"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "

[blueskies]

Yes and no. The Typhoon was an entirely different aircraft design in relation to the Hurricane, thick wing or not.

Which is why I said "If the Tempest had been called Typhoon II, which is what Hawker originally planned to do, would you be saying that the Typhoon was an airframe 'that could do more than one thing' unlike the Hurricane?"

The fact that the Spitfire had almost every part altered shows that it had growth potential. The Mk.21 had a new wing but that only entered operational service in January 1945. Prior to that variant, all Spitfires had adaptations to the same basic wing form. Again, that's growth potential intrinsic to the design. Singling out the Mk.21 or P-51H completely ignores the growth inherent in both original airframes.

In order to have the capacity for growth, you must first have a design that doesn't just barely do its primary job. It must have the structural integrity to absorb more powerful engines, more armament, or take on different roles...and remain competitive while doing it. Some aircraft have those attributes and some don't. The Mosquito is another example of a type that did have growth potential...while the Blenheim is a type that didn't.

The same can be said of nearly every other mainline fighter of the war. The Ta-152 was significantly different from the 190A, the Yak-3U was very different from a Yak-1, P-51H had no commonality to the A besides name, ect.

What made an aircraft have growth potential was being a good enough performer/cheap enough/in production that it had the engineering manpower sunk into it to make it better.

The P51D was a totally different aircraft to the P51A, the P47N was totally different from the P47C, Me109E and 109K ditto FW190Ato FW190D, no pre '42 aircraft were the same as post '44 models.

Thats the point.

 

[GrauGeist]

If we want to split hairs, its clear NO aircraft served in ALL theatres of war. And this forum IS ground zero for hair splitters - lol

The P-40 saw action in every theater of WWII.

Though limited in sorties, the P-40 was used in Europe for a while in 1941 by 403 Sq. RCAF as well as being stationed in Iceland, saw action in the MTO, was used by the Red Air Force on the Eastern Front, was deployed in the CBI, saw action in the PTO and Aleutians.

 

[SplitRz]

QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM!

 

[SplitRz]

Actually, we DID make jokes about the Gremans. Seems like it was about 10 - 12 years back. A new member consistently misspelled Germans as Gremans and we took it up, ran with it, and created a partial Greman history line. We were going to complete it, but the subject died just when it was getting interesting.

He left and never came back. We were just having fun, and didn't mean to run him off.

I bet FlyboyJ remembers the Gremans. If not, maybe he was at Reno at the bar after the Gold final ... maybe.

Anyway, no more Gremans. Promise, unless it is brought up by somebody else up yet again. If so, we could run with it again. The Gremans haven't gotten any better over the years. They're still despicable.

We need a forum version re-write of this classic -


View: https://youtu.be/9iHfhKgOSJE

 

[Greg Boeser]

And the P47 never served in North Africa (or China?), it never served on the biggest land battlefront of all, the Eastern Front, and certainly highly marginal in the Atlantic

If we want to split hairs, its clear NO aircraft served in ALL theatres of war. And this forum IS ground zero for hair splitters - lol!

But I think we all know what PAT303 meant viz a ziv major theatres of war and the Spitfire. But agree regarding the 109 and the Pacific - and no one can ignore that as a major and critical theatre...

The P-47 did not arrive in time to be involved in the battle for North Africa. It did see plenty of action in the MTO.
33rd FG flew them in China. The Soviets didn't like them, being wedded to the light fighter concept. Soviet P-47s were assigned to Naval Aviation, where they were used as patrol and strike aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

Actually, we DID make jokes about the Gremans. Seems like it was about 10 - 12 years back. A new member consistently misspelled Germans as Gremans and we took it up, ran with it, and created a partial Greman history line. We were going to complete it, but the subject died just when it was getting interesting.

He left and never came back. We were just having fun, and didn't mean to run him off.

I bet FlyboyJ remembers the Gremans. If not, maybe he was at Reno at the bar after the Gold final ... maybe.

Anyway, no more Gremans. Promise, unless it is brought up by somebody else up yet again. If so, we could run with it again. The Gremans haven't gotten any better over the years. They're still despicable.

More please.


Weren't Greman forces involved in the Battle of Latte Gulf?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Is that the battle where the admiral exhorted the fleet with the rallying cry: "Don't cry over spilt milk!"?

 

[33k in the air]

More please.


Weren't Greman forces involved in the Battle of Latte Gulf?

It certainly was a much larger event than the Battle of Cape Espresso.

 

[Greg Boeser]

That could have been a much bigger fight if the Greman flagship hadn't run aground.

 

[SaparotRob]

 

[pbehn]

That could have been a much bigger fight if the Greman flagship hadn't run aground.

Well if you make ships out of flags you deserve what you get.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just remember the most important rule: don't feed Gremans after midnight.




Wait, that might have been Gremlins.

Don't forget the second rule…

 

[GregP]

More please.


Weren't Greman forces involved in the Battle of Latte Gulf?

Yes, they were adamant that the Allies Supply their entire Armed Forces with Lattee drinks.

The Allies declined and offered to sell them Lattes.

War ensued, but artificial sweeteners were not supplied by either side, either, so everyone was drinking black coffee instead of lattes.

 

[WARSPITER]

View: https://youtu.be/KgontSmBwv4

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkZNq_dxgZk

 

[buffnut453]

What made an aircraft have growth potential was being a good enough performer/cheap enough/in production that it had the engineering manpower sunk into it to make it better.

Thats the point.

Which is exactly the point I'm making. The key driver for growth potential was whether an existing design was good enough to justify the investment. Those are intrinsic qualities of the design. Therefore it wasn't "more to do with what was decided/invested in it."

Glad we agree on this.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

109s were nowhere near the Pacific, let alone the Aleutians!

 

[Just Schmidt]

109s were nowhere near the Pacific, let alone the Aleutians!

I want to split that hair too! There's another "109" that certainly flew in the pasific.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I want to split that hair too! There's another "109" that certainly flew in the pasific.

View attachment 710155

They only built 2, and did they actually fly? Japan flew 5 Bf 109's

 

[GrauGeist]

If we're getting to finite numbers, then add one more operational area for the P-40: Finland captured one from the Soviets and used it against them for a short while.