[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: bf-109-3.jpg (100 KB, 1024x768)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
Was this the best ww2 plane?
>>
It's between that, Fiat 55, and the spirtfire
>>
>>36085686
>steals your spitfire pilots
>>
>>36085686
>no Ki-84 or P-51H
>>
>>36085618
That's not Yak-3.
>>
>>36085618
armament wise the best fighter
>>
Absolutely. It's not the most advanced, but when it comes to the combined numbers and performance throughout the war it's ahead of everything else. If there was a quintessential ww2 plane, this would be it.
>>
File: fiat55.jpg (84 KB, 800x600)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>36085686
fiat 55 best plane
>>
Out of the ones that actually saw action and not sit somewhere(Meteor, Bearcat) and did that more than couple of times and werent the unreliable and expensive Me 262, its the P-51.
>>
>>36086511
>very poor range
>poor high speed handling
>delicate engine
>terrible cockpit visibility
>mediocre dive speed
>very heavy engine + light frame causing powerful torque and lots of accidents
>outclassed by the end of the war

They were good but not even close to best.
>>
File: image.jpg (86 KB, 1024x683)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>36085618
I prefer this naughty thing
>>
File: FW-190_2_news.jpg (55 KB, 600x397)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>
>>36086560
>P-51 best
>doesnt have to worry about bringing down anything other than light fighters
>doesnt even have HE ammo
>>
>>36086582
Aside from those it was also
>Very good in the vertical
>Highly maneuverable
>Fast at medium altitude
>Heavily armed
>>
>>36086653
>Heavily armed
It was not.
>>
HAYABUSA
A
Y
A
B
U
S
A
>>
>>36086582
Range wasnt too bad, on par with Spit. Engine life was good too, except for early DB605 engne ones like the G-2 and 4. The accident part is also a myth, Spitfires had just as many accidents. Bf 109s steers off the runway, Spit flips over and breaks the pilot's neck.

But they made it maybe a bit too small, it lacked the kind of upgradeability some other planes had. All in all Fw 190 was better but the Nazis favored Messerchmitt too long
>>
>>36086650

6 Brownings had comparable firepower to 2 20mm Hispanos. It's not the firepower of later German planes but it would work fine.
>>
>>36086672

Hartmann complained about 109 accidents killing more promising pilots than Russians.

Spits had horrible landing gear but they were generally more reliable.
>>
>>36086672

109 was cheaper and faster to produce. That's all there is to it.
>>
>>36086659
Well, atleast all 109's from the G-6 onwards had two 13mm heavy machine guns in the nose, and the capability to mount an MK-108 30mm motor cannon. Even two MG17's and an MG-151/20 is a strong armament, the 20mm HEI shell had the most explosive filler out of any 20mm shell type of the war
>>
>>36086696
Hartmann also had near zero awareness of the big picture, and only flew the G variant with the initially shitty DB605. It was a tricky plane that tried to kill its pilot when mishandled, but the same can be said about every other ww2 warbird...
>>
>>36086731
Mk 108 wasnt suitable for a general purpose gun. Only 60(65?) shells and it was very prone to jamming, with a miserable muzzle velocity of around 550 m/s. It was a pure anti bomber gun.
>>
>>36085686
>>36086535
55 was perhaps the best axis fighter at the time that it was evaluated by the Luftwaffe. Not the best of the war, but it had proven to be superior to the contemporary 109 and 190 models.
>>
>>36086771
You also only needed to hit once or twice with it to absolutely pulverize a fighter sized target. Besides the point, it made the aircraft's armament what I'd consider heavy.
>>
>>36086760

German pilots who tested Spits always commented that they were easier to fly.
>>
>>36086804

Yes. But the frame was also time consuming and more expensive to build than german ones.

It was a perfect ace plane but not a workhorse like 109.
>>
>>36086672
>Range wasnt too bad, on par with Spit

Spit takes 85 galloon of fuel and 109 88. Economic flight in spit consumes 25/h while in 109 55/h. Combat consumption is similar but Spit could stay longer in the air while cruising.
>>
>>36086806
To pulverize something the gun needs to work, have ammo and the fire needs to connect. Bigger isnt alwats better, otherwise 37 mm would have been the standard.

