Why is the P51 objectively the best fighter of WWII?

>>33383974
long range, good visibility, fast, good armament, not overly complicated

its dat range, the fact that it could escort bombers all the way to their target made it a valuable aircraft

File: fishgun bait.jpg (27KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 622x626px

please stop

File: P47_Escuadron_201_mexico.jpg (31KB, 775x519px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 775x519px

>>33383974
I heard you talking shit.

File: 130221984382.jpg (63KB, 553x204px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 553x204px

>>33383974
As an unironic weaboo when it comes to WWII equipment I must concede this fact.

>>33383974

Laminar flow airfoil
Probably first aircraft designed using conics
Probably the best radiator installation of any ww2 fighter
Very high quality control and tolerances on production line
One of the best engines of the war as powerplant
High octane fuel

Thats why

>>33385090
Yeah. I love the P-51

>>33383974
Hellcat was pretty good too.

File: Capture.png (68KB, 1041x910px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1041x910px

>>33383989
>good armament
6 .50s in the wings is actually below average
you have to remember that each 20mm is worth about 3 .50s. and that wing guns are much worse than centerline guns

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

>>33383974
Y'all know the Mustang wasn't shit until the Merlin was put inside her?

>>33383989
Basically this, minus "good armament."
>>33385090
>Probably first aircraft designed using conics
I highly doubt that.
>Probably the best radiator installation of any ww2 fighter
In what sense? I think the wing-root ones had less drag, and obviously the nose-mounted ones were less complex. (Of course the best radiator installation was none at all. Water cooling a shit)
>One of the best engines of the war as powerplant
>Not a radial
Shiggy

>>33388419

In terms of damage maybe but the hit ratio of 3 extra guns is pretty nice. I'd rather hit once with a 50 than zero with a 20mm.

Source: Jane's attack squadron veteran from that early 2000s ww2 pilot game

File: 0_501a7_45958f3e_L.jpg (42KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x361px

>>33383974
Because I-185 never made it

"Best Fighter" measn what exactly?
Best overall? Fastest? Best on paper? Best in real life? Best in a dogfight against other contenders for "Best Fighter" given equal numbers and equal pilot skill?

From what I remember the practically best fighter was when the Germans took a crashed Shitfire and slammed one of their Bf 109 engines into it

It outclimbed the Bf 109 and Shitfire, outturned the Bf 109 and Shitfire and was sick as fuck

>>33389109
Better en every way that matters, it's not that complicated.
Try not being so confused all the time.

>>33383989
>good visibility
Didn't knew that mk1 eyeball visibility depends on plane

>>33389444
Download Warthunder and try different planes cockpit views and report back.

>>33389457
I did play it, all planes are from tail view(eww)

>>33389461
That is how you have to play it yeah because dat situational awareness, but cockpit view is there for eyecandy

>>33389461
Can go into first person by pressing v I think. And the P51 was not the best fighter of WWII, neither was the Spitfire. Personally I believe the best fighter was the Bf109, it had great fire power, great turn time, and most importantly good speeds for a good dive allowing it to exploit boom and zoom methods. Now if we add the FW190 into the equation, between it and the bf, things get even more complicated

>>33389479
>Can go into first person
Holy shit, I need to download it again, thanks

I love the P51, however, hasn't it been documented that some P51's were brought down by rifle fire?

>>33389488
Don't try to play anything but sim with cockpit view, you will get rekt

>>33388419
The Luftwaffe only needed canons because many of their targets on the Western Front were bombers and thus larger targets. Canons weren't needed on a fighter that was escorting against other fighters. In addition, .50 was lighter and more could be carried meaning longer escorts.

Finally, in the event that a gun jammed, having 1/6th of your armament out of the fight was far better than having half of it gone.

>>33384794
Is this a 2017 Mexican air Force recruitment poster?

>>33388705
>In what sense?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=42941.0

>>33389534
>The Luftwaffe only needed canons because many of their targets on the Western Front were bombers and thus larger targets.
Fun fact: it is opposite. .50 BMG is better against bombers than 20mm cannon.
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf
20mm canon is better against small fighters.

>>33389564
1 minengeshobsbs>100 .50 bmg shots

>>33389479
Are you trying to suggest that German fighters were the only fighters that were good in the dive?

File: Messerschmitt_Me_262_Schwable.jpg (232KB, 1800x1172px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1800x1172px

>

Objectively best piston fighter of the WW2 Era was the F7f Tigercat.

