The Mustang was so undoubtedly the best all-around fighter in World War II that there is virtually no debate on the matter. But the next five? That can be debated. There’s a lot of ways to judge WWII fighters. In this case, I’m going with the “all around” criteria. That means judging the machine’s overall characteristics: its ability as a dogfighter, how well it performed in ground support, range, handling, speed and ability to absorb punishment. Finally, I think that something called “impact” is important too, that is: how widely used was the fighter? Fighters that saw limited use are not considered.
So we’re looking at a balanced approach here, one that immediately disqualifies some popular fighters. The Me-109 was a fine dogfighter and built in large numbers, but its short legs and delicate nature don’t rate a spot in this top five. Same goes for the Zero, which – once the Hellcat and Corsair entered the fray – was completely outclassed. Why not the Me-262? Two words: over-rated. Sure it was fast as hell, but it had no legs and little handling capability, plus the engines didn’t last more than a few hours. Allied pilots quickly figured out that they could out-turn the son of a bitch in a dog fight and then all you had to do was wait till the Me-262 was running low on fuel and headed for home. If you had somebody in position, they could take the jet down during its painfully long final approach.
So, that said, here’s my top five fighters of World War II that were not the P-51 Mustang:
#6: P-38 Lightening – Another Kelly Johnson masterpiece and unarguably the best twin engine fighter of World War II. The Lightening was fast, tough, had a tremendous punch and – once Charles Lindbergh taught the Army Air Corps how to fly the thing properly (true story) – it had great range. A workhorse in the both the dogfighting and ground support roles, the P-38 couldn’t turn with a Zero, but it didn’t have to. It had the speed to get out of the way. Dick Bong, America’s leading ace in WWII, flew the P-38.
#5: F4U Corsair – Essentially an airframe bolted onto the biggest engine they could find. Fast as all get out and heavily armed, Corsairs were still flying ground support missions in the Korean War, and doing it well. The only thing that keeps the Corsair from rating higher is the problems that plagued the fighter when it was introduced. It was a bitch to land on a carrier, until technical fixes solved most of the problems. Early on Corsairs claimed the lives of a lot of aviators who found it too hot to handle.
#4: P-47 Thunderbolt – The “Jug” was renowned both for its incredible ability to absorb punishment and its ability to dish out punishment. Built in huge numbers (over 15,000 according to Wikipedia) the P-47’s speed and range were gradually increased over the years till it was capable of mixing it up with the Luftwaffe quite effectively over Germany. Not much on handling, but with enough speed to get out of trouble, the P-47 was also superb in the ground attack.
#3: FW-190 Würger – The best and toughest German fighter of the war, much more feared by Allied pilots than the Me-109. It was famously described as a tough cavalry horse, as opposed to the 109’s reputation as a fragile thoroughbred. Armed with both machine guns and 20mm cannon, the 190 could do fearsome damage if it got into the middle of a bomber formation. A beautiful plane with a very high service ceiling for the time (39,000 feet), over 20,000 FW-190s were built during the war.
#2: F4U Hellcat: I know what you’re thinking: A carrier-based fighter? Really? Really. The Hellcat was an outstanding aircraft, though many people don’t know about its history. As far as the Pacific War was concerned, the Hellcat was the “air dominance” fighter of its day. It was fast, heavily armed, could carry a butt-load of bombs and/or rockets and – for a carrier based fighter – had outstanding range. The Hellcat was responsible for over half of all aerial victories in the Pacific War and its overall kill-to-loss ratio for the war was an unprecedented 19:1. One hell of an aircraft from the “Ironworks” at Grumman.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Wheres the Spit? Love the Spitfire. Watching the Spitfire fly at the air show we went to last summer was simply breathtaking. Made me cry. I’d agree with the FW 190.
Stephanie,
The Spitfire suffers from the same problems as the ME-109. It’s a thoroughbred, without the range required to be more than a point-defense fighter.
