StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Boba Fett wrote: That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 is a better dogfighter than the P-51.

Thunderfire wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 is a better dogfighter than the P-51.

The P-38 is slower and more massive, one would think the agility would go to the P-51 here.

Thunderfire wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 is a better dogfighter than the P-51.

Where could you have possibly gotten THAT idea from?

Thunderfire wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 is a better dogfighter than the P-51.

Wrong.
The P-51 is a better performer above 20,000 ft, due to its laminar flow wing, and turns better at all altitudes (even against the tactic of slowing one of the P-38's engines).
The P-38 also has the problem of compressability in dives, as it can approach Mach 1, it's heavier, and a mediocre performer above 20,000ft.

Thunderfire wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 is a better dogfighter than the P-51.

What?

Even if we don't talk about the unability of the P-38 to make such tight turn that the P-51 can and it's hard handling in a high altitude dive -difficult to pull it up- why were the P-51 used in Korea, not the P-38?

Because the P-38 was already an obsolete craft in 1944. (I mean obsolete for being a dogfighter.)

Edit: Warspite and Frank has beaten me again! Quick typers, they are!

This is a tough choice, but I would say Spitfire, because with out it there is a good chance Britain would have lost against Germany in tBoB.

ALI_G wrote:This is a tough choice, but I would say Spitfire, because with out it there is a good chance Britain would have lost against Germany in tBoB.

While the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, I'd rather say the mass production of Hurricanes won the Battle of Britain.

It wasn't nearly as good as the Spitfire but Britain had a lot of them
-compared to the Spitfires- and it's producing cost was lower also.

Boba Fett wrote:

EmperorMing wrote:My vote goes to the P-38 lightning.

Twin engines, long range, concentrated firepower (in the nose), and it could bomb, fight and launch rocket attacks. There is even a reference to the plane being tested for use to launch torpedo attacks against ships; too bad the link is being elusive right now...

While I like the shape of it very much I don't think it was a really successful dogfighter in the late years of WWII.

Because of it's long range, escort duty was one of it's primary role but the craft was heavy and not so good manouverable, so dogfight was not the best role for it.

That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

The P-38 was actualy a superior performer in the Pacific thanks to the Japanese using the Zero. The P-38 was more accurate and could take a fair amount of abuse. Groups of P-38s would wach eachothers backs and tear through massive numbers of Zeros.

Boba Fett wrote:

ALI_G wrote:This is a tough choice, but I would say Spitfire, because with out it there is a good chance Britain would have lost against Germany in tBoB.

While the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, I'd rather say the mass production of Hurricanes won the Battle of Britain.

It wasn't nearly as good as the Spitfire but Britain had a lot of them
-compared to the Spitfires- and it's producing cost was lower also.

I agree, the Mk.I and then Mk.II Hurricanes were the true backbone of the RAF in the Battle of Britain, those things could go into battle, shoot down and get shot at and ram Doodlebugs and still make it back to get patched up and ready again in five minutes.

Boba Fett wrote: @Vympel: You said a fighter doesn't need armament bigger then 20 mm cannons. (Something like this)

Several german reports said that 20 mm projectile were bouncing of from the IL-2's armor (of course not always) and a B-17 or a B-24 can fly away with a burst of 20 mm bullets in it's belly.

That's where 30 mm cannons do their trick.

That's what later FW-190s were armed with.

The Mk-108 30mm cannon was impressive, but ammunition load, rate of fire, and accuracy left much to be desired- used against a variety of bombers (like the Il-2, B-17/B-24 etc), it was adequate, but against fighters, it took an ace like Erich Hartmann to be truly effective with the weapon (in the case of Hartmann, who flew a Bf-109G, it was nose-mounted, unlike the FW-190)- most pilots were best served with 20mm cannons. Soviet aces had a variety of big guns: 37mm cannons on the lend-lease P-39 (odd plane that- the Soviets had much success with it in air-to-air combat while the Americans and British utterly failed with it), and some Yak-9 and LaGG-3 variants, and even a big 45mm cannon (anti-tank work).

Beside the heavy armament, the plane can take quite a lot hit before it went down.
The star-engine itself can take several shot without being out of order.

Overall it's a heavy-duty "warcraft".

It did it's job well.

I agree- the mark of a good fighter is how well it did it's job.

Warspite wrote: Wrong.
The P-51 is a better performer above 20,000 ft, due to its laminar flow wing, and turns better at all altitudes (even against the tactic of slowing one of the P-38's engines).
The P-38 also has the problem of compressability in dives, as it can approach Mach 1, it's heavier, and a mediocre performer above 20,000ft.

This was only a problem with earlier versions than the P-38J25 AFAIK. The
P-38 had a good acceleration and climbs pretty well. The L variant also has a great roll rate(the best at high speed AFAIK).

Thunderfire wrote:This was only a problem with earlier versions than the P-38J25 AFAIK. The
P-38 had a good acceleration and climbs pretty well. The L variant also has a great roll rate(the best at high speed AFAIK).

The later versions of the -J introduced the dive flaps, yes, and the -L had better controls to overcome the compressability problems.
By the numbers, the P-38 wins points against the P-51 (specially the aforementioned insane roll rate in the -L version), but the flying qualities of the Mustang afforded better results, as long as the pilot didn't let the plane into one of it's quirky spins, caused by a sensitive CG shift...

Anyway, P-38 had a few engine problems in the European Theatre, namely, the shitty British weather (no offense to any Brits around here!), and with a better performer already coming over, it was very easy for the USAAF to make the decision of putting the Lightning on missions other than bomber escort.