>>33389795
One could argue it was FW190

Do 335

File: Spitfire IIb.jpg (201KB, 690x459px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 690x459px

The sound of WW2 prop fighter engines in real life honestly make my dick hard

That loud roar, the rumble, I'm sweating just thinking about it

>>33389801
In what way could the FW190 outperform the F7F?

>>33389890
cool factor

F7F looks like it was made for metrosexuals
although I suppose it IS a navy plane

>>33389820
I agree. Jet engines are erection inducing too.
I was at local AFB doing fighter accident training and it concluded in the night with flight of F-18 taking of with afterburners, turning around and going super sonic over the base. That blue 10m exhaust was so cool in the dark night

File: the_wind_rises_mitsubishi_zero_zpsyo4ygdmz.jpg (95KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x450px

>>33383974
Herro, ferrow Worrd War II, fighters. Can I join too?

I know I am not very good with fragire buird and smarr penis, but I inspired the TIE-Fighter in Star Wars.

That counts for something, right?

File: 12452345345.jpg (26KB, 693x289px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 693x289px

>>33389592
http://twilightpliskin.livejournal.com/6123.html
http://twilightpliskin.livejournal.com/5725.html

>>33383974
It was an overall mediocre fighter. The only thing special was the wing drop tanks. These enabled them to fly long ranges and keep up with bombers. What this did was make it so that bombers were no longer easy targets for fighters/AAA.

File: tempestV.jpg (249KB, 1024x807px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x807px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rGyP6SSYM

Someone said sexy engine sounds?

And to the topic on hand

was the P-51 a good fighter? Of course! Was it the best? Hard to say. Depends on what you want from it. It was very good at escorting things at high altitudes. If you want to fuck things up further down, grounpound bomb and so on, the Tempest sure is a contender. Also looks sexy

File: FassbergG-10JYL2.jpg (214KB, 1234x497px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1234x497px

>>33383974
Whichever fighter shot down the most planes was the best.

And that plane was the BF109.

Majority of top Luftwaffe aces with 200+ kills used the BF109 almost exclusively.

File: grumman hellcat.jpg (11KB, 441x187px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 441x187px

>>33390738
P-51 was introduced in '42, most 109 aces had been flying since at least '36, and most were at the front constantly because the germans didn't understand logistics and resting pilots. Hellcat achieved the highest kill ratio in the war, and turned the tide against the A6M series fighters in the Pacific, so that could be considered the best from that perspective

File: kawasaki-ki-61-hien-tony-fighter-02.png (157KB, 1002x492px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1002x492px

>>33389998
OUTA DA WAY SHRIMP!
>The first time allied pilots met the Ki-61 they were convinced they were Italians

File: double_wasp_r2800_1.jpg (44KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x374px

>>33385090
>one of the best engines of the war as powerplant
Pratt & Whitney would like to have a word with you.

>>33389795
>no WWII combat
have fun being assblasted in Korea

>>33390807
>The first time allied pilots met the Ki-61 they were convinced they were Italians
Because they fought them for 2 minutes and then the Ki-61s changed sides?

>>33390777
Which is related how?

>>33389542
No but it probably is a 1944 recruitment poster.

>>33389801
only if you want tempest to laugh at you

>>33385090
>Laminar flow airfoil
Afer the war they discovered they might as well not had bothered with their snowflake airfoil. As it turned out pristine wings do not last long.

>>33388705
>I highly doubt that.

Eh, never seen any earlier examples

It was definitely the first us production aircraft designed that way

>>33388705
>I think the wing-root ones had less drag, and obviously the nose-mounted ones were less complex. (Of course the best radiator installation was none at all. Water cooling a shit)

One radiator duct will always be better than two

And by sticking the radiator below and behind the wing any spillage will have a minimal effect on the airflow over the wing/fuselage

>>33392336
>Afer the war they discovered they might as well not had bothered with their snowflake airfoil. As it turned out pristine wings do not last long.

There was still lower drag even when you had tons of bugs and dents on the leading edge.

>>33389564
>Fun fact: it is opposit


Yes, that's why the Germans armed all their bomber-interceptor fighters with 13mm guns only.

Oh wait, it was the opposite

>>33389724
piece of shit

>>33390918
>Pratt & Whitney
>pratt & whitney
>best of anything
shirley, you can't be serious

wright double cyclone > double wasp

>>33383974
Objectively? Eh, not so sure. One of the best? Definitely.

