P51 Mustang Vs. Japanese Zero

[Vonners]

Err, in what universe did the Mustang 'dominate the skies in European theatre'?

Ever heard of, you know, the Spitfire? By the time you lot pulled your fingers out the German Air Force had already been decimated.

Didn't the Hurricane do magnitudes more damage to the Luftwaffe than the Spitfire?

against bombers...spits went against the fighters and 'canes against the bombers

[Vonners]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIfbr7a0nfE

16 spits...Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow.

sorry but damn you gotta love that sound....

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIfbr7a0nfE

16 spits...Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow.

sorry but damn you gotta love that sound....

The Empire Strikes Back...

[Vonners]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIfbr7a0nfE

16 spits...Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow.

sorry but damn you gotta love that sound....

The Empire Strikes Back...

it was an awesome day...they flew a display with all 16 as well...I'll never see that again...

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

The Empire Strikes Back...

it was an awesome day...they flew a display with all 16 as well...I'll never see that again...

They also sound like TIE Fighters. Don't they run that show every year though?

[Vonners]

it was an awesome day...they flew a display with all 16 as well...I'll never see that again...

They also sound like TIE Fighters. Don't they run that show every year though?

Yes but the difference this time was the 70th anniversary of the BoB...so they managed to get a bunch of Spits and 'canes together from around the world (bearing in mind the cheapest is worth around 5 million pounds) as well as one of the still flying Hispano Bf109's...the Buchón (Merlin engine...fucking weird).

as an aside...still makes me laugh that the Israeli air force used 109's as well.

[Potarius]

Err, in what universe did the Mustang 'dominate the skies in European theatre'?

Ever heard of, you know, the Spitfire? By the time you lot pulled your fingers out the German Air Force had already been decimated.

To be absolutely fair, the Luftwaffe was mostly decimated by the VVS (Soviet Air Defense Force).

Not that the Spitfires didn't have success against the Bf-109s, because they did. But the vast majority of the victories against the Luftwaffe were tallied by the VVS.

[Potarius]

They also sound like TIE Fighters. Don't they run that show every year though?

Yes but the difference this time was the 70th anniversary of the BoB...so they managed to get a bunch of Spits and 'canes together from around the world (bearing in mind the cheapest is worth around 5 million pounds) as well as one of the still flying Hispano Bf109's...the Buchón (Merlin engine...fucking weird).

as an aside...still makes me laugh that the Israeli air force used 109's as well.

It's just not a real Messerschmitt when it's equipped with a Merlin.

There are a few Bf-109 variants that have been restored in Germany, complete with DB601 and DB605 engines. In fact, I have recordings of both of those engines. You think a Merlin sounds monstrous? Heh.

[Arkinesia]

Here is a simulation of such a fight. How accurate would you say it is?

Not at all.

The Zero never would've come into the fight with an altitude advantage over a P-51D. Regardless of the Mustang winning that fight, whoever was flying it didn't know what the hell they were doing. Were that encounter on Aces High II and had I been flying the Zero, I can assure you I would've had that Mustang either in the first head-on pass or shortly afterward.

I could nitpick that Mustang pilot's (I assume it was the guy who uploaded the video) flying abilities all night. He wasn't steady with the stick, he went head on with a plane that is armed with 20mm cannons, he immediately pulled up to stall dive AFTER going head on, he didn't use rudders even once, and his marksmanship was foul. He didn't even use flaps when going for the initial knife fight...

That said, the stall/spin to get on the Zero's tail was ballsy but fairly smart. It was the only way he was going to do it.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Not at all.

The Zero never would've come into the fight with an altitude advantage over a P-51D. Regardless of the Mustang winning that fight, whoever was flying it didn't know what the hell they were doing. Were that encounter on Aces High II and had I been flying the Zero, I can assure you I would've had that Mustang either in the first head-on pass or shortly afterward.