Not to blemish an excellent piece of engineering, after all, it was a Kelly Johnson product, and its performance in the Pacific Theatre was great, but one-on-one, the P-51 wins out.

Boba Fett wrote:

EmperorMing wrote:My vote goes to the P-38 lightning.

Twin engines, long range, concentrated firepower (in the nose), and it could bomb, fight and launch rocket attacks. There is even a reference to the plane being tested for use to launch torpedo attacks against ships; too bad the link is being elusive right now...

While I like the shape of it very much I don't think it was a really successful dogfighter in the late years of WWII.

Because of it's long range, escort duty was one of it's primary role but the craft was heavy and not so good manouverable, so dogfight was not the best role for it.

That's why the P-38 was rather used for ground assault missions after the appearance of the P-51 Mustang which had an excellent flight range also.

Yes, the P-51 was the better dogfighter. I would still take the P-38 overall as it could perform strike and bombing missions that the P-51 would not be assigned to.

The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was no slouch, it had great maneuverability but the guns quickly proved to be too anemic against US and Aussie birds. No, I did not vote for the Zero.

The F6F and F4U were impressive for their own reasons, as was the P-38 and the P-51. The P-47 could absorb a lot of damage as well and keep flying. I really can't choose one clear 'best'. The FW190 is also a contender...

P-51s and F4Us were kept in the Reserve inventory the longest and continued to serve for years after the war... and Czech-built versions of the Bf-109 served the Israeli Air Force for the first few years also (nothing is wierder than seeing a Bf-109 with a big blue Star of David on the fuselage)...

Toss up 'tween the F4U and the P51.

I have to go with the der Gabelschwanz Teufel (The Fork Tailed Devil). The P-38 had it all in my opinion, range, firepower, speed. It was also the fighter that killed Yammamoto. Plus, the highest ranking U.S. Ace of WWII, Major Richard Bong (of who i was named after) flew it.

Atavarius wrote:I have to go with the der Gabelschwanz Teufel (The Fork Tailed Devil). The P-38 had it all in my opinion, range, firepower, speed. It was also the fighter that killed Yammamoto. Plus, the highest ranking U.S. Ace of WWII, Major Richard Bong (of who i was named after) flew it.

Heheheh. Bong.

The P-51 is a good energy fighter. Good energy fighter <> good dogfighter.
The P-51 should avoid dogfighting(low - medium speed lots of manuvering)
and keep its energy high is the most common recommendation for mustang pilots.
Most other fighters will beat the P-51 in a dogfight(equal pilots assumed).
The P-38 was considered the most dangerous dogfighter compared to the
P-47 and P-51 by german pilots AFAIK.

OTOH, I recall hearing a story of German 109 pilots who slammed their aircraft into the ground rather than face a flight of Thunderbolts. Late war though, when the Luftwaffe was really scraping the barrel.

The highest ranking ace of the entire war, IIRC, was a South African guy, and he was flying a Typhoon? Spitfire? Don't recall.

Another aircraft that contributed a lot to the war and became synonymous with WW2 was the Ju-87 Stuka. Actually a bomber not a fighter, it contributed so much to the shaping of the era by reputation that it deserves an honorable mention. It also staged a comeback as a superb tank-buster. Speaking of German kill ratios, what did Udell fly and what was his final tally?

Coyote wrote:OTOH, I recall hearing a story of German 109 pilots who slammed their aircraft into the ground rather than face a flight of Thunderbolts. Late war though, when the Luftwaffe was really scraping the barrel.

The highest ranking ace of the entire war, IIRC, was a South African guy, and he was flying a Typhoon? Spitfire? Don't recall.

Hmm? For which side? The highest ranking ace of WW2 was Erich Hartmann with 352 victories. On the Allied side, it was Ivan Kozhedub with 62 victories.

Unless you mean another war?

Another aircraft that contributed a lot to the war and became synonymous with WW2 was the Ju-87 Stuka. Actually a bomber not a fighter, it contributed so much to the shaping of the era by reputation that it deserves an honorable mention. It also staged a comeback as a superb tank-buster. Speaking of German kill ratios, what did Udell fly and what was his final tally?

A lot.

Allied leading ace was Kozhedub (La) with 62 kills AFAIK.
Western Allies Pattle(Gladiator , Hurricane) around 50 kills
Germany Hartmann(bf109) 352 kills
Finland Juutilainen(Brewster , Bf109) 94 kills
Japan Nishizawa(Zero, ???) around 90 kills

Vympel wrote:

Coyote wrote: Another aircraft that contributed a lot to the war and became synonymous with WW2 was the Ju-87 Stuka. Actually a bomber not a fighter, it contributed so much to the shaping of the era by reputation that it deserves an honorable mention. It also staged a comeback as a superb tank-buster. Speaking of German kill ratios, what did Udell fly and what was his final tally?

A lot.

519 is the most commonly quoted number, plus a battleship. He flew Stukas into 1944 and then modified Fu190's for the rest of the IIRC.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/hans.html

Lots of Udel info.

The "Cruiser Marat" claim doesn’t appear to hold up. No Russian cruiser was sunk by bombing in the Baltic and that name was held by a battleship during the war, though one which was damaged by a Ju-87.

Either he hit an sunk a destroyer that was miss identified as a cruiser, quite possibul and such things happened often with pilots better trained to attack shipping, or he just damaged another battleship.

Atavarius wrote: Lots of Udel info.

His name was Rudel.

There was a fighter pilot called named Udet but I don't remember any Udel.

Boba Fett wrote:

Atavarius wrote: Lots of Udel info.

His name was Rudel.

There was a fighter pilot called named Udet but I don't remember any Udel.

Do you play Il-2 Sturmovik, Boba?