Never underestimate the power of good enough is why. It was cheap enough, fast enough to build, fast enough and maneuverable enough to compete, and American pilots were good enough on average to attrite the Luftwaffe down to nothing. It's only real stellar point was range.

Also, don't underestimate the power of good supply, good repair facilities, and good resting and pilot rotation times. Damaged planes could be rebuilt; the Germans were so bad at repair that by the end of the war their airfields were littered with planes that the Americans could have brought back to service. German pilot training times decreased as the war went on, while American pilot training time increased. Good pilots weren't simply wasted away, they went back to train or were given leave to rest and recover.

War is not about what single thing is best. War is about what you can bring to the table overall.

File: Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg (400KB, 3059x2400px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 3059x2400px

No love for the P-47?

File: IMG_4359.jpg (110KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x333px

>>33389909
What did you say you little bitch?

File: IMG_4235.jpg (107KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x720px

>>33396286
I had no idea how extensive and huge the turbo-supercharger system was on the P-47 until another anon posted this pic.

File: IMG_4242.jpg (252KB, 800x553px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 800x553px

>>33396929

File: 1459803042858.jpg (90KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 476x476px

>>33396929
>>33396940
JESUS

... can I fit one on my F150?

>>33396929

Jesus fuck. I knew they had to design it to fit some duct work but they really crammed the poor girl.

>>33396929
The P47 isn't a plane with a turbo. It's a turbo with a plane attached.

File: P-43 groundloop.jpg (156KB, 981x876px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 981x876px

>>33396940
>>33396929
P-43 was basically the same way. That's probably the only reason why they were able to pull it off reliably (if somewhat expensively) with the P-47 - it was already old hat for Republic by then.

>>33383974
Because of the British engine they put in it.

File: images (42).jpg (43KB, 449x327px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 449x327px

>>33383974
Because it isn't (pic related)

File: images (47).jpg (18KB, 471x313px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 471x313px

>>33390738
Luftwaffe pilots universally preferred the rugged FW190

American guns. British engine.

File: download.jpg (6KB, 255x198px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 255x198px

Bonjorno

>>33390738
>>33390777

Kill ratios and other shit like that are meaningless.

German pilots got insane kill ratios because they were slaughtering badly trained ruskies in shit planes. USN achieved great kill ratios later in the war because of crushing advantage in numbers.

>>33400356

Italian planes were genuinely great. Probably the most underrated planes of the war.

Japan also had a lot of amazing machines later into the war. Ki-84, J2M and N1K were amazing.

>>33400449
And also because the Navy was slaughtering badly trained Japanese towards the end of the war- Marianas Turkey Shoot and the like.

>>33383974
I flew in one a few years ago
it was fun

>>33400449
But the Hellcat was introduced in 1943 and they were limited in numbers during operations because of how much a carrier can carry. Usually when they attacked land-based installations, the Japanese usually had just as much aircraft in the air because obviously an island can carry more aircraft than a carrier.

And it's not like the USN was brimming with carriers in 1943 either when they only had 1 operational carrier by the end of 1942.

File: 1393541109599.jpg (78KB, 1456x700px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1456x700px

>>33400468
I agree with you so much. Re.2005 and G.55 are fantastic little planes that are so little-known and so little-appreciated. Both of them could have three MG 151 cannons and two Breda-SAFATs, though the latter was not particularly useful.

>>33401506
Too bad that without radars the "defending" Japanese aircraft got often shot on ground.
Meanwhile the defending Americans usually had time to take altitude advantage.

>>33392336
It was still good enough to get Mustangs over Germany....

File: 510198.jpg (643KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1280x800px

>>33389820
> The sound of WW2 prop fighter engines

Literally brings tears to my eyes;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxeC1Ru4jgQ

File: 1465209875485.jpg (32KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x335px

Highest scoring American ace in the ETO flew P-47's.

File: cd95a3aa7a09861d8ca80da63ded09af.jpg (118KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1280x853px

Best fighter was YAK-3.

Flown by stupid untermench slavs caused entire areas of airspace to be deemed off limits by the Germans because they performed so well.


Truth be told it depends on the role.

For air superiority under 5000m where 95% of air combat took place on the eastern front, you'd be hard pressed to find a plane more perfect for that role than the Yak-3.