A good cannon with plenty of ammo including the excellent Minengeschoß and two mgs was usually sufficient. Just hitting anything with less than 4 engines was likely to cripple it.
>>
>>36086883
Plus even if it was easier to produce, the Germans couldn’t afford to retool their assembly lines for it at that point in the war. Essentially they painted themselves into a corner by using the 109 for as long as they did, by the time it began showing its age, it was too late to make a serious attempt at replacing it.
>>
The only bad thing about the Mosquito was we didn't have more of them
>>
You are like a little baby
>>
>>36085618
no, rather emphatically not.

it was good early war, especially given the more experienced german pilots in the early stages of the war.

But it had significantly less growth potential than the spit and was decisively outclassed in later marks by the spit.

and thats just comparing it to the one fighter that also saw frontline service 39-45 in the same theater, the later planes, the p47s, the mustang, the tempest and on the german side the fw190 all outclassed it
>>
>>36086678
2 20mm hispanos at a time when the british were standardising on 4 and considered anything less than 2 and 4mgs to be on the light side is still pretty weak.
>>
>>36087497

Plenty of japanese planes also outclassed it.

If Germans had Zeros during BoB they would probably win.
>>
>>36086678
No, 6 .50s were comparable to 3 Hispanos, being that a Hispano was equal to 2 .50 cals, not 3.
>>
>>36086591

This.
>>
>>36087613
in weight perhaps, in terms of effective destructive potential not the case, a hispano weighed twice as much as a .50 but had 3-4 times as much destructive capability, and combat effectiveness.

theres a reason why everyone with effective cannons prefered to use them over heavy mgs for a2a purposes, and why the british tried so hard to get the US to produce more hispanos even when offered browning .50s instead
>>
File: 150406-M-ZZ999-001.jpg (52 KB, 750x422)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
Heh, Nothin personnel ked.
>>
>wasn't even the best Axis fighter by the German's own admission
What has caused the Germaboo's delusion to be so widespread?
>>
>>36087686
On 10 May 1945 over Okinawa, Marine Lieutenant Robert R. Klingman and three other pilots of VMF-312 climbed to intercept a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick") twin-engined heavy fighter flying reconnaissance at 25,000 feet (7,600 m), but the "Nick" began climbing higher. Two of the FG-1D Corsairs ceased their pursuit at 36,000 feet (11,000 m), but Marine Captain Kenneth Reusser and his wingman Klingman continued to 38,000 feet (12,000 m), expending most of their .50 caliber ammunition to lighten their aircraft. Reusser scored hits on the "Nick's" port engine, but ran out of ammunition, and was under fire from the Japanese rear gunner. Klingman lined up for a shot at a distance of 50 feet (15 m) when his guns jammed due to the extreme cold. He approached the "Nick" three times to damage it with his propeller, chopping away at his opponent's rudder, rear cockpit, and right stabilizer. The Toryu spun down to 15,000 feet (4,600 m) where its wings came off. Despite missing five inches (13 cm) from the ends of his propeller blades, running out of fuel and having an aircraft dented and punctured by debris and bullets, Klingman safely guided his Corsair to a deadstick landing. He was awarded the Navy Cross.
>>
File: 150406-M-ZZ999-003.jpg (129 KB, 1401x788)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
>>36087751
Shit forgot the picture
>>
>>36087717
This isn't even wehraboo, this is just a generally unknowledgeable person
>>
Polikarpov is cute! CUTE!
>>
>>36087992
Copied from the US designed Gee Bee racer
>>
File: IMG_2366.jpg (33 KB, 800x533)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
Try again OP
>>
>>
File: Image58[1].jpg (59 KB, 612x426)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
http://www.ianlawrencemodels.com/web%20pics/geebee/Image58.jpg
>>
>>36088080
If only it materialized. I remember seeing a photo of a wartime wooden 1:1 mockup, that's apparently the furthest it got
>>
File: IMG_2367.jpg (92 KB, 736x565)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>36088134
You're right i actually meant this one, it made it into combat
>>
>>36088152
It was a plane that was fantastic in theory, but with it's short flight time it relied on having bomber streams fly over it, and since Komets relied on well maintained airbases to function, and the only way to really get into combat in it was to wait until the bombers fly overhead, well, you get the picture. And it became easy pickings for any vulturing P-51's once it had to glide back to base without fuel. While in powered flight though, it was untouchable by any fighters that would have tried.
>>
>>36086591
>gear design means even Baby Hitler can takeoff/land
>rolls like a slut
>climbs like a jap, dives like an american
>four excellent cannons, gee mom
>do you kids like best cockpit view? This has it
>He's wearing the best damn radial engine
>my mechanics love me
>my factory workers love me
>Mr Brown loves me
>>
>>36087751
Do you really believe that anon?
>>
>>36088377
>Gets outturned by a fucking B-25
>>
File: image.jpg (10 KB, 279x165)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>36088431
Pic related, also
>turnfighting when you have every advantage
ISHYGDDT
>>
>>36088478
>Energyfags think a 50mph difference in speed makes them unshootable from behind somehow
It's not like it fucking blinks out of reality.
>>
File: can opener.jpg (474 KB, 1920x1200)
474 KB
474 KB JPG
the first prop to get close enough to the sound barrier to cause nerds to seriously look into it.
>>
I'll make the argument that during a Total War characteristics like kinematic performance, armament and range are secondary to cost and ease of production, maintenance and support.

Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough about economics and production stats from WWII to make any sort of assessment as to which fighter is best.
>>
File: 1491172306680.png (12 KB, 390x470)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>36087589
>>
File: hv-w1.jpg (46 KB, 800x483)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>36088478
>Energy advantage
Heh.. nothin personnel... kid
>>
without a doubt
>>
>>36088585
It might as well be, considering how important being able to disengage is. A 50mph difference is fucking fast.
>>
File: WW2 Waifu.jpg (77 KB, 480x427)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>36085618
>>
File: 328875_1.jpg (36 KB, 750x487)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
Hai gais
>>
>>36085618
>1 in 10 pilots die in take off or landing.
Yeah, no.
>>
>>36085618
Wouldn't matter since their leaders were either stupid, fat, or god forbid both. durrr lets kep bomb teh kapitul to maek dem sad lol
>>
>>36087589
Zero was obsolete by 1941
>>
File: iur-4.jpg (732 KB, 1280x799)
732 KB
732 KB JPG
Zoom zoom coming through
>>
File: iur-5.jpg (195 KB, 1024x690)
195 KB
195 KB JPG
>>36088967
This plane is awesome
>>
>>36088929
So ~3100 Bf 109's were lost on takeoff? I'd like you to validate this claim kind sir
>>
>>36088585
>50 mp/h
Except when a Fw-190 is easily 90 mp/h faster, accellerates better and also climbs faster than a B-25.
Also having speed means that you dictate engagements, and when speed is relative and you need to get up close to deal killing shots, you standing there as the enemy plane speeds away from you at 50 mp/h and maneuvering, there's not much you can do to try and take them down unless you get a lucky hit somehow.
>>
>>36087751
Why not just slide back the canopy and dick slap them with your 200' long schlong at that point.
>>
>>36088853
>dive once
>I have to go home now
>>
>muh fighters

The best plane of the war was the B-29
>Pressurized
>Untouchable by ground fire
>Barely reachable by fighters
>Ended Japanese shipping with airborne mining
>Burned Tokyo to the ground
>Delivery platform for first generation of atomic bombs
>>
File: stop.gif (333 KB, 289x149)
333 KB
333 KB GIF
>>36088816
>>36088947

Go read how Zeros performed vs Spits mk.V above Australia before acting smug. Or what RAF aces thought after testing them.

4x longer range than anything else at the time, better climb, same armament as 109 E series, better turn than Spitfire and incredibly good visibility.

Zeros were outclassed later because frame couldn't handle powerful engines, but not in BoB time. Being able to escort bombers all over Britain and camp airfields just like Mustangs did to Germans later would cripple RAF.
>>
Logistically:

The B-25. Lancaster a close 2nd.

Workhorse:

Undoubtedly the 109.

Pure balls:

Mustang

Sleeper:

Ju-87 Stuka. But only when Hans Ulrich Rudel was flying it.

