What was the best fighter of ww2

KrankysFirebrand48

Cosmopyr well I don’t know much about it. Can you give a reason for this being the best pacific fighter? You have to consider it as an overall fighter for its time and cost not what it met because then you would have the early 109 being at the top of every list. Remember towards the late war period the Japanese had inexperienced pilots and obsolete aircraft making the allied aircraft there seem like meat grinders.

Cosmopyr

KrankysFirebrand48 The P-38 did better in the Pacific than Europe because of a mix of the weather, how combat in the Pacific worked, and it's range being very useful in the ocean environment. The P-38 took down the most Japanese planes out of any other USAF fighter and was flown by the best of the best such as Charles MacDonald and Thomas McGuire. In general it was a fast, accurate, and powerful plane.

KrankysFirebrand48

Cosmopyr no American plane could outmaneuver Japanese planed that means planes with heavy fire power will seem better. as I said because of The in experienced pilots of the Japanese Air Force and the obsolete planes the p-38 will seem OP. It’s also more expensive than a normal fighter and the Zero is the best pacific fighter. It may seem inferior because of the long service time but it outmatched EVERY FIGHTER OF ITS TIME. From some sources. No zero where shot down by the American pilots in China and the US’s f4f wildcat was trash. It had better firepower, roll rate and maneuverability than the Spit 1. And don’t get me started on the hellcat aswell

Cosmopyr

KrankysFirebrand48 The Zero was deadly early in the War because Japan had a surplus of highly trained pilots and the US didn't know how to fight them.

Later on the US got their hands on a Zero and were able to find it's every flaw.
Japan was running out of trained pilots and later treated the Zero as a disposable fighter.

The P-38 used it's speed to practice "energy tactics" to get a good position to the enemy and meant that the Zero couldn't just run circles around it. The P-38 fought it by swinging by it in fast passes and some pilots ran straight through enemy planes. The Zero was only any good in the beginning of the war and it was only a matter of time until the US figured out how to combat them with ease.

KrankysFirebrand48

Cosmopyr although I respect your arguments.
OF COURSE THE ZERO WAS ONLY AFFECTIVE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE WAR BECAUSE IT’S WHEN IT ENTERED SERVICE. ITS LIKE SAYING THE SPITFIRE MK I WAS BAD BECAUSE IT WAS BAD IN IN 1943! (As a member of CANADIA, sry got a bit Triggered)
I did some research on the p-38:
Fast
Center mounted guns
BnZ
Bad diving speed (not acceleration)
Slow roll rate
Engines would easily catch fire
Cockpit would overheat
Only works good on half the planet
weak firepower for its size

It’s a great boom and zoomer but if it where to face 109’s, spits and p-36’s it would be another story.

Bevan

KrankysFirebrand48 but its lighter and more agile. anything could be mastered in the hands of a jedi

KrankysFirebrand48

Bevan Agile isn’t it’s strong side. Why give you something you won’t use as much

Lafiel

Cosmopyr The P-61 is a night fighter exactly because it's bad at turning and would be shot down in daylight but at night nothing could beat it. The P-61 is better for one simple reason it has a turret! No matter how well you can maneuver a turret doesn't have maneuvering restrictions to get you (as long as you are in the same hemisphere). By the time of the P-38 the japanese had already lost air superiority and the Zero was already outdated. The same can be said about the Hellcat. Therefore Zero was outdone technologically as well as by pilot experience and training, not to mention numbers.

KrankysFirebrand48

Lafiel when the hellcat came the zero was fairly new but I agree. Except the turret. It has 4 12mm I believe. Let’s say you have 3 cannons pointing towards it. The widow has 4 50cals and both have spotted each over. The widow will go down first unless the other pilot misses in the dark.

But the Japs lagging behind makes aircraft meeting them look better then they are.

Bevan

KrankysFirebrand48 its more maneuverable at dogfights? and outmaneuver enemy? and kill them because you out maneuver the enemy?

KrankysFirebrand48

Bevan the aircraft is an energy fighter/BnZer it need engine power and firepower

Bevan

KrankysFirebrand48 then ill go with the P-51. huge fire power, and maneuverable. only weakness it has is only it's small magazine capacity

KrankysFirebrand48

Bevan I’ve waited for this to happen.
You’ve been a subject of misinformation
The p-51’s ammo is fine
It’s firepoe is not strong. It’s weak. It’s fast. But ok maneuverability and bad energy retention. The p-51 is THE MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT of ww2. It’s an average aircraft. Nothing more.
It’s weakness is not being really good at anything and being absolutely destroyed by late Merlin and griffins Spits and bf109k-4’s

Bevan

KrankysFirebrand48 4 х 20 mm machine guns. idk about you but that's pretty strong for it's time

Jenwuf

KrankysFirebrand48

KrankysFirebrand48 It’s an average aircraft. Nothing more.

u wot XD

Now im British and id love to just say that the spitfire was a flawless machine, but the P-51 (specifically P-51B ) was perhaps one of the greatest fighters of WW2 for the important role it played.
It, combined with British merlin engines and extra fuel, was one of the only single-engine fighters capable of flying all the way to Germany and back to the UK with bombers.
Even the spitfires of the time would have merely dreamed to achieve such a brilliant thing.

At the altitudes that the bombers flew, the fighter was superior to almost anything that Germany threw at it due to the fact that of course, they outfitted the 109's and 190's to hunt bombers with larger heavier guns, making them slower and overall unable to counter the fighters as well as normal.