I got no complaints about you list, but I’d consider dropping the Corsair in favour of the Typhoon or Tempest, though I guess I’d still have to think about it some more.
I disagree with placing the P-51 in first position, however. I’d put either the Hellcat or the Lightning ahead of the Mustang. I’d even put the Wildcat ahead of the Corsair.
respects,
Yes, but the Spitfire was a much better point defence (interceptor) fighter than the P-51 would have been.
They had very different strengths.
Two questions for ya Tim:
1) Why not the Mustang at number 1? Not being argumentative, just curious – since you obviously know your aviation. Most history I have read put the P-51 on the top and when the Military Channel did their top ten fighters of all time, they went with the P-51. I’d love to hear the counterpoint.
2) Is that a P-3 in your avator? And, if so, were you a driver at one point?
I was a sensor operator on P-3′s. Logged some 5ooo hours on them and some helo time as a rescue swimmer. heh, I grew up around airplanes, and would’ve beena driver but the eyes went south. Sigh.
Anyway, I think that the Mustang gets a lot of free press because it had some great PR people, sort of like how the MSM supports Obama and all that. The Jug had glowing reviews from all who flew it because of it’s ability to absorb punishment. The Mustang’s big problem was that liquid-cooled engine. If you took hits in the wrong place, you were walking home. the Jug, like the Hellcat, had a radial, air-cooled engine same for the FW-190) and you could literally have a cylinder (or two) shot off and still make it home.
Folks talk about the Mustang having the range and all that, but to be honest, it was the introduction of drop tanks that gave the Allied fighters the real range they needed to escort the bombers to the targets and back. You took off and flew the first leg using your drop tanks, so that when you got into the suck, you could drop them and still have a full bag of fuel. You’ll note that the Germans were quick to pick up on that idea, too, as it gave them a longer loiter time on station waiting for the bombers to show up.
The BIG problem is weight. You can sling drop tanks at any hardpoint, but it takes longer to get airborne, and if the wight is right up against the wall, it means sacrificing expendable stores, like ammo, etc, for increased range.
Regardless, the hero in WWII was no single fighter or tank or ship, etc. For the Allies, the hero was American Industry, and my nod goes to Grumman Iron Works for the A/cC they put out.
I think that, overall, considering the difficult environmental and physical conditions it operated under, the nod for best fighter has to go to the Hellcat. Operating from carriers, in a salt-water environment, and with it’s 19:1 kill ratio, it has to be considered up front.
yeah, the P-51 is a fine aircraft. It even looks like it’s in motion when its on the ramp. But that stub-nosed Hellcat took the fight to the Japanese like Joe to Max and kept it up until Tojo cried “Uncle!”
Respects,
With ya on the Iron Works. North American, Lockheed, Boeing et al had better PR, – and no disrespect to them – but Grumman put out great aircraft for years that remain under appreciated.
Not sure I’m completely buying the P-51 argument – yet, anyway – but you make some really interesting points that I hadn’t thought about before. I’m going to have to think about that one for a while….
And, by the by, thanks for fighting the Cold War for us (I’m assuming that was your time in service). You guys get left out of the conversation way too often when people talk about what we owe those who have served. For my money, holding off the nuclear-capable Soviet Bloc for forty-four years through sheer professionalism is one of the most amazing – if rarely recognized – achievements in military history.
Yeah… thanks. What really kills me is listening to the folks who talk about casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Now, I’m not dissing that, please don’t get me wrong, but even the most cursory of perusals of Navy Times magazine back then would show some 30-30 casualties a month in just the Navy.
At one point, the Wing I belonged to lost 3 aircraft with some 30+ crew in an 18 month period. It was a dangerous job, but we all knew the risks and played the game accordingly.
I loved ASW, because it was the one part of the Navy where art was involved alongside science. It was very much like deer hunting, except you didn’t get to shoot him. However, we got amazing amounts of intel on the Soviet (and others) submarine fleet, and I always felt comfortable that if the balloon went up, we’d be on top of the game.