If you need to escort bombers a stupid long distance and be a great performer at high altitude, get your self a P-51.

Rolls reversed for these two allied planes would see them perform horribly.

>>33403987
You clearly don't know what are you talking about. P-51 had better speed and climb-rate over Yak-3 at any altitude. Also fun fact: best performing in combat soviet fighter was P-39.

>>33389444
Have you ever flown a plane before?

>>33404112

>Best performing fighter was the P-39

Hahahahahahahah

No.

The Yak-3 has the advantage on the P-51 at lower altitudes. This is undisputed.

German fighters had better speed and climbrate than the Yak-3 but they still got wrecked.

File: aa.jpg (625KB, 2007x1317px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2007x1317px

>>33389504
probably

>>33404112

Yak-3 has a better power to weight and rate of climb over the P51.

>>33389724
G A R B A G E

File: la2323test.jpg (1MB, 2267x1509px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2267x1509px

*blocks your path*

>>33394818

They also lost.

>>33389998
Zeros were pretty damn great for their cost and use.

>>33404162
I think the F4U looks sexy.

>>33404152
>>33404138
>vatniks don't know about 100/150 grade fuel
No surprise here, they didn't have it.

File: 1486808494104.gif (1MB, 900x835px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x835px

>>33390918
>>33395661

Can confirm, Pratt and Whitney is still budget tier
I make a bunch of parts for them and I've never been Impressed with the hardware they send back.

I've gotten F35 parts back with GIANT dents in them.
With a note that said "sorry, we dropped it".

Those hacks are still installing jet engines by wrapping a chain around them and lifting them up.
A fucking chain around a 10 million dollars f135

>>33389479
109s also suffered from insane crash rates on take-off and landing an armaments chosen by the top pilots for precision rather than actually spitting a shitton of lead, so by the late war all the rookies couldn't hit shit and died in takeoff and landing.

>>33390777
>and turned the tide against the A6M series fighters in the Pacific,
But that's not the F4F which did all the actual tide-turning.

>>33395661
>Wright-brand Duplex-Grenade > The engine that won the war
Yeah, I don't think so.
>>33404397
Jet-age Pratt is garbage. Piston-age Pratt was decent.

File: Ki-61.jpg (181KB, 1280x910px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x910px

>>33404419
Everybody knows that that kind of landing gear is stupid.

>>33389099
this

>>33389444
OP was talking about the pic related

>>33389724
Go get killed on takeoff somewhere else

>>33402093
Drop tanks, a mysterious technology that other manufacturers had difficulty with. I'm not even kidding.

>>33400034
*gets gangraped by crushing air superiority*

File: 1488329879995m.jpg (28KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1024x576px

>>33404565
>Jet-age Pratt is garbage
I hope Pratt loses the next F35 engine contest.
Maybe we'll get a proper engine this time around

>>33404112
Are you retarded? You posted desirable traits for a high altitude fighter. He clearly said both were masters in their own domain, but if they switched both would be doomed.

Are you even trying or are you chronically retarded?

File: gloster_meteor.jpg (468KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1000x667px

best thrust to weight of any of the early jets

File: P-51_1488271209032.jpg (99KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x576px

>>33404112
>P-51 had better speed and climb-rate over Yak-3 at any altitude.

From Wiki:

Empty weight
Yak-3 - 4640 lbs
Mustang - 7635 lbs
64% heavier

Loaded weight
Yak-3 - 5864 lbs
Mustang - 9200 lbs
39% heavier

Max speed
Yak-3 - 407 mph
Mustang - 440 mph
8% faster

Climb rate
Mustang - 3200 fps
Yak-3 - 3645 fps
14% faster

Power to weight
Mustang - .18 hp/lb
Yak-3 - .22 hp/lb
22% higher

I didn’t bother with range, as the Mustang is stupidly only listed with drop-tanks.

File: eKDdXKF.jpg (209KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 682x600px

>>33407649
>Wiki

>>33389564
.50 BMG is a good compromise MG/Cannon compromise against fighters; you could carry more of it than cannon rounds and if you managed a hit on an enemy pilot with one bullet, it would likely be disabling. Though, I love to dream what WWII fighters could have been had they had gatlings instead of MG/cannons. Imagine a P51 with GAU-19s

>>33407649
>wiki for stats
[laughter stops]
Try citing something respectable.