Oh, and that is ignoring the fact that it served in numerous countries for a long time, and even now is a civil aircraft.
Although Id prefer the spitfire in a dogfight, you must remember the design's purpose.

But regardless, with a lot of these you seem to be looking at it from a "best scenario" perspective.
Now sure, a lot of aircraft could outclimb or out-turn something, but then you remember that stuff like visibility and tactics make these aircraft very different in a fight.

(also, real life is not like war thunder or any other game, these aircraft often do not like pulling up quickly or making very sudden movements, in reality its very likely a pilot in a quick-turning plane might not turn as fast as he could for fear of entering a stall or spin. This also means ammunition loads are important, so twin engine heavy fighters have a HUGE advantage there.
Oh, and stuff like how easy the aircraft is to fly from a controls perspective also matters.)

KrankysFirebrand48

Bevan first they are cannons
And you didn’t specify what Mustang
The most Mustangs and the ones everybody thinks is best is the D variant. It has 6 fifties and entered 1944

KrankysFirebrand48

Jenwuf the discussion specifies best fighter not best fighter escort. Did the b version have Merlin? And you can’t compare to the only nation it faced against. It was a great strategic plane but if you count the senario the German fighter could just outclimb the and dive down. Spitfire and yaks where very easy to fly. F6F, 109, Spitfire and numerous other fighters served long after. If it encountered a German fighter it would climb faster and never turn fight it. It doesn’t need to do sudden maneuvers to energy fight it.
And if you have an altitude over a twin engine you practically won.

KrankysFirebrand48

Read this please it took long time. and i know he meant early mustangs
@Jenwuf

Jenwuf u wot XD

I destroy propaganda

Jenwuf Now im British and id love to just say that the spitfire was a flawless machine, but the P-51 (specifically P-51B ) was perhaps one of the greatest fighters of WW2 for the important role it played.

it's the fighter not it's role. u might as well say bf 109e because it meet polish and French paper airplanes.

Jenwuf At the altitudes that the bombers flew, the fighter was superior to almost anything that Germany threw at it due to the fact that of course, they outfitted the 109's and 190's to hunt bombers with larger heavier guns, making them slower and overall unable to counter the fighters as well as normal.

If you want to count the scenario, it doesn't matter because the p-51 had to fly at the same altitude as the bombers which mean the germans could ALWAYS have an energy advantage and thats where their planes shine. the discussion specifies best fighter not best fighter escort. Did the b version have Merlin? And you can’t compare to the only nation it faced against. It was a great strategic plane but if you count the senario the German fighter could just outclimb the and dive down. Spitfire and yaks where very easy to fly. F6F, 109, Spitfire and the other top planes dominated the sky at there time maybe except another plan over it.

Jenwuf Oh, and that is ignoring the fact that it served in numerous countries for a long time, and even now is a civil aircraft.
Although Id prefer the spitfire in a dogfight, you must remember the design's purpose.

so did yaks, 109's, spits...

Jenwuf But regardless, with a lot of these you seem to be looking at it from a "best scenario" perspective.
Now sure, a lot of aircraft could outclimb or out-turn something, but then you remember that stuff like visibility and tactics make these aircraft very different in a fight.

you must compare the time period. The p-51 counter parts during it's time usually as had good visibility. And if you far from an enemy you can start climbing then turn back and BnZ them or energy fight them easily.

Jenwuf (also, real life is not like war thunder or any other game, these aircraft often do not like pulling up quickly or making very sudden movements, in reality its very likely a pilot in a quick-turning plane might not turn as fast as he could for fear of entering a stall or spin. This also means ammunition loads are important, so twin engine heavy fighters have a HUGE advantage there.
Oh, and stuff like how easy the aircraft is to fly from a controls perspective also matters.

I do play WT. But i don't base my facts on it even tho it may look so as WT is very accurate. You also forgot g-forces which is underwhelming in WT. AND PLANES HAVE LIMITED AMMO LOAD IN WT. you can't say it's inaccurate until you know about it. I've watched plenty of documentaries and I've never heard a pilot say, "I didn't want to turn" or "i was afraid of turning". Ammo is important but firepower is to. You'll need way more ammo for machine guns as you burn them faster and need more rounds to down a plane. I agree the early cannon spits and french planes had little ammo for their cannons. and if you have an altitude over a twin engine you practically won.

Let's compare it to another fighter:

Spitfire mk XIVe should be directly comparable

image https://i.imgur.com/MhPpv9E.png

Engine power
Acceleration: Spitfire wins with quite a difference
Top speed: very even but on both ideal altitudes the spitfire wins with about 20km/h
climb rate: This is extremely important m8. Spit wins
Energy retention: I could't find any confirmation but i believe the P-51 win as it has smaller wing surface but if you count the spits acceleration which is constantly pushing it forward im not sure.
Firepower
Guns: The spitfire is more heavily armed with two 20mm and four 7's. The mustang has 6 50cals. Pathetic
Ammo: The P-51d has almost UNLIMITED AMMO. Spitfires cannons 120 rounds per cannons.
Maneuverability
Turning: Spitfire by a kilometer (metric system>imperial system)
Roll: Mustang smaller wing give better roll

Visibility: draw
fuel: Mustang can have more oil in it.

You saw the end result. The spitfire dominates all the main fields that not even the best spit.

TheRainmaker

KrankysFirebrand48
Gets triggered

KrankysFirebrand48

TheRainmaker indeed

darkgalaxy30

battle field I outro

KrankysFirebrand48

darkgalaxy30 more like battlefield V outro