against Russian ACFT at Med to Deck level he would taka Fw 190D. So why bring up a 152 against a P 38L above 30,000ft....

Stay on topic please.

[Lucky13]

What about other manouvers beside turning and rolls like accelerate and brake? I guess that during a dogfight you'll be pushing and pulling in your (darn I can't remember the name but you know what I mean) to increase and decrease rpm, right? Which one of these had the best chance of braking to get your nemesis off your tail and then to accelerate to get behind this already mention person and nail him?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

So, how many German fighters did the Spit XIV shoot down as compared to P47D and P-51B/C (same ship different plant)..results are possibly an important factor in this discussion as all pilots are not equal and certainly not the engagement factors - and being able to go a long way and engage on even near equal terms is a huge advantage.

I would Not say the 51 (any variant) was a better dogfighter than the Spit - except for one very important factor - the range. The 51 was a better dogfighter over Brunswick, Stuttgart, Munich and Berlin simply because it was there and the Spit XIV was not.

When the XIV could engage at altitude or on the deck it was better than the 51. If it had to fight some Yaks and Laags on the deck, maybe not?

Anyway I'll vote for the XIV as the one I would lean to if I had to put my butt in the seat in a real fight.

Regards,

Bill

Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.

Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.

The P-51 was not at all a good dogfighter, it was a decent B&Z fighter though.

[Lucky13]

Soren and all, what would the scenery have been if there had been as many Fw 190D's as P-51D at the end of 1944?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.

Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.

.

why were they climbing when they had home court advantage any militery would strive to be the Hun in the Sun if they were capable

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Soren and all, what would the scenery have been if there had been as many Fw 190D's as P-51D at the end of 1944?

A lot of wrecked bombers.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.

Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.

The P-51 was not at all a good dogfighter, it was a decent B&Z fighter though.

Soren - Do you have any knowledge of the strength and composition of the P-51 groups on February 1, March 1, April 1 and May 1 - 1944? Do you know and understand the tactical doctrine of 8th FC with respect to tactics? It was NOT to 'fly high above' the bomb groups. There were several reason which I will explain later if you care to hear them -

Do you understand that the LW was smart? They didn't wake up 15 minutes before Bombs away and say to themselves "I must climb abd fighter for der Fatherland".

They didn't say to themselves "Gee the way we must fight is to a.) fly with as few possible and as low as possible so that we can ensure that "we Vill be outnumbered and stupiud", and b.) try not to put as many fighters and zerstorers in one area as possible to maximize the damage?

If you understand the relative strength of the 9th and 8th AF Mustang Groups - all accounted for during those months? If so, you should feel a little silly.

Last but not least, there were so few encounters in which more than two Mustang squadrons actually engaged with any number from 20 to 200 LW fighters as to be unimportant. In that timeframe (of Jan 11 to end of May)

Because of the B/C Mustang early production problems many of those missions were flown at 1/2 to 2/3 strength so even two squadrons were lucky to meet the LW. You don't have to take my word for this, the strengths and statistics are published.

The reasons are simple - so few Mustangs on target support beyond range of P-47, but required to try and protect three separate Bomb Division Task Forces, and each Task Force going to different locations and each strung out 20-40 miles.

So, "Vere ar der Schwarms"??

It is hard to make "diving attacks with swarms" when you are mostly climbing to attack, frequently outnumbered, because the next nearest Mustang Group is 20-40 miles away escorting a different combat wing. This 'numerical defect' basically disappeared from June forward to major superiority on part of Mustangs and Long Range P-47s.

But if the Mustangs weren't 'dogfighting' to your standards, the Me109s and Fw190s were at least trying to and the reason I made the comment is that the pitiful 8th AF just had 'to make do' with a lousy dogfighter to make Strategic Bombing work - and somehow crushed the LW in the Jan-June timeframe with those pitiful machines.

I am really curious how much history you have studied from both sides..and your profile doesn't give much away?

Regards as always

Bill