I could nitpick that Mustang pilot's (I assume it was the guy who uploaded the video) flying abilities all night. He wasn't steady with the stick, he went head on with a plane that is armed with 20mm cannons, he immediately pulled up to stall dive AFTER going head on, he didn't use rudders even once, and his marksmanship was foul. He didn't even use flaps when going for the initial knife fight...

That said, the stall/spin to get on the Zero's tail was ballsy but fairly smart. It was the only way he was going to do it.

He really shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with, and had the Zero not been piloted by a flawed AI he would have been toast from playing to the Zero's strengths so damn much.

[Arkinesia]

That said, the stall/spin to get on the Zero's tail was ballsy but fairly smart. It was the only way he was going to do it.

He really shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with, and had the Zero not been piloted by a flawed AI he would have been toast from playing to the Zero's strengths so damn much.

Points well made.

[Potarius]

He really shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with, and had the Zero not been piloted by a flawed AI he would have been toast from playing to the Zero's strengths so damn much.

Points well made.

Which is what I said in the post that detailed why the player is/was so bad at flying the Mustang.

Though it's not really on-topic for the discussion at hand, Il-2 Sturmovik doesn't exactly have the most capable flight physics modeling...

[Takaram]

Mustang. Been done and proven.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Err, in what universe did the Mustang 'dominate the skies in European theatre'?

Ever heard of, you know, the Spitfire? By the time you lot pulled your fingers out the German Air Force had already been decimated.

The Spitfire really wasn't that good of an aircraft. It was slightly superior to its main rival, the Bf-109, and outclassed by the Fw-190 until the Spitfire IX came on the scene. After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire really wasn't that important to the allied forces as they went on the offensive. In fact the only reason the Spitfire is made out to be the greatest aircraft of World War II is because someone mixed British propaganda with history.

The Mustang on the other hand, was an aircraft which was capable of taking the fight to the Germans with its long range. No aircraft performed the long range escort role better and even Herman Goering said that when he saw the P-51 over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.

[New Korongo]

and even Herman Goering said that when he saw the P-51 over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.

I think that would be more of a "Shit, the allies can already fly fighters over Berlin, we're fucked". It just happened to be a P-51 flying over.

[SaintB]

The two barely met in combat and served in completely different theatres during their heyday. They were also designed for different roles.

The P-51 Mustang was mainly an escort fighter, whereas the A6M2 Zero was designed completely as an air superiority aircraft, and it was superior until the introduction of the Hellcat and Corsair.

What you say is true. But the P51 that entered service was an end of the war fighter, whereas the Zero was distinctly pre war. Also the Zero couldn't turn left I think.

The Zero could turn left but its roll rate to the left was significantly worse than to the right. US Naval Pilots eventually caught on and used that to great advantage.

[Potarius]

Err, in what universe did the Mustang 'dominate the skies in European theatre'?

Ever heard of, you know, the Spitfire? By the time you lot pulled your fingers out the German Air Force had already been decimated.

The Spitfire really wasn't that good of an aircraft. It was slightly superior to its main rival, the Bf-109, and outclassed by the Fw-190 until the Spitfire IX came on the scene. After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire really wasn't that important to the allied forces as they went on the offensive. In fact the only reason the Spitfire is made out to be the greatest aircraft of World War II is because someone mixed British propaganda with history.

The Mustang on the other hand, was an aircraft which was capable of taking the fight to the Germans with its long range. No aircraft performed the long range escort role better and even Herman Goering said that when he saw the P-51 over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.

1: No, it was and still is that good of an aircraft. What the fuck are you on?

2: Yes, it was slightly superior to the Bf-109, but the Bf-109 was also an exceptional aircraft. Jesus Fucking Christ.

3: No, it wasn't outclassed by the FW-190. The 190s had better armament, roll rate, and pilot protection/visibility. They were also a lot easier to fly and maintain (hey, they were made by BMW). In all other ways, the Spitfire contemporaries outclassed the Focke Wulfs.