Catch me if you can:

Me-262

Runner up's:

Spitfire. 190. Shturmovik. Ki-84/100.
>>
>>36087751
Quoth the rear gunner: "O fuk"
Rear gunner exit.
>>
>>36089880
Zeros were pretty slow compared to spits. That might have caused some problems.
>>
>>36089961
>~60 km/h faster at their respective critical alts
That's significant, but it's not a gamechanger.
>>
>>36089961

This is the conclusion of Wawn and Jackson evaluation of captured A6M3 in 1943:

>'Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20 000 feet…The Spitfire does not possess any outstanding qualifications which permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances.'

In the Darwin campaign RAF lost 30 Spitfires and downed just 3 Zeros.
>>
>>36090015
I don't see it being much of an issue because the Pacific air war was generally fought at lower altitudes than were seen in Europe.
>>
>>36089880
Zeros had to sacrifice armor and self sealing fuel tanks and anything else not critical to flight just to compete with allied fighters.
The range was achieved by some real fucky fuel air mixing at low rpm's and balls skimming the water low altitudes at low speeds.
Make a mistake: your fucked
Engine decides to so much as misfire: your fucked
Get spotted by enemy: unless you got some time, your fucked.
>>
>>36086511
A large number of Bf109 was made because Germany didn't have the money to design new planes.
>>
>>36090015

Are we talking about Model 21 Zeros vs Mk.I Spitfires? Then it's 20mph difference.
>>
>>36090160
I was looking at Mk IIs.
>>
>>36088377
Lets not forget:
1.electric controls (not hydraulic or cable)
2. explosive bolts on canopy in case you need to bail and it's jammed.
3. extremely rugged.

Th D series was by far the best. But yeah, the 190 in general was way ahead of its time and had a development scope far exceeding most if not all other WWII fighter aircraft.
>>
>>36086760
>It was a tricky plane that tried to kill its pilot when mishandled, but the same can be said about every other ww2 warbird...
F4Fs were regarded as extremely forgiving.
>>
>>36090107

You know better than RAF experts with Battle of Britain experience eh?

No armor was a choice because muh japanese honor. That's why they didn't use parachutes either. Later Zeros had armor and self sealing tanks at little performance loss.

Late war Japanese fighters like N1K actually had heavier protection than USN fighters.
>>
>>36088879
Try to bail while out of control in a fast dive... those car-style doors to get in and out of the cockpit will stay shut from air resistance and you're fucked.
>>
Hurricane wins hands down
>>
File: What_the_fuck_is_this.jpg (21 KB, 276x200)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>36090107
>>
File: image.jpg (27 KB, 736x560)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>36090218
>inlines
>suited to air combat
If you ain't air cooled, you ain't shit.
>>
>>36090171

Mk.II was slower than Mk.I
>>
>>36090216

You also can't do a gravity bail with side doors.

Maybe they had a mechanism to remove the entire thing, I'm no cobra expert.
>>
Here's a better question

What was the best ground attacker?
>>
>>36085618
obviously the p-51 was the best, it made more aces than any other fighter
>>
>>36090288
>>36090216

apparently the whole door could be jettisoned with a special lever, so it wasn't an issue.
>>
>>36090319

P-47.
>>
>>36086560
meteor saw action, it shot down v-2s and shit
I think
>>
>>36090321
That's looking at the system dynamics of the war, not the fighter itself.
>>
>>36090186

190's were a shock when they first appeared because they could keep energy like crazy.

Doras were good but they were not better than what Allies had at the time.
>>
>>36090321
Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces
>>
>>36090321

It was also used more than any other Allied fighter. But P-51H probably was the best prop of the war.
>>
>>36090368
"Longnose" is an excellent book about the D series by one of its pilots. It was considered by those that flew it to be equal to or better than most of its opponents above 4000m. Considered faster than the contemporary spitfires in level flight, climb, and dive. Was equal to the mustang in most respects, but was considered to have better acceleration, roll rate, and initial turn rate was considered better before airflow separation occurred. Better than the tempest and thunderbolt in all respects except for a dive.

So while not entirely all-round better than the enemy A/Cs they faced, I'd definitely say they were the best FW190.
>>
>>36090555
>(((longnose)))
>>
>>36090338
P-47 as a ground attacker is a meme. It was credited for way more shit than it really did.