>>33390381
>The only thing special was the wing drop tanks

No, idiot, it was the internal fuel that enabled that, all allied fighters of the time carried drop tanks, but few had great internal fuel capacity.

jesus christ

>>33388419
Yes, autocannons were essential on the eastern front when half of all your air targets were bombers.
In the Pacific you'd be going up against paper-thin aluminum origami planes, 20mms would have been overkill.

Yes I'm aware there was an F4U model with 4x20s, but I'm not familiar with its performance

The versatility and reliability means it can preform well in most situations. Like sure you wouldn't want to get in a turn fight with it, but that'd be on you, because you'd have so many other advantages to never put yourself in that situation, or get out of it if you did.

Also it's the most beautiful aircraft of the war, hands down. Fucking nothing out of place, god damn smooth as fuck, curves in just the right places fucking shit just fuck me already.

>>33407846

>whole aircraft disintegrates

the world wasn't ready for the GAU-19

flying p51 in dcs in vr makes my cock rock hard.

>there will never be a captured Mustang with the 6 .50s taken out and replaced with 4 German 15mm cannons that have that delicious and ridiculous penetration

>>33408101
Ok then, a Spit Mk.I with 1 M134 per wing.

>>33407780
Here's your (you)

File: 1 a_MGIxvKSdAYt5UnqXgWUg.jpg (52KB, 750x350px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x350px

>>33408174

just get gud and blast your enemies out the sky with a well placed AT round

>>33408260
>did this in il2 once
>flying an il2 with 37mm
>190 1.5km away
>lead it a bit
>fire one burst
>it explodes

one of the most satisfying kills I've ever gotten

File: P-51_1467885498159.jpg (263KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1920x1080px

>>33407780
>>33407987
> Try citing something respectable.
> Provide no cites themselves.

File: It Begins....jpg (357KB, 1104x1600px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1104x1600px

>>33389109
>Shitfire
>repeatedly
Where did the Englishman touch you?

>>33407649
>8% faster

File: P-51D_15342_Climb-Fig5.jpg (273KB, 924x1200px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 924x1200px

>>33409215

File: post-11474-0-48513900-1426860962.gif (272KB, 1582x1200px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1582x1200px

>>33409358

File: p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg (571KB, 1188x800px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1188x800px

and for whats its worth the H shits on pretty much everything

File: P-51_1427830351777.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>33409358
>>33409378
>>33409415
> charts agree with Wiki

So what's your point?

>>33409561

but they dont

File: 20160330_182452-1.jpg (3MB, 1653x3025px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1653x3025px

>>33404565
Wright engines are way better. Especially post war.
PW gave up on radial engines after the war. They never improved their faults.

Wright on the other hand, kept making improvements up until the 1970s. Perfecting the engines as better materials/engineering were found.

Take the wartime Wright 1820-56 and the PW 1830. Both had similar HP and fuel burn. The 1830 was heavier, but could run smoother with one cylinder not firing. However it takes twice as long to do maintenance on the 1830 because of the twin row design. The 1820 also could take more pilot abuse such as reverse loading, throttle jockeying, and shock cooling.

After the war, the 1830 was hardly used in new aircraft. The 1820 was the better choice.
>T-28B,C,D had the improved 1820-86 and -76D.
>HU-16 had the -86 and -76D.
>C-1 and S-2 used the -82WA (water injection)
They even ditched PW for the Wright 1300 on the T-28A.


The -86, -82, and -76d are the pinnacle of radial engine designs. And have come a long way since the old -56 and -G202.

>>33383974
That's not a corsair

They were tank killers

File: Captured_Ki-84_with_Seafire_Hellcat_and_Mustang_1945.jpg (153KB, 624x460px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 624x460px

Come to 23 000ft and I'rr sho you who is besto.

>>33409611
Funny though, Pratt came back with a vengeance in the jet age.

File: F-14A crash Kara Hultgreen.jpg (23KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x480px

>>33409723
But not in a good way.

>>33408063
>guns are good against bombers common fallacy again
>>33389564

>>33411189
106 moldy pages is a bit excessive.
Could you summarize it?

File: cR6Smjt.png (467KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 800x480px

>>33390807

File: feeding.png (1MB, 1306x1712px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1306x1712px

>>33412211

File: eating some weird stuff.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>33412739
But aren't all of those guns?
Please post ramming and rocket page too.
No muh MG 151/20 at all, but MK 108 seems stronk.

