What was the best fighter in the first part of WW2?

>>31703555
Flak.

>>31703555
>What was the best fighter
Wehrmacht

>>31703555
moosetang

>>31703555
P-36

File: 74919048-8d7c-a6b2-b868-af06a182c8c0.jpg (52KB, 570x379px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 570x379px

Fiat G50
It had a kill/loss ratio of 33 in the Finnish Air Force.

>>31704876
Its sad that alot of Italian designs weren't half bad, considering the shitshow that was the Italian army. Their airforce designs could hold their own and their navy was surprisingly advanced, but it was all hindered by shitty administration/leadership and industrial problems

I'd say the spitfire, but she was more of a interceptor.

>>31703555
109's and spitfires were pretty much tied for first

File: Fiat_G.55_Torpedo.jpg (70KB, 891x555px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 891x555px

>>31704899
>Its sad that alot of Italian designs weren't half bad, considering the shitshow that was the Italian army
That's like saying
>well he's a better person than Hitler
>at least it's not Detroit
Being better than the lowest common denominator is meaningless.

More seriously, the problem the Italians had with aircraft was a combination of poor industrial ability, poor doctrine, and poor armament. Italian industry really struggled with producing engines, to the point that they never really had a domestic 1,000hp-class powerplant for their fighters. The "0"-series radials were mostly using sub-900hp Fiat radials, with the exception of the Re.2000 (which used a license-built Gnome-Rhone radial). Their more capable fighters like the C.202 and "5-series" aircraft were using German engines.

Shit doctrine is what hurt them early in the war. While everyone else took the lesson from Spain that biplanes were obsolete, the Italians somehow believed the opposite. That meant a huge portion of their fighter corps was still biplanes like the CR.42 at the outbreak of war, and they lacked the industrial capacity to fix their mistake in a timely manner.

And then you had armament. Until very late in the war, Italian fighters were mostly armed with two slow-firing 12.7mm machineguns with something like 600 rounds. Later fighters did end up getting a reasonably effective cannon armament, but again it was German weapons - the MG 151/20 - that they mounted on their fighters.

>>31707185

Good post. I'd like to point out even more "poor industrial capability": Italian air industry was terribly organized: I'm going from memory, but a BF 109 was something like 4500 man-hours, a Yak 9 something like 1500 man hours with shitty workers, a G 50 required 22000 man hours of very skilled workers, and it was almost handcrafted. Replacements were impossible to obtain quickly.

Furthermore, Mussolini could not afford to control properly the Italian air industry (all that was needed was the mere mention of "layoffs" to scare the government about going against industrial interests, and popular support was essential to fascist thinking). So you get the Fiat G50, the Macchi C.200 and the Reggiane Re.2000, comparable aircraft and simply a waste of resources. I can't even properly understand the endless parade of late '30 bomber designs that went into production and then canned after performing badly. Thus, we can say that the Fascists were in this case hostages of a poor political situation and of the powerful industrial lobbies. Poor Mussolini, he could not even send a stern letter!

Plus, the Italian Air Force was also kinda schizophrenic in its priorities. Douhet was considered a genius (and also, privately, too difficult to control) but nothing was done to build a heavy bomber force; Balbo routinely lied to Mussolini about the plane numbers and Mussolini replied "Hey, I know you are lying, but it does not matter". Training manuals discouraged "Ace" thinking, but both training and ethos encouraged it.

Again, it's a miracle they even managed to do something.

File: Gloster Gladiators Faith Hope and Charity.jpg (90KB, 800x467px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x467px

>>31708500
>Again, it's a miracle they even managed to do something.
Did they manage to do anything? They couldn't even suppress an island protected by literally three biplane fighters that was right on their doorstep.

>>31703555
probably the spitfire in terms of actual combat performance

>>31704759
lol no. you can't be the best if you literally do nothing.

>>31704834
said no one ever. also see above.

>>31705079
>the spitfire, but she was more of a interceptor.
>more of a interceptor.

What.

File: USAF Spitfire.jpg (355KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1024x683px

>>31703555
There is one Fighter aircraft that was in production at the start of the war and was still being produced AND developed at the end of the war.

It was fielded in bigger numbers than any other Allied fighter. It was fielded by more nations than any other fighter.

There is plenty so suggest that it was the most feared allied aircraft.

And while other aircraft shot down more bombers it was the main contributor the Battle of Britain which second only to Stalingrad is rated as the most pivotal moment of the war.

>>31703555
P-40

>>31710021
>pretty much responsible for destroying the Luftwaffe
>nothing

lol okay

>>31710086
I do absolutely agree that the spitfire was the best early-war fighter, but I do disagree about your ranking of Battle of Britain and Stalingrad being the most pivotal moments of the war, because you cannot leave out the US's entry into WWII and, eventually, the D-Day invasions as being being some of the most significant turning points in the war

The Spitfire by Mk-9 stage bore very little relationship with the Mk-1 versions. Spitfire is a name. They might as well have been named differently.