>>36090319
Ju-87 G.
>>
>>36090452
The P-51H had insanely tight packaging. If you've ever seen one in person, it looks positively svelt compared to a 51D, and that's saying something. The engine cowl is very snug. So yeah, it's slippery as fuck. The RR/Packard engine they chose, however, had more or less the same standard HP as the 51D. However, water/alcohol injection could raise it above 2000hp.

Insane plane. But it's a toss-up regarding the best prop of the war. Late corsairs were amazing, with rather similar performance but better ordnance carrying capability, slower stall speed, etc. etc. It's close man, there were some really great props in 45.
>>
File: Focke_Wulf_Ta152.jpg (103 KB, 600x299)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
Everyone go home please, the winner is here
>>
>>36090346
>By war's end, Meteors had accounted for 14 flying bombs.
Unmanned flying bombs are only "action" in the most generous sense.
>>
>>36090209
It gives citations for it's claim or it gets the hose again.
>>
>>36090697
>>36090555
>>36090368
Antons were the perfectly proportioned girl with curves in all the right places. Doras were like her taller, leggier sister. Ta152s were the freak athlete sister with gangly limbs and big feet.
>>
File: 1510739074913.gif (641 KB, 280x210)
641 KB
641 KB GIF
>>36090697
It's too sexy
>>
File: bearcat1.jpg (214 KB, 1417x945)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
>Fashionablylate.png
>>
>>36088422

See

>>36087764
>>
>>36090186
Only flaps, trims and gear were electric. Still much more advanced than the 109
>>
>>36090319
A-26 Invader.
>>36090587
>Ju-87 G.
Overrated and obsolete.Even the IL-2 was better.
>>
>>36088707
Economics wise, its the P-51 again. By far. Much cheaper than Spitfire or P-47, and also performance wise the best propellor driven fighter.

But what about place number 2? It could be the Fw 190 or something Soviet. Yaks were cheap.
>>
>>36090041
M3 is not what the Japanese had in 1940 or 1941. M3 had cut wings for increased rate of roll(and speed) and it had the new supercharger that took space from fuel tanks, heck the Japs didnt even bother installing arresting hook because it didnt have the range for naval operations. Zero 21 or M2 was much slower, and barely managed to beat 1:1 victory ratio against Wildcats.
>>
>>36085716
Hey look, Chino before it got developed
>>
>>36090368
Nah, it was the speed and high speed maneuverability. Combat in the "Channel Front" was mostly hit n run tactics where ground operators guided air formations, there were very few extended fights. Fw 190s in the spring of 1942 achieved victory ratio of over 15:1 and the British had to almost stop flying, and had to remove Hurricanes and early Spits from offensive operations. It already was bad against 109Fs(4:1 in 1941) but the Fw 190 was a new kind of beast
>>
>>36087573
They didn't need heavy cannons, they weren't hunting bombers. multiple machine guns with high rate of fire maximizes the chance of a successful hit even if they don't have the range or stopping power of cannons, which, again, they don't need since they're going up against other fighters at close range.
>>
>>36088431
>Relying on turnfighting instead of energy fighting

What are you a filthy nip monkey?
>>
>>36092911
Nah, the USAF knew the M2 wasnt all that good, but thats what they had and war economy wise it made sense. At least it wasnt a rifle caliber gun, so there never was huge pressure to upgrade. Army, Navy and Army Air Force all used the same gun and while it wasnt the best aircraft gun, it worked and did the job well enough.

USAF's own estimation was that Hispano was about 3,5 times more powerful and accounting for gun and ammo weight, about 2 times, because of energy chemically stored in explosive projectiles mainly. t. anotherfag
>>
>>36090041
And yet the flying tigers performed admirably against Ki-43s, considered to be very similar in performance to the Zero, using P-40 Warhawks... probably because they didn't try to dogfight them, recognizing that it was essentially suicide.

Proper tactics and training makes a huge difference in the air war if you're using inferior aircraft.
>>
>>36085618
[spoiler]The best plane in the entire Luftwaffe[/spoiler]
>>
>>36093038
A captured american one?
>>
>>36093050
You know it, baby.
>>
>>36090207
So was the Hawker Hurricane, IIRC.
>>
File: spit.jpg (84 KB, 660x396)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>36086875
Dunno.
>>
>>36085618
>introduced in the early 30s
>competitive through the war
>>
File: Curtiss_P-40B_41-13297_4.jpg (2.92 MB, 4372x2568)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
Bestest plane checkin' in!
>>
File: La_5_02_large.jpg (560 KB, 1742x1054)
560 KB
560 KB JPG
>>36085618
Best up until about 1941. Then a few contenders came around.