>>33412994
MK 108 was basically designed to throw lots of mineshells (read low-velocity shells with minimal frag casing and lots of HE) at close range for murdering bombers during high-speed passes. 30mm mineshell was the best anti-bomber load for WW2, period.

File: IMG_0043.jpg (943KB, 1936x1936px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1936x1936px

>>33383974
>not having 8 .50 calibers plus a .45 on your hip

P51 got the glory but P47 made them gory.

>>33383974
>Why is the P51 objectively the best fighter of WWII?

Because you're American. that's literally the only reason.

File: IMG_2271.jpg (868KB, 3739x2930px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 3739x2930px

>>33385090
>requiring a radiator

Air cooled with liquid cooling injection master race coming through.

>>33388419
When considering good armaments, you have to consider what are you fighting against.
For the P-51, it really only fought against fighters, and maybe some heavy fighters and the occasional light bomber. For that, 6x.50 cal would work like a charm. If the P-51 would have had to go against heavy bombers, then its armament would have quickly proved obsolete.

File: 309_Mustangs_flying.jpg (28KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x325px

Your basic airframe was pretty good. By the time all the British things were added it was bloody good.
50 cal was a good call.
Needed a better name and some paint.
Maybe some polish aircrew too.

>>33415141
The us tried to make 20mm cannons and just couldn't shake the bugs out of them.
50 was what they had and they certainly weren't going to go rifle calibre ;)

>>33415498

more like the 20s never met the autistic us requirements, even the brit versions didnt

>>33383974
Not reading thread but you know the engine was British right?

File: IRL_SMLE_MKIII.jpg (81KB, 1280x610px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x610px

>>33415526
Hey stopping making the thing you have to make a thing you don't even understand yet can cause people to have an even worse logistic nightmare than the current one.
Pic. Two world wars more than planned.

>>33415564

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/US404.htm

>omg we cant have the ammo covered in lubricant!

>>33415626
Nice link
"It is understood that the optimum gun will require from 15 to 25 years for development to be completed."
That's a foad right there.

>>33415141
>cannon are good against bombers meme again
Will they ever learn?

File: Schrge Musik.jpg (22KB, 600x268px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x268px

>>33415942
If the shoe fits.

File: bachem-natter-airport.jpg (28KB, 600x331px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x331px

>>33415942
Better?

File: P-51_1316254691708.jpg (58KB, 600x373px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x373px

>>33413205

>>33415942
Except you know, they were.
That chart mentioned up there of gun effectiveness vs bombers? Its against a B-25, a medium bomber. B-17s, B-24s were much larger and tougher.
There are also other factors not just "time required". Ammo required is a big factor, since less ammo per target means more targets.

>>33416038
>Its against a B-25, a medium bomber. B-17s, B-24s were much larger and tougher.
Vulnerable to .50 BMG parts of B-17 are no more protected than in case of B-25. if anything with target size increase effectiveness of blast ammunition reduces as blast only damages skin and can't reach vitals anymore.

>Ammo required is a big factor, since less ammo per target means more targets.
Do you know that document has charts and data for you assumption too, right?

File: F6F-5 Hellcat.jpg (23KB, 645x330px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 645x330px

>People arguing about .50 vs cannons

Why not have both like the F6F-5 Hellcat that has 2 20 mm cannons and 4 .50 BMGs? Has the firepower with the cannons and still has a large ammo capacity with the BMGs.

>>33405064

>Had to scroll this far down to see P38

You "people" disgust me.

File: 01097628_ 047-01.jpg (74KB, 788x592px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 788x592px

>>33416328
In Europe a P-38 with guns would be like seeing a Dh-98 in the far east.
It could, and was, done but it wouldn't be a very good place to be if things got hot.

>>33389724
Weren't those killed in their first engagement with P51s?

>>33416450
Mostly killed returning to base by lurking aircraft.
A (one) proper air to air kill may have happened.

>>33416579
>A (one) proper air to air kill may have happened.

More, than one happened, genius, do some fucking research before posting, my god

>>33416402
In Europe a P-38 with guns would be like seeing a Dh-98 in the far east.

This is also retarded, P-38's were the main escort fighter untill P-51's started showing up in large numbers

I really hate this board

>>33415956
>japanese fighter
>british bomber

REEEEEEE DELET THIS

why would you name your plane the little bitch?