4: Erm, it was tremendously important in the air superiority role over Europe, as well as the bomber escort role (high altitude Mk.IX variants, in particular). No variant of the Hurricane was fast enough or had the high altitude performance to fill those roles.

5: It's not made out to be the "greatest" aircraft of WWII. Maybe by the BBC, but that's about it. Usually, this honor is very dubiously given to the P-51D.

6: So was the Spitfire. When fitted with a slipper tank, it had considerable range; granted, not as much as the Mustang.

[Arkinesia]

What you say is true. But the P51 that entered service was an end of the war fighter, whereas the Zero was distinctly pre war. Also the Zero couldn't turn left I think.

The Zero could turn left but its roll rate to the left was significantly worse than to the right. US Naval Pilots eventually caught on and used that to great advantage.

Why exactly was that?

[Potarius]

The Zero could turn left but its roll rate to the left was significantly worse than to the right. US Naval Pilots eventually caught on and used that to great advantage.

Why exactly was that?

It wasn't that much worse than its right roll rate.

That being said, its left roll rate was worse due to stiffer, less responsive aileron performance on the left. This was fixed by the time of the A6M3, if I'm not mistaken.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The Spitfire really wasn't that good of an aircraft. It was slightly superior to its main rival, the Bf-109, and outclassed by the Fw-190 until the Spitfire IX came on the scene. After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire really wasn't that important to the allied forces as they went on the offensive. In fact the only reason the Spitfire is made out to be the greatest aircraft of World War II is because someone mixed British propaganda with history.

The Mustang on the other hand, was an aircraft which was capable of taking the fight to the Germans with its long range. No aircraft performed the long range escort role better and even Herman Goering said that when he saw the P-51 over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.

1: No, it was and still is that good of an aircraft. What the fuck are you on?

Sorry, but can you please outline when and how the Spitfire achieved total domination of the European theatre of war which was claimed in the post I was replying to? So no, the Spitfire wasn't that good.

2: Yes, it was slightly superior to the Bf-109, but the Bf-109 was also an exceptional aircraft. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Again, total domination? When you say these aircraft were exceptional, what the hell are you comparing them to? Boeing P-26? Using the bell curve principle, if these aircraft were the mainstays of their respective air forces that makes them mediocre at best.

3: No, it wasn't outclassed by the FW-190. The 190s had better armament, roll rate, and pilot protection/visibility. They were also a lot easier to fly and maintain (hey, they were made by BMW). In all other ways, the Spitfire contemporaries outclassed the Focke Wulfs.

In actual fact the only advantage the Spitfire had over the Fw-190 was that it had a tighter turn radius so I don't know where you get your information from. Even then, the 190 had a much quicker roll rate which offset this advantage. 190 pilots could roll so quickly they could easily latch on to the tail of an enemy aircraft and destroy it with their abnormally heavy armament before the enemy pilot could do anything about it. The only time the Spitfire did outclass the Fw-190 was when the fight was above 20,000 feet, and even then, only the Spitfire IX and later variants really had an advantage. When the D-9 versions of the FW-190 arrived, the Spitfire was again outclassed. The only reason this isn't well known is because the D-9 versions didn't have great numbers.

4: Erm, it was tremendously important in the air superiority role over Europe, as well as the bomber escort role (high altitude Mk.IX variants, in particular). No variant of the Hurricane was fast enough or had the high altitude performance to fill those roles.

Lolwut? The Spitfire was NEVER an escort on the long distance runs into Germany as its range was far too short. The Hurricane was quickly replaced by an aircraft called the Typhoon and then the Tempest, perhaps you have heard of these before?

5: It's not made out to be the "greatest" aircraft of WWII. Maybe by the BBC, but that's about it. Usually, this honor is very dubiously given to the P-51D

.
If the Spitfire wasn't made out to be the best aircraft serving in WWII then I would have had no reason to write the above. I'm so sick of OMG SPITFIRE!!! by people who really haven't bothered to research other aircraft in World War II.