For all of WW2, the La-5 was excellent, as was the P-47 for pure ability to weather damage.

The Corsair was pretty good once the Brits worked out how to make it work from a carrier.
>>
File: Il2_sturmovik.jpg (42 KB, 650x234)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>36090319
>>
>>36092513

Spit mk.V is also not what Brits had during BoB.
>>
Bf109 and Fw190 automatic engine management and ammo counters are witchcraft.
>>
>>36094242
Correct, however the performance difference is larger between the Zeros than the Spitfires. Nevertheless, Spitfire I was also much faster than Zero 21.

M3 finally entered proper serial production as M3a with wing fuel tanks and folding wings only in December 1942. At the same time in Europe, Fw 190 had been at the front for a year and a half and the British had moved on to Spitfire IX.
>>
File: ca4101_box.jpg (64 KB, 700x534)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
best american fighter if you count the kill death ratio
>>
>>36094270

Now compare them to other carrier planes.

If we are talking about fantasy Zeros in BoB they would be lighter and have better performance than CV operating ones. And the game changer is their range not performance.
>>
>>36094270
>At the same time in Europe

Planes with European settings wouldn't even be able to operate in the Pacific.
>>
>>36094281
Not really, the British and the Dutch got their butts handed to them and they had something like 350-ish of them.
>>
>>36094284
>>36094290
Yes, but if you go back the discussion we werent comparing Zero to carrier planes, but indeed Spit, Hurri and the Bf 109.

If we briefly forget the operational range, then compared to carrier planes like P-26, Buffalo, Wildcat or Fulmar, the Zero was very good indeed. But part of why Zero wasnt that good or upgradeable was precisely because the Japs wanted the great range in the first place.
>>
>>36094296

It wasn't good for upgrading because it was a turnfighter with limited high speed capability. When more and more powerful engines started appearing it was left behind.

And Hurricane was far worse than Zero or 109 performance wise and they were the backbone of RAF during Battle of Britain.
>>
>>36094318
Zero was also very expensive to build man hours wise, and the factory lines were primitive. The factory in Nagoya didnt even have railroad connection or airfield until late in the war...

When the BoB begun, there werent more than a dozen Zeros built. Like Bf 109 E-7(that had the droptank) it would not have made it in large enough numbers and IMHO it makes no sense to compare something brand new to what was truly available at the front, like Hurricane. Also those Zeros werent 21s but 11s, and similar to other fighters of the time, could not carry drop tanks.
>>
>>36088592
B-but.
>>
>>36090697
It's like the talyor swift of airplanes
>>
File: 1512687744320.png (519 KB, 750x759)
519 KB
519 KB PNG
>>36087751
>>
>>36086591

As a slavaboo who has a Yak/Lala boner, I think that all things considered (performance, production, impact on the air war, pilot comfiness, etc), I'd have to go with the Anton.
>>
>>36088925
It seems that nobody likes Yaks as much as we do.
>>
>>36095339
Same sovietboner, but I prefer Ta152, because of looks and perfomance. It wasn't influential and all, it's just a cute high-alt fighter,
>>
>>36088422
Actually, soviets have lots of stories of such kind.
>>
>>36085618
>Was this the best ww2 plane?

Spitfire Mk. XIV
>>
>>36095927
It was truly an impressive machine, being able to climb almost vertically – it gave many Luftwaffe pilots the shock of their lives when, having thought they had bounced you from a superior height, they were astonished to find the Mk XIV climbing up to tackle them head-on, throttle wide open![
Peter Brothers, O/C Culmhead Wing in 1944–1945
>>
>>36095707
>do you believe it, anon?
>>
Flt. Lt. Derek Rake of No. 41 Squadron recalled:


It was always comforting to know that the increased power of the Griffon would enable me to turn inside and/or out climb a Bf 109 or Fw 190. We did find, however, that the latest Fw 190D could get away from us by rolling on its back and going vertically downwards. In an attempt to combat this manoeuvre, we were allowed to increase the boost to +21.