>>33389724
i love the schwalbe and all that kraut space magic, but the 262 still got BTFO by the 51 in most engagements

>>33388705

>shiggy

Is it 2013 again? Brings me back

File: me-262 not a fighter.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>33418415
The 262''s only defense againt prop fighters was staying fast and avoiding them, they had high wing loading and slow acceleration, any loss of speed and they were at the mercy of their enemy

File: costanza G.gif (185KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 250x250px

>>33419093
>Implying 2013
I bet you keep your ketchup in the fridge.

File: 513451345.jpg (533KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1600x900px

>>33419346
>The monoplane only defense against biplane fighters was staying fast and avoiding them, they had high wing loading and slow acceleration, any loss of speed and they were at the mercy of their enemy

>>33383974
That's not how you spell P-47.

The best fighter AND the best tank the USA built in WWII.

>>33420601
IS-2 was teh best tank and it was built in the USSR.

P-47 has nothing particularly good about it besides it appeared first. P-51 was better fighter. F4U was better low altitude fighter and fighter-bomber.

>>33420601
>That's not how you spell P-47.
>The best fighter AND the best tank the USA built in WWII.
>AND the best tank the USA built in WWII.

wat?

>>33420717
P47 had basically the same range, Better k/d, better pilot loss ratio, extreme survivability, better high alt performance, huge ordnance capacity, better dive and better energy retention.

The only place the p51 was better was being way cheaper for Still being very good.

Luftwaffe pilots despised the p47, as being impossible to quickly destroy and impossible to escape from in a dive but found the p51 roughly comparable to the 109 in performance if starting from similar energy states.

Even The f4u was better. It was as fast, had better climb and acceleration at most altitudes and had a slower stall speed. There would be very few situations where a p51 could escape an F4u on its tail.

190d series and ki84(when in the air) were also arguably better fighters than the p51 in terms of outright performance in all facets.

Great plane that it was, the p51 was certainly not the best. Basically a meme plane.

File: corsiar.jpg (331KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1920x1080px

>>33383974
>britbongs
>he doesn't realize that the P-51 was complete shit until we gave it to the britcucks
>he doesn't realize the real MVP was the Corsair

>>33404565
Um the PW F-100 would like a word with you.

File: 1480909596553.jpg (35KB, 960x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x480px

>>33421156
>the real MVP was the Corsair

>he doesn't realize the real MVP was actually the Hellcat

>>33383974
Only thing better than a mustang is two mustangs.

File: corsair.jpg (44KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x331px

>>33421744
>>the real MVP was actually the Hellcat
>he doesn't realize that the only reason the Hellcat got more kills was because it had greater numbers, not better performance
Get on my level.

File: 2006-10-22_104813_Fi167_a.jpg (50KB, 972x532px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 972x532px

>>33383974

*shoots you down*

>>33422022
or one Hawker Tempest

>>33421744
>the real MVP was actually the Hellcat
>johnny-come-lately to the Pacific after the F4F did all the hard work

The real MVP was the Wildcat.

>>33420595
Getting monoplane kills as a biplane in War Thunder is so satisfying

>>33422687
What, headoning noobs in a Chaika? Piece of cake.

File: 20170316224053_1.jpg (186KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1920x1080px

>>33389476
>Cockpit view in WT
>eyecandy
eyecancer more like

Have a more aesthetic sim

>>33419346
afaik, most 262's were shot down either in the process of taking off or landing, b/c it took so damn long. also they ran outta fuel super quick, and American pilots would just put'em down when they were cruising down to da earf

File: [BoS] MiG pilot snipe.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

>>33422946
>>33422687
>War Thunder

File: Hellcats_F6F-3,_May_1943.jpg (727KB, 1372x946px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 1372x946px

>>33422246
Uh huh, Hellcats totally used their great numerical advantage when they were limited to a certain amount per carrier instead of a land base like the Corsair.

It also totally wasn't because Navy pilots were better than Marine pilots that the Hellcat shot down more planes than the Corsair.

The Hellcat also totally didn't do the brunt of the work in the Pacific because the Corsair was deemed a failure for carriers and the Corsair missed out on most of the big battles.
>Hellcat not only had the most kills, but a better ratio of 5,163 kills/270 losses(19:1) to the Corsair's 2,140 kills/189 losses(11:1)

>>33422637
I give my respect to the Wildcat for holding down the line and bearing the brunt of Japan's best pilots in 1942. The Cat line was just great.

>>33423462
>ratio of 5,163 kills/270 losses

DELET THIS