Even today, I won’t say more than that, but we were good at what we did, and the Soviets were, indeed, a worthy adversary, and we all knew the rules of the game.
I will say this much: I miss it. I’d love to be able to get back into the game. However, the story goes on, with new chapters to be written. Now it’s my son’s turn to carry on where I left off, although he’s an infantryman(airborne) over in Afghanistan.
There was a time when I was young and immortal. Now it falls to me to provide support from the rear. My father knew that, as did his father, and his father before him. Ah well, it is what it is.
Back to the question to hand: I don’t begrudge the Mustang anything it has. It earned it. My own choice would be for th Hellcat, but that’s just me. History will write the story, and we take what we can get.
“were you a driver”
Did he just write “driver” rather than “aviator?” I pray Outlaw is not on the blog tonight…
heh..it’s all good. We used to refer to the pilots as the “Bus Drivers”…..
and the navigators were the guys who told the pilots where to go…..
Heh…
You forgot the Zero. If you’re looking for a balanced approach, it was extremely important in the early part of the war in a strategic sense, so much so that it influenced the design of the F4F and Corsair. It had more range than even the Mustang. You can say that it’s lack of armor made it easy pickings to the later American aircraft, but that’s more the fault of the Japanese pilot training program. In the hands of a well trained pilot, it could still out turn the F4F in a one on one fight and outlast it with it’s range. Just because it was introduced before those aircraft doesn’t make it any less of a fighter. If the war had gone on for much longer, the Mustang and Thunderbolts would have been easy meat for the Me262s.
The top WWII (actually pre-WWII, as design was started in 1939 and submitted for consideration in 1942) fighter never built? The Lockheed L-133. It never made it off paper, but it had an axial-flow engine with what was functionally an afterburner (its L-1000 engine was actually built; one of the highest performance of its time), a blended-body design that utilized laminar flow, and a canard wing configuration with boundary-layer control. It likely would’ve been capable of breaking the sound barrier (asserted by one of the engineers who worked on the project). It was more advanced than anything else that flew on either side during the war and in some respects was more advanced than most of what was on the drawing board.
And the Me262s would’ve been easy meat for the L-133, if its design specs panned out.
Well, geez…. you might as well consider the Horten brother’s flying wing designs too. As long as we are on the hypothetical plane, the Horton Ho-229
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
http://greyfalcon.us/The%20Horten%20Ho%20229.htm
even the Volksjager could’ve wreaked havoc had it been introduced ealrier, and sufficient fuel available to exploit it’s use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
Respects,
Jesus, David, is there anything you do NOT know?
1. P-51 – it changed the war in Europe.
2. Zero
3. Me-109
4. Spitfire
5. P-38
Me-109 #3! What the hell have you been smokin Wayne????
I roll up a fattie every night, wrapped in one of your Big Journalism columns.
My Dad would disown me for not having the P-38 No. 1, especially given Richard Bong.
I think one of the shows on the Military Channel put it well. They claimed that the Hellcat won the air war in the Pacific, and the Mustang won the air war in Europe. Maybe we need to compare the Zero with the Messerschmidt. The Hellcat was built to deal with the Zero; and, the Mustang with the Messerschmidt. Would a Mustang win against a Zero? Would a Hellcat win against a Messerschmidt, all things being equal, including the pilots?
And those fokkers were flying Messerschmidts.
Ah, yes! There’s the answer! THE PILOTS!! I think it can be said that in both theaters, the Allies were eliminating the best fighter pilots our enemies had. So, in a strong sense, the plane may have gotten you there; but, you still had to fight. It wasn’t going to fight for you. As the war went on, it might have been a little less difficult to shoot down enemy planes if their pilots were much less experienced fighters.
So, ladies and skillet-dodgers, who were the best pilots over the Pacific, and over Europe?
I said essentially the same thing regarding Tank Crews in a discussion about wargames rules. My point was that the defensive factor of the tank crew should be based upon the training and experience of the crew, vice the armor thickness and slope.