Spitfire Mk. XIV
Shot the shit out of anything the Germans put in the air.
>>
>>36096008
>negative kill ratio despite numerical superiorty in the western front

>Shot the shit out of anything the Germans put in the air.
>>
File: jochen.jpg (54 KB, 566x798)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>36096008
Haha no
>>
>Hartmann's last kill occurred over Brno, Czechoslovakia, on 8 May, the last day of the war in Europe. Early that morning, he was ordered to fly a reconnaissance mission and report the position of Soviet forces. Hartmann took off with his wingman at 08:30 and spotted the first Soviet units just 40 kilometres (25 miles) away. Passing over the area, Hartmann saw two Yak-9s performing aerobatics for the Soviet columns. Determined to "spoil the party", Hartmann dove upon the fighters from his vantage point at 12,000 ft (3,700 m) and shot one down from a range of 200 ft (61 m). As he lined up the second fighter, Hartmann noticed a flicker of shiny dots above him coming from the West; they were P-51s. Rather than make a stand and be caught between the Soviets and the Americans, Hartmann and his wingman fled at low level into the pall of smoke that covered Brno.[47] When he landed, Hartmann learned that the Soviet forces were within artillery range of the airfield, so JG 52 destroyed Karaya One, 24 other Bf 109s, and large quantities of ammunition.
>>
>>36094026
>Pure ability to weather damage
IIRC, one P-47 was able to take every round from a 190 and survived.
>>
>>36092911
multiple machine guns increased the chances of a hit, but did not increase the chances of a kill, as far more .50 hits were needed to score a kill relative to the number of 20mm hits needed, the same can be said for the argument that it gave increased 'trigger time' as 4 20mm cannon would produce a kill significantly quicker than 6-8 M2s, there is a reason why every other airforce including the RAF which after 1941 essentially had the same type of targets as the USAAF used cannon over MGs as principle armament.
>>
>>36095969
There are no reasons not to believe it. Though most of the rammers had to ditch the plane and jump
>>
>>36096314
what the hell does this mean?
>so JG 52 destroyed Karaya One, 24 other Bf 109s, and large quantities of ammunition.

So a German plane destroyed Hartmann's plane, 24 of the German's planes and their ammo?
>>
>>36096975
Learn to read properly
>>
>>36096975
they blew their shit up rather than let it be captured
>>
File: 3_87.jpg (82 KB, 1126x369)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
None of you fuckers have listed the P-38 Lightning?

>long range high altitude interceptor
>could also hold 4000 lbs armament or fuel
>Nose mounted gun shoot straight unlike wing mount - 1000 yard range
>4x turbo-superchargers absorb exhaust noise and keep volume down
>only US fighter produced for entire war
>2x1000hp engines counter rotating for max stability
>1300 mile range with fuel tanks
>2 engines meaning one can go down and you still can get home
>easily identifiable shape that prevented friendly fire
>less surface area than a P-47
>had a 20mm cannon that could knock out axis engines in one hit (early model had 37mm but this was overkill)
>shot down Yamamoto, the nips #1 strategist on daring 1000 mile mission
>Nips called it "two planes with one pilot"
>shot down more nips than any other fighter
>used as recon plane for 90% of US aerial recon in europe
>a famous P-38 ace was named Dick Bong who achieved 40 kills, more than any other US pilot
>top speed 420 mph
>2nd best US ace of ww2 was also in a P-38

However it did have weaknesses and that was the shit grade british fuel in the northern europe campaign, and requiring an intelligent operator who could switch the engine from rich to lean and increase rpms before increasing throttle to prepare for dogfights. In spite of this it still had a positive combat record against the Germans. It played a substantial role in the allied victory in the Pacific and North Africa
>>
>>36094899
The Arrow is badass, the two propellers in line and spinning opposite direction negated the rolling effect when accelerating, also a French pilot said him and his wingman tried to engage one of these but it was too fast and left them behind
>>
>>36093057
there are reports of captured p 51's painted in German style dunno if any were recovered though
>>
>>36094978
God damnit, now I’m gonna pop a stiffy every time I look at a 152. Thanks anon.
>>
File: Fw 200.jpg (488 KB, 1214x1600)
488 KB
488 KB JPG
>>36085618
I guess it was the most influential and important WW2 plane, but it