Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[wmaxt]

The P-38 was very effective in the MTO durring that period and the recorts were that it was as/more maneuverable than its opponents at tha time. Compressibility and cold cockpits were not an issue there either (the climate was warm and the altitudes normanl close to/below 20K). On the flip side they were few, only those flown from the states in Bolero then from Britain. Their biggest impact there was in early '43.

The Spitfire, 109, 190, 38 are very close performance at that time, Throw in multy-duty and I'd go with the P-38 or the Fw-190, depending mostly on which side I flew on. The P-38 had a 6:1 kill rate in the MTO.

I've heard that the Forked-Tailed-Devil nick name is fiction but even stuff of the period mentions it and it did come from somewhere. Finaly the FG Comander of Sardinia went to Galland with the complant - the P-38s, after flying from Africa, were decimating his fighters with their performance including out maneuvering his fighters, The P-38s were well respected.

wmaxt

[evangilder]

I am not disagreeing that it had an impact in the MTO. But the nickname was likely allied propaganda.

[lesofprimus]

Someones voting more than 1 time for this poll... The Spitfire is getting way too many votes all of a sudden... Like 8 votes in a row, and the -190 gets none??

Someones being a scumbag....

[syscom3]

I guess the -190 has an image problem.

The Spitfire does look sexier any way you cut it.

[Jabberwocky]

The dominant fighter of the period would have to be the 190A series. Simply no other fighter of the period could match it in terms of performance.

It was more heavily armed, faster and smaller than any of its competitors. It would out accelerate a Spitfire, outdive a 109, out roll ANYTHING and had more firepower than any other fighter of the period. It terrorised the British, prompting them to speed up the introduction of the 2 speed, 2 stage Merlin Spitfire. Even the early Griffon engined variants were built expressly to catch low-level 190 raiders.

The 190 was also effective in all roles for a single engined dayfighter; interceptor, fighter, bomber destroyer, fighter bomber. About its only drawback is a lack of range and the engine problems of the A1 and A2

[MacArther]

Despiste all of this, the P-40 could absorb more damage and still dish more out than any of the mentioned fighters. It may not have been the most glamorus, but it got the job done, and it worked well as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft.

[Piaggio108]

Spitfire Mk.IX
Fw-190A
Spitfire Mk.V
Bf-109F
P-38

I actualy voted -190, but then realized that the Mk.IX entered service in '42. Sry. 190 is better than the MK.V though.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Piaggio108

Spitfire Mk.IX
Fw-190A
Spitfire Mk.V
Bf-109F
P-38

I actualy voted -190, but then realized that the Mk.IX entered service in '42. Sry. 190 is better than the MK.V though.

Belive it or not I have a comparison (From Doc's page I think) that shows two Spit IX and P-38F. The Spits out turned it but the P-38 was right in the middle of the 2 Spits performance curves, who had different Prop reduction ratios.

It's true the 190 had much better rolling capacity (more that 2x) but the 38 could more than hold its own with one esp. below 15,000ft. Robin Olds got 2 in a turning style dogfight, on his first encounter with German planes.

All of these planes are so close in performance that personal prefference is a large part of the choice. I chose the P-38 because it Also has multi-roll capacity And more range, making it more flexible.

my list
P-38
Fw-190A
Spitfire
Bf-109F/P-40

Within a 1:1.3 range

wmaxt

[MacArther]

YEESSSS!!! GO P40! thank you wmaxt!

[Glider]

For what its worth my order would be

Equal First Spit 9 and 190
they were to close to call and it depended on the pilot and strategic position. If pushed, I would give it to the 190 for its versatility.

Close second P38. - I haven't seen any example of a P38 outfighting a Spitfire in a trial. Robin Olds was an exceptional pilot who could do things that most pilots couldn't. An exceptional pilot in any of the above planes would almost certainly beat an average pilot in any other.

Third 109F
It couldn't match the above three planes but was better than the P40. The Spit 5 was a good match for the 109F but the Spit 9 beat it.

Fourth P40
Sorry but I believe it to be well outclassed by the others unless at low level. It could take damage, but so could the 190 and P38. Its armament was better than the 109F, about the same as the Spit and worse than the P38 and 190.

Happy to be proved wrong in any of the above

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Glider

For what its worth my order would be

Equal First Spit 9 and 190
they were to close to call and it depended on the pilot and strategic position. If pushed, I would give it to the 190 for its versatility.

Close second P38. - I haven't seen any example of a P38 outfighting a Spitfire in a trial. Robin Olds was an exceptional pilot who could do things that most pilots couldn't. An exceptional pilot in any of the above planes would almost certainly beat an average pilot in any other.

Third 109F
It couldn't match the above three planes but was better than the P40. The Spit 5 was a good match for the 109F but the Spit 9 beat it.

Fourth P40
Sorry but I believe it to be well outclassed by the others unless at low level. It could take damage, but so could the 190 and P38. Its armament was better than the 109F, about the same as the Spit and worse than the P38 and 190.

Happy to be proved wrong in any of the above

I can understand where your comming from.

Beneth 15,000ft the P-40 was a good match for the Bf-109F as a fighter and better tacticaly. I stand on what I said earlier, it's as much a matter of who your fighting for. The aircraft were that close in performance.

Its true the P-38F were the begining but they were also in service making elimination because they were relatively few is not fair. Were loking for the best that were there, not the biggest impact. The F,G and H were very compettitive with their contemporary rivals, though above 20k it took the J/K models to be truly competant against them every where.

There is a story about a P-38H and a Griffon Spit where the Spit gave up after the P-38 was able to get firing position several times and the Spit none. I've seen tests where the Spit could out turn it but mostly just comments like 'Even the Spitfire pilots consider their mortality when faced with a P-38'. And finaly Gunther Rall comparing a Spit to a P-38 "it maneuvers about as well". No reference to models. Once again a lot is due to pilot experiance/prefference.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by MacArther

Despiste all of this, the P-40 could absorb more damage and still dish more out than any of the mentioned fighters. It may not have been the most glamorus, but it got the job done, and it worked well as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft.

More than a Fw-190A? Whatever, you are smoking crack!

[lesofprimus]

Try sending a P-40 to attack a box of B-17's, then we'll see which can absorb more punishment...

Dish out more punishment???? Doubt that..... 2x 20mm, 2x 30mm, 2x 15mm wins hands down....

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Try sending a P-40 to attack a box of B-17's, then we'll see which can absorb more punishment..

[MacArther]

if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place? My theory is that the P40 had proven itself as a tough machine, and only the increasing speed of arial combat forced it to be phased out.