It was all well and good to have a virtual thickness of armor based upon actual thickness and slope, and compare that to the penetration tables of the shot based upon calibre, velocity, etc. However, the crew would be the final arbiter in the equation because they would be positioning the vehicle based upon their training and experience.
The question of which was the best is tainted by this fact – there were three (or more) distinct time frames within WWII during which aircraft being used changed for the allies – while they didn’t change so much for the Axis.
The Zero did not change in design during the entire war. It was King of the Pacific in the role of air superiority when the war started, but was outclassed by multiple Allied types by the time the war ended. Ditto on the ME-109 and the Spitfire – even though both of those aircraft saw improvements during the war, the basic airplane was the same from 1937-1945.
Fighters the Allies started the war with didn’t last long until they were supplanted by newer, more advanced designs. The Wildcat, P-40, P-39, and others were outclassed by their opposition, and quickly were relegated to secondary uses. Some may argue that they held their own against the opposition – yes, in many cases, but this was due to superior tactics and training overcoming design shortcomings.
The second wave of Allied fighters – Allison Mustangs, P-38s, P-47s – evened up against the best of the oppostion, when they were used in their performance envelopes.
The third wave, Merlin Mustangs, later model P-38s and P-47s, were truly superior aircraft. They outclassed the Zero and the ME-109. They were the equal of or better than the last variants of the FW-190.
Every aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses – even the Merlin Mustangs had weak points. Asking which was best just begs for clarification … if you were shooting up stuff on the ground, you wanted a Thunderbolt, not a Mustang. If you were landing on a carrier, you wanted a Hellcat, not a Corsair. If you were flying over long stretches of open water, you wanted a Lightning, period.
The question of best pilots likewise has time frame implied. Early in the war, Japanese and German pilots were clearly superior, due to experience, training, and equipment. Later on, as those high quality pilots were depleted, Allied pilot training and experience, combined with a much larger pool of available pilots to counter losses, completely turned the table.
Both are complex questions that beg multiple answers … but I would still vote for the P-51D as top dog overall – perhaps the best fighter in history, given its design, mission, performance, and time frame.
You are right, Mc67Cougar. The real story is how much we adapted our
pilotAviator training, engineering and production to meet the demands of the war. It is true that we outproduced the Axis powers, and the speed with which we ramped up production is unbelievable! And the innovation that led to those increases, and the improvement in training and techniques.In 1939 the U.S. made 921 military aircraft; 77/month. In 1944 we made 96,318! 8,026/month! We ramped up to that production in just 5 years! Think of all the logistics involved. You’ve got to design factories that can build at that pace. You’ve got to hire and train workers in the factories. You’ve got to get raw materials to the factories. You’ve got to have trained
pilotsaviators ready when the planes roll of the assembly line. We went from practically zero to 8,000/month in 5 years! Incredible!You’ve put your finger on it.
The great achievement of the US in WW2 was its phenomenal achievement in racking up military production to unprecedented levels and with unprecedented efficiency, and not just in aircraft. This made the outcome inevitable, even more than (although I don’t wish to downplay in any way) the contribution of its military personnel.
I agree with every word…
67Cougar’s words that is.
WWII aircraft are like candy in a candy store. I like them all. The one with the finest lines aesthetically is the P-51.
If I get rich and famous, I’ll buy one.
I’m with G-Man: WWII aircraft being like candy in a candy store. I’ve seen a few documentaries, etc about WWII aircraft concerning their strengths and weaknesses. I am always in awe of those who designed them and flew them.
As an ordinary civilian, it’s all good to me. Great post, Rich!
The P-51D is the best of that period IMHO. The P-38 was flown not only by the leading Ace but by the second leading ace as well, Tommy McGuire. If you’d like to read a good book about WWII read Martin Cadin’s book “The Last Dogfight”. His book “Whip” is also a pretty good read about B-25s in the Pacific. You might also know Mr Cadin as the creator of the “Six Million Dollar Man” and the guy who wrote “Marooned” which was made into a movie of the same name.