6: So was the Spitfire. When fitted with a slipper tank, it had considerable range; granted, not as much as the Mustang.

Fit any aircraft with a slipper tank and it has considerable range. The Mustang however cranked that considerable range up to 11 and when introduced was the only aircraft capable of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back.

[Potarius]

1: No, it was and still is that good of an aircraft. What the fuck are you on?

Sorry, but can you please outline when and how the Spitfire achieved total domination of the European theatre of war which was claimed in the post I was replying to? So no, the Spitfire wasn't that good.

2: Yes, it was slightly superior to the Bf-109, but the Bf-109 was also an exceptional aircraft. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Again, total domination? When you say these aircraft were exceptional, what the hell are you comparing them to? Boeing P-26? Using the bell curve principle, if these aircraft were the mainstays of their respective air forces that makes them mediocre at best.

3: No, it wasn't outclassed by the FW-190. The 190s had better armament, roll rate, and pilot protection/visibility. They were also a lot easier to fly and maintain (hey, they were made by BMW). In all other ways, the Spitfire contemporaries outclassed the Focke Wulfs.

In actual fact the only advantage the Spitfire had over the Fw-190 was that it had a tighter turn radius so I don't know where you get your information from. Even then, the 190 had a much quicker roll rate which offset this advantage. 190 pilots could roll so quickly they could easily latch on to the tail of an enemy aircraft and destroy it with their abnormally heavy armament before the enemy pilot could do anything about it. The only time the Spitfire did outclass the Fw-190 was when the fight was above 20,000 feet, and even then, only the Spitfire IX and later variants really had an advantage. When the D-9 versions of the FW-190 arrived, the Spitfire was again outclassed. The only reason this isn't well known is because the D-9 versions didn't have great numbers.

4: Erm, it was tremendously important in the air superiority role over Europe, as well as the bomber escort role (high altitude Mk.IX variants, in particular). No variant of the Hurricane was fast enough or had the high altitude performance to fill those roles.

Lolwut? The Spitfire was NEVER an escort on the long distance runs into Germany as its range was far too short. The Hurricane was quickly replaced by an aircraft called the Typhoon and then the Tempest, perhaps you have heard of these before?

5: It's not made out to be the "greatest" aircraft of WWII. Maybe by the BBC, but that's about it. Usually, this honor is very dubiously given to the P-51D

.
If the Spitfire wasn't made out to be the best aircraft serving in WWII then I would have had no reason to write the above. I'm so sick of OMG SPITFIRE!!! by people who really haven't bothered to research other aircraft in World War II.

6: So was the Spitfire. When fitted with a slipper tank, it had considerable range; granted, not as much as the Mustang.

Fit any aircraft with a slipper tank and it has considerable range. The Mustang however cranked that considerable range up to 11 and when introduced was the only aircraft capable of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back.

1: Who said anything about total domination? I suppose it's time to engage in pedantry, isn't it...

2: Again, who is talking about total domination?

3: You sound overly biased toward the FW-190s here. Their roll rate wasn't that much greater than the Spitfire Mk.IX. It was enough to make a difference in evasive maneuvers, but not enough to completely turn the tide of a fight, as you're suggesting here.

4: Slipper tanks. Spitfires weren't used for the same kind of long-range escort missions as Mustangs, but nevertheless, they did escort bomber groups. Also, Typhoons and Tempests were close support / ground attack aircraft, not escorts. Also, since when does the role of bomber escort mean that you have to be able to make it to the heart of Germany and back? I suppose the many Spitfire squadrons that escorted Boston IIIs and Lancasters don't count, because even though they escorted bombers on sorties, they didn't drive to the heart of Germany.

5: Where have I made the claim that it's "the best"? There's a good reason why it was (and still is) so revered, but by no means did it outclass everything else.