>>31705128

Spitfires early in WW2 didn't have fuel injection, so pulling negative G's would cut out the engine.

I'm going with with the BF-109E4/N, better engine, the 20mm MG FF/M cannons could now fire the powerful M-Geschoss round, which had 18g of explosive filler compared to the previous 6g-10g in previous variants. Along with faster flying than the Spitfire at the time due to aforementioned engine upgrade.

>>31703555
F4U4. Please close thread.

>>31712441

>pretty much responsible for destroying the Luftwaffe

I'm going to call bullshit on this one, because the Spitfire simply did not have the range to "destroy" the Luftwaffe. Only a very small area of France could be covered by Spitfires, and the Luftwaffe simply did not base there. Spitfire is absolutely fantastic when it got to perform it's role, but after the BOB, fighter on fighter combat in the west was drawn down as Germany knew they could avoid dangerous dogfights and go straight for the bombers once they got farther than 150 miles from England.

The P-47 and P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe by escorting the bombers to where the Luftwaffe could not afford to not give battle and having the range to attack Luftwaffe airfields deep within France/Germany.

>>31704876
Brewster B-239 was better: it was apparently a little slower, but over all it was the better plane, too bad the design's primary users used it all wrong & it got a bad reputation among Allies...

>>31716590
The Hurricane actually was the more numerous front line fighter during the BoB.

And yes, the BoB did break the back of the luftwaffle. The P-51/P-47 finished it off.

>>31703555
BF-109

Arguing this is impossible.

>>31718688
arguing *against this is impossible.

>>31716590
The original comment was talking about the P-51 though, not the spitfire

The P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe as bomber escorts by essentially waiting for the fighters to be drawn in by the main bomber force before pouncing on them.
The war of attrition during late 1943-early 1944 combined with fuel and equipment shortages from strategic bombing, fighter sweeps, and the inability to keep up with the loss of skilled pilots eventually lead to it basically losing the skies over Europe by late 1944 and it's demise by 1945.
In addition to this, by the winter you also had the technological factor of german aircraft not being as well suited for extreme cold weather flying as allied aircraft, which were able to employ better de-icing equipment, gun heaters, cockpit heaters, anti-fog canopies, etc.

File: heinkelhe100[1].jpg (127KB, 1100x523px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1100x523px

>1943 performance in 1939
>Cucked because Messerschmitt is a good friend of the party elite

Naziboos everyone

>>31712463

He might have been better served with a different word. "turning point" of the war would be more accurate. "Pivotal" is more broad and involves a lot more.

>>31720611

Truth be told, the He-100 was not very well suited to become a fighter, and left little room for further evolutionary steps.

The cooling system made it more vulnerable than other designs, just to name one blaring shortcoming.

Still, it was fucking fast, and quite the engineering feat when it hit the stage.

>>31710021
The early Spitfire doesn't really have the range to do much else than defend a area, hence why I assume anon called them a Interceptor.

>>31720786

>The cooling system made it more vulnerable than other designs, just to name one blaring shortcoming.

No

Stop forcing this meme

It won't become truer if you do

>just one

Name others.

>left little room for further evolutionary steps

Perhaps the DB 605 would have been a bitch to fit, but if you consider that the performance it brought was just the DB 601A there was plenty of improvement down the road.

In addition, the reworked He 100 Heinkel submitted as the Ta 152's competitor doesn't sound like little room for ruther evolution to me.

>>31720786
The 109 didn't have evolutionary wise in it's initial frame either. The late models had to have their aerodynamics compromised in order to fit larger guns into the nose.

The HE-100 might have had the same issues but it had longer legs than the 109 to start out with. Which might have made all the difference in the BoB.

>>31710086
>There is one Fighter aircraft that was in production at the start of the war and was still being produced AND developed at the end of the war.

Ah, yes, The BF-109

>>31723445

To be fair by 1943 it was obsolescent, if not for Professor Messerschmitt's contacts to the NSDAP high-ups and the war not permitting a sudden production stop it would have been phased out or relegated to secondary fronts

>>31723700
>To be fair by 1943 it was obsolescent,
Except that it wasn't, the best versions of the 109 didnt even arrive until after 43, yiu dope

>>31723700
It wasn't really obsolescent, they just didn't have the fuels to produce the power the opposition was beginning to have available, keep in mind the merlin and other powerplants were able to increase power outputs merely from 130 octane fuel being readily available from the usa.

>>31703555
P-38, most kills in the Pacific. Very fast, very good climb and dive. One of the few fighters that could actually escort heavy bombers to their maximum range.

>>31704759
late war

>>31703555
pilot > aircraft

File: WT Mc202 2.jpg (420KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1920x1080px

>>31707185
You guys can say what you want about the italians, they have some pretty nice looking cockpits.