Without the spitfire and the Hurricane we would not be having this debate.
“If the war had gone on for much longer, the Mustang and Thunderbolts would have been easy meat for the Me262s”
If the war had gone on Mustangs and Thunderbolts would have shot up more and more Me262s on the ground, or during takeoff or landing, flown by inexperienced pilots who didn´t have the fuel or time to learn. Where would the Germans have been allowed to mass enough jet fighters to get air superiority back? Nowhere. And the Me262 was short-legged, too.
i gotta agree that the me 262 was overrated it was a horrible dogfighter all it was a so called “fighter” that preyed on slow and defenseless bombers when it got into a dogfight it just ran away.
actually the leading ace of the war Erich Alfred Hartmann with 352 he flew the BF 109 and i think the the 109 was a fine aircraft at the beginning of the war but as allied industry began to make newer aircraft it was quickly out classed The biggest problem with the P-51 is lack of ability to take punishment the water cooled engine is to easy to knock out. but one interesting thing that has been touched on. the ME 262 was at best ill used by the Germanys it was a break through in aviation history but with most new things there was just to many bugs not worked out. This maybe biased (Marine infantryman here) but an aircraft must be a good close air support the Corsairs, Lighting, and Thunderbolts could dog fight as well were great close air support as well as the Fw 190s. i will give credit the P 51 was one of only 2 World War 2 aircraft to fight in the Korea War and the Corsair. but as said earlier the P 51 can about with drop tanks with out which the P 51D model had less than 1000 miles range. And the Zeros to many things were not a part of them to even be considered such as self sealing fuel tanks, armor and i large caliber machine gun which the last also pledged the Spitfires as well as not being fuel ejected so in a 0 g dive you lose your gravity feed on your fuel system big problem. The 19:1 kill ratio that the hellcat had is a little skewed in 1943 the japanese navy and army air corp had expended most of their best pilots don’t get me wrong it was a great aircraft and for Marine and Navy forces it and the Corsairs were in a class of they’re own. top 6 Hellcat, Lighting,Thunderbolts ,Corsair,Mustangs,and Fw 190
BIG MISTAKE !!! You’re not proof-reading your typing… The #2 airplane is not a F4U Hellcat.
It’s a F6F Hellcat as it is noted in the “share on Facebook” text below the photo..
I dont think that the P-51 Mustang was the best all-round fighter.
It was a truly excellent machine at long range high altitude bomber support, but it really wasn’t an all-round fighter.
It was significantly less manoeuvrable than aircraft like the Spitfire and FW190 at lower altitudes and it had nothing like the interceptor capability of the contemporary versions of the Spitfire or ME190 – it simply couldn’t climb fast enough. In a dogfight at a range of altitudes, you’d want to be in a Spitfire (short-legged though it was).
That is not to denigrate the P-51 at all, simply to point out that although it had advantages over some of its contemporaries that made it particularly suitable for the role for which it was used, it had deficiencies that meant that it wouldn’t have been suitable for other roles at which some of its contemporaries excelled.
You make a good point. It was a P-51, not an F-51. The roles are similar; but, not the same. In the end, it may have been that, by the time the Mustang was introduced, we had enough seasoned pilots who could really handle the thing, as compared to the Luftwaffe, who was filling pilot seats with newbies. Put a good pilot in an average aircraft, and he’ll make things happen; put a new pilot into an advanced aircraft, and usually, he won’t stand a chance against the seasoned pilot.
I see that I repeated myself, from waaaaay above. Sorry. One-track mind, here.
Of course, the other great thing about the P-51 was that it was relatively economical to produce and maintain compared to the other US fighters (P-38, in particular) that possessed the range to escort bombers all the way to Germany (and back). For this reason, they were available in large numbers and it was the numbers as much as anything else that meant that the game was up for the Luftwaffe.
The post that just won’t die…
Welcome, HJ!!