6: So, here you are, admitting that any aircraft fitted with a slipper tank had considerable range, thus contradicting your statement at #4. No, it wasn't the "only aircraft capable" of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back --- the P-47 could do exactly the same, having a negligible difference in range.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Sorry, but can you please outline when and how the Spitfire achieved total domination of the European theatre of war which was claimed in the post I was replying to? So no, the Spitfire wasn't that good.


Again, total domination? When you say these aircraft were exceptional, what the hell are you comparing them to? Boeing P-26? Using the bell curve principle, if these aircraft were the mainstays of their respective air forces that makes them mediocre at best.


In actual fact the only advantage the Spitfire had over the Fw-190 was that it had a tighter turn radius so I don't know where you get your information from. Even then, the 190 had a much quicker roll rate which offset this advantage. 190 pilots could roll so quickly they could easily latch on to the tail of an enemy aircraft and destroy it with their abnormally heavy armament before the enemy pilot could do anything about it. The only time the Spitfire did outclass the Fw-190 was when the fight was above 20,000 feet, and even then, only the Spitfire IX and later variants really had an advantage. When the D-9 versions of the FW-190 arrived, the Spitfire was again outclassed. The only reason this isn't well known is because the D-9 versions didn't have great numbers.


Lolwut? The Spitfire was NEVER an escort on the long distance runs into Germany as its range was far too short. The Hurricane was quickly replaced by an aircraft called the Typhoon and then the Tempest, perhaps you have heard of these before?

.
If the Spitfire wasn't made out to be the best aircraft serving in WWII then I would have had no reason to write the above. I'm so sick of OMG SPITFIRE!!! by people who really haven't bothered to research other aircraft in World War II.


Fit any aircraft with a slipper tank and it has considerable range. The Mustang however cranked that considerable range up to 11 and when introduced was the only aircraft capable of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back.

1: Who said anything about total domination? I suppose it's time to engage in pedantry, isn't it...

Go back and read.

2: Again, who is talking about total domination?

Go back and read.

Alternatively if you do not believe the Spitfire acheived total air domination over the ETA, then kindly agree with me and more on.

3: You sound overly biased toward the FW-190s here. Their roll rate wasn't that much greater than the Spitfire Mk.IX. It was enough to make a difference in evasive maneuvers, but not enough to completely turn the tide of a fight, as you're suggesting here.

The roll rate was obviously enough to turn the tide of the fight because even the British knew that the FW-190 was much superior to the Spitfire and anything else they had in their arsenal at the time. I am biased towards the FW-190 because it was better in almost every way to the Spitfire V and wasn't until the Spitfire IX were the tides turned.

4: Slipper tanks. Spitfires weren't used for the same kind of long-range escort missions as Mustangs, but nevertheless, they did escort bomber groups. Also, Typhoons and Tempests were close support / ground attack aircraft, not escorts. Also, since when does the role of bomber escort mean that you have to be able to make it to the heart of Germany and back? I suppose the many Spitfire squadrons that escorted Boston IIIs and Lancasters don't count, because even though they escorted bombers on sorties, they didn't drive to the heart of Germany.

You can put a slipper tank on anything; still doesn't mean the range is going to be sufficient. That slipper tank also means less ordnance, impeded mobility, increased drag etc. The small bomber groups that the Spitfires escorted had such little impact that they can easily be ignored. The heart of German production was in the Ruhr and not the northern coast of France.

5: Where have I made the claim that it's "the best"? There's a good reason why it was (and still is) so revered, but by no means did it outclass everything else.

Look, this isn't how you argue. Ok? You can't just imply that I said something when I made no such reference. Furthermore the Spitfire is so revered because it was a symbol of a nation. St Paul's was also a symbol during WWII, does this make it the world's greatest cathedral?

6: So, here you are, admitting that any aircraft fitted with a slipper tank had considerable range, thus contradicting your statement at #4. No, it wasn't the "only aircraft capable" of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back --- the P-47 could do exactly the same, having a negligible difference in range.

[/quote]
No, any aircraft with a slipper tank will obvioulsy have a considerably larger range. Still doesn't mean its capable of flying into the middle of Germany and back and certainly doesn't mean its capable of performing as well with the tanks fitted. The P-47 was heavy slug in the air and was quickly relegated to the ground attack scene once more P-51's became available. Let me rephrase, the P-51 was the only aircraft capable of competently escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back; The P-47 and P-38 were far too unweildy to mix it up with Germany's short range interceptors.

Don't be fooled by all the claims of success and superiority of World War II aircraft, Allied or Axis. Propaganda somehow found its way into the history books and still hasn't been erased. In many ways the Yak-3 dogfighter from the Soviet Union was the best fighter in service during WWII, in fact it was so good Luftwaffe pilots were ordered not to engage it. How many have ever heard of that one before?

[Potarius]

Go back and read.

Go back and read.

Alternatively if you do not believe the Spitfire acheived total air domination over the ETA, then kindly agree with me and more on.

The roll rate was obviously enough to turn the tide of the fight because even the British knew that the FW-190 was much superior to the Spitfire and anything else they had in their arsenal at the time. I am biased towards the FW-190 because it was better in almost every way to the Spitfire V and wasn't until the Spitfire IX were the tides turned.

You can put a slipper tank on anything; still doesn't mean the range is going to be sufficient. That slipper tank also means less ordnance, impeded mobility, increased drag etc. The small bomber groups that the Spitfires escorted had such little impact that they can easily be ignored. The heart of German production was in the Ruhr and not the northern coast of France.

Look, this isn't how you argue. Ok? You can't just imply that I said something when I made no such reference. Furthermore the Spitfire is so revered because it was a symbol of a nation. St Paul's was also a symbol during WWII, does this make it the world's greatest cathedral?

No, any aircraft with a slipper tank will obvioulsy have a considerably larger range. Still doesn't mean its capable of flying into the middle of Germany and back and certainly doesn't mean its capable of performing as well with the tanks fitted. The P-47 was heavy slug in the air and was quickly relegated to the ground attack scene once more P-51's became available. Let me rephrase, the P-51 was the only aircraft capable of competently escorting bombers into the heart of Germany and back; The P-47 and P-38 were far too unweildy to mix it up with Germany's short range interceptors.

Don't be fooled by all the claims of success and superiority of World War II aircraft, Allied or Axis. Propaganda somehow found its way into the history books and still hasn't been erased. In many ways the Yak-3 dogfighter from the Soviet Union was the best fighter in service during WWII, in fact it was so good Luftwaffe pilots were ordered not to engage it. How many have ever heard of that one before?

Why would I "kindly agree with you" simply because it's a fact that the Spitfire didn't achieve total domination over Europe? That being true doesn't validate your incredible misinformation.

1: Oh, pedantry. Classic NSG. Hasn't changed a bit since 2005.

2: Read #1.

3: So, the Spitfire Mk.V counts for Spitfires as a whole, because you deem it so? You even contradicted yourself there with "it wasn't until the Spitfire IX were the tides turned". So, let me get this straight: The FW-190 as a series was completely and blatantly superior to the Spitfire series, but the Mk.IX managed to turn the tide? What? One airframe does not equal an entire series. As entire series, the Spitfire and FW-190s were roughly equal, with their own advantages and disadvantages.

4: No, you can't. Airframes had to be fitted for slipper tank and drop tank usage. And the P-51D had to use drop tanks for its long range escorts, thus limiting its weapons payload on those sorties. And again, you contradict yourself by conceding to the fact that Spitfires were used as escorts, though not deep into the heart of Germany, which I never argued that they could to begin with. Please.

5: "If the Spitfire wasn't made out to be the best aircraft serving in WWII then I would have had no reason to write the above. I'm so sick of OMG SPITFIRE!!! by people who really haven't bothered to research other aircraft in World War II." --- Yeah, not seeing any subliminal referencing there. And again, what? You're telling me you didn't insinuate that I thought the Spitfire was supreme, then turn around in an attempt to belittle me with the St. Paul's Cathedral analogy? Fucking pathetic. What was once a discussion about aircraft became personal with your response here.

6: Again, you contradict yourself (and are still misinformed about slipper tanks) by conceding to the fact that slipper tanks added significant range. Furthermore, drop tanks severely decreased the performance of the P-51 variants, as well as any other aircraft that used them. To further exacerbate ignorance, the P-47 was not a slug as far as high speed, high altitude performance was concerned: on the deck, however, it was a cow. And the P-38, unwieldy? Seriously? I'm beginning to think you either pulled all of your "information" out of thin air, or you spent too much time watching TV shows about this subject. Do you have any idea of how successful the P-38 was when it was introduced in the European theatre? The Luftwaffe wouldn't even engage them after they lost so many times to P-38s. I rest my case.

7: Who's fooled here? Again, I made no claim as to the absolute superiority of the Spitfire; only that it was tremendously important, which it was. And the La-7 was a better fighter than the Yak-3, period. Higher speed at all altitudes, better roll rate, tighter turning radius, better armament, better rate of climb, better compression characteristics; not to mention how the Shvetsov ASh-82 was a lot more reliable than any Klimov engine used during the war. But, for some reason, it gets little mention in Western publications; instead, the Yak-3 is made out to be the best of what the Soviets had to offer as a fighter went.


In closing, the second I read "lolwut" as a --- wait for it --- serious response to what I felt was before now a serious discussion about this subject, I shouldn't have replied at all. But, I did in an attempt to educate other people who may otherwise not know enough about the subject and read your ill-conceived and dubiously informed "argument" and take it for fact.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So, the Spitfire Mk.V counts for Spitfires as a whole, because you deem it so? You even contradicted yourself there with "it wasn't until the Spitfire IX were the tides turned". So, let me get this straight: The FW-190 as a series was completely and blatantly superior to the Spitfire series, but the Mk.IX managed to turn the tide? What? One airframe does not equal an entire series. As entire series, the Spitfire and FW-190s were roughly equal, with their own advantages and disadvantages.

Yes because the Spitfire Mk.V was the latest fucking variant in service when the FW-190 was introduced. The FW-190 was so effective, the Mark IX was designed specifically to beat it. Before the IX, which I have stated time and time again, the FW-190 was superior in virtually every way to the Spitfire. I don't know how you figure their entire series can be compared because the 190 progressed into a low-level fighter bomber whereas the Spitfire remained a fighter. I don't know what planet you live on, but if you don't think its important to consider variant vs variant then I am obviously wasting my time. I can't see how you justify comparing an entire series against another entire series when their paths crossed at only one fleeting moment during their respective careers. I loved it how you backflipped from saying the Spitfire had numerous advantages over the Fw-190 to deliberately overgeneralize my statements. That shows you really don't know anything.

No, you can't. Airframes had to be fitted for slipper tank and drop tank usage. And the P-51D had to use drop tanks for its long range escorts, thus limiting its weapons payload on those sorties. And again, you contradict yourself by conceding to the fact that Spitfires were used as escorts, though not deep into the heart of Germany, which I never argued that they could to begin with. Please.

Yes because it's sooooo hard to modify an airframe to mount a drop tank. The P-51 was able to discard its drop tanks the moment it encoutered fighters over German and still have enough fuel to complete the mission. That is what made it a good fighter. The P-51 could make it there and back with less than its maximum fuel load.

"If the Spitfire wasn't made out to be the best aircraft serving in WWII then I would have had no reason to write the above. I'm so sick of OMG SPITFIRE!!! by people who really haven't bothered to research other aircraft in World War II." --- Yeah, not seeing any subliminal referencing there. And again, what? You're telling me you didn't insinuate that I thought the Spitfire was supreme, then turn around in an attempt to belittle me with the St. Paul's Cathedral analogy? Fucking pathetic. What was once a discussion about aircraft became personal with your response here.

You obviously have anger management issues. I would advise you cool off before you go and say something you might regret.

Again, you contradict yourself (and are still misinformed about slipper tanks) by conceding to the fact that slipper tanks added significant range. Furthermore, drop tanks severely decreased the performance of the P-51 variants, as well as any other aircraft that used them. To further exacerbate ignorance, the P-47 was not a slug as far as high speed, high altitude performance was concerned: on the deck, however, it was a cow. And the P-38, unwieldy? Seriously? I'm beginning to think you either pulled all of your "information" out of thin air, or you spent too much time watching TV shows about this subject. Do you have any idea of how successful the P-38 was when it was introduced in the European theatre? The Luftwaffe wouldn't even engage them after they lost so many times to P-38s. I rest my case.

Well no shit slipper tanks add significant range. What else are you going to tell me, wings make a plane fly? What I am telling you is that slipper tanks do NOT mean any aircraft can fly to Germany and back as you obviously believe the gap in range between a P-51 and Spit can be quick-fixed by a slipper tank and two underwing drop tanks. The P-47 was pathetic at climbing and far too heavy to turn properly whether that be at low or high altitudes. Luftwaffe fighters had no problem evading it and then latching on to the back of it to blow it out of the sky. The biggest asset of the P-47 was that it could dive like a bank vault, Germans quickly learnt to maintain altitude at all cost. The P-38 was a very heavy and very large aircraft; the laws of physics dictate that it isn't very mobile. If you want proof, the P-38 was shot out of the sky in huge numbers by smaller and lighter German single engined fighters. I don't know where you got your information from, but records that I have found of the P-38 in combat showed that the Germans had absolutely no reason be afraid of it at all. The Bf-109 and the Fw-190 massacred them while sustaining few losses.

Who's fooled here? Again, I made no claim as to the absolute superiority of the Spitfire; only that it was tremendously important, which it was. And the La-7 was a better fighter than the Yak-3, period. Higher speed at all altitudes, better roll rate, tighter turning radius, better armament, better rate of climb, better compression characteristics; not to mention how the Shvetsov ASh-82 was a lot more reliable than any Klimov engine used during the war. But, for some reason, it gets little mention in Western publications; instead, the Yak-3 is made out to be the best of what the Soviets had to offer as a fighter went.

The Spitfire was no more important than the Hurricane, the Bf-109, the P-51 or any other illustrious aircraft you want to mention. I'm not getting into an argument of La-7 vs Yak-3 as information available on them is incredibly sketchy and there really is no way to determine which aircraft is better; I only mentioned Yak-3 to prove a point. For the record the Yak-3 isn't made out to be the best aircraft that the Soviet Union offered, I don't think any aircraft has that role. The aircraft which spawned the Spitfire and the Bf-109 was of Soviet design, but not too many people know that either. Information was buried during the Cold War discrediting the USSR of anything they have done to contribute to the Western World, information which still isn't widely known. Ask anyone on the street to name all the WWII fighters that they know of and Ill bet not one of them can name a single Soviet fighter.

In closing, the second I read "lolwut" as a --- wait for it --- serious response to what I felt was before now a serious discussion about this subject, I shouldn't have replied at all. But, I did in an attempt to educate other people who may otherwise not know enough about the subject and read your ill-conceived and dubiously informed "argument" and take it for fact.

If you make an outlandish and a ridiculous statement I will reply in a similar manner. My argument is made entirely of fact and not a few quotes which were read from the wartime BBC.

[Anemos Major]

Mustang. Zero was an old, old fighter by then.

That said, the Mustang was not the best Allied fighter of the war.