File: WT Mig315 4.jpg (270KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1920x1080px

The best MiG is a downed MiG

>>31727519
Nation's combat tactics and pilot training methods>pilot > aircraft

File: WT Pby5 1.jpg (109KB, 1464x934px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1464x934px

>>31727913

>>31712441

The Luftwaffe got beat by Hurricanes, Spitfires and P-47D's over Britain. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

>>31727967
>P-47D's over Britain during BoB
wat?

>>31710086
I think Normandy was probably more pivotal, although if you're saying most important AND least likely to succeed, then sure Stalingrad and BoB make sense.

What about the FW 190? Or the FW series in general ? I don't know much about WW2 planes... could you guys fill me in?

>>31727967
> P-47s over battle of Britain
> stop pulling things out of your ass
What's it like living with autism anon?

>>31720731
Probably, the US invading Europe was a forgone conclusion, but if you were laying odds at the start of BoB or Stalingrad, I wouldn't have bet on the Brits or the Commies winning their fights.

File: am not american but will consider anyway.png (22KB, 1420x369px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1420x369px

>>31727967

>Battle of Britian 1940
>P-47B introduced in 1942

Go Shart in the Mart

The Spitfire. The 109 is a close second. Russia made nothing but trash, the zero was a gas-soaked rag that was slower than your mom's scooter, and the American planes couldn't climb, and were useless unless they had an energy advantage.

>>31703555
P-38 lightening was best fighter of all of WWII.

>>31727935
PBY5 is p hype but not rely a fighter.

>>31728036
P-38 was amazeballs because it had a lot of unique maneuvering properties and the forward mounted guns allowed guys who could shoot well to kill at amazing distances compared to other fighters.

>>31712441

thisisb8.png

>>31727081
>spontaneous combustion
Fw190 master race

How come all the top aces are Germans and Russians and didn't fly spitfires? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

>>31728151
>How come all the top aces are Germans and Russians
because they
1) flew until they died instead of training more pilots
2) were propped up by propaganda
and 3) overreported as hell themselves

>>31720532
Want to put my 2 cents in this, and say that the Germans simply couldn't apply de-icing equipment to some of their planes. In comparison to American planes, they're tighter packed. While you may feel comfortable in a P-47, you'll feel like sardine in a can in a 109. They simply didn't have the room, while American geoengineering allowed for it. Not necessarily a bad thing though.

>>31727081
Not that the P-38 wasn't a sexy mofo, but didn't the Hellcat hold the record for most kills in the Pacific?

>>31727081
>most kills in the pacific

Wouldn't that title actually belong to the hellcat?

File: 35bbf84782e46ddec65cea90978a60ea.jpg (41KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x536px

>>31703555
Trick question. The best fighter is strategically irrelevant in comparison to what actually mattered.

File: 20160618160412_1.jpg (113KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1920x1080px

190 was cute

File: download.jpg (6KB, 284x178px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 284x178px

>>31703555
How has has nobody posted the Mitsubishi Zero and I guess you would throw val and kate in there as well. Japans air capability was considered to be Italy tier at the outbreak of WW2 but the Zeke with its extreme range and maneuverability shocked the world. By 1943 however with the introduction of the Hellcat with its 18 cylinder radial the poorly armoured and underpowered Zero was obsolete.

>>31728712
>How has has nobody posted the Mitsubishi Zero
Because an entire generation of upper middle class men died in them.

>>31728712
>How has has nobody posted the Mitsubishi Zero
Because they still lost to the Wildcat early on.

>>31728712
>wildcat
6:1
>hellcat
13:1
>corsair
12:1

Sounds like it was a strategically bankrupt design from the get go to me.

File: download (1).jpg (10KB, 346x146px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 346x146px

>>31728712
>>31728749
This isn't a video game where you are trying to get the best score. The ME262 had a good record but was strategically irrelevant. The zero however allowed a nation with an insignificant industrial capacity to conquer much of asia

>>31728813
Sure but they literally had no competition in steamrolling over Asia. If you want to claim it as a good fighter, then you have to compare it to its contemporaries of actual major powers. And it just did not really do all that much strategically either when it clashed with the US.

>>31728813
>This isn't a video game where you are trying to get the best score
No that's actually exactly what it is. Japan's inability to inflict enough damage to the American's to stop them is precisely why they lost.

File: 300px-Mitsubishi_G4M_Betty.jpg (6KB, 300x98px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x98px

>>31728835
What about the Mitsubishi G4M. Another example of a technically terrible bomber but in its theatre managed to embarass the British

>>31728888
>>31728712
I would agree that the Zero was the best fighter in 1939-1941.

>>31728749
that was predominantly due to lack of oil and training. the japanese didn't have enough oil where they could train their pilots after their experienced ones died. midway was really the death of their airforce because after that it was new individuals with no air time.

File: 300px-Kawanishi_N1K2-J_050317-F-1234P-015.jpg (13KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x196px

>>31728848
Oil lost Japan the war. Japan was producing great aircraft in the second half of the war but were no use when they were being fueled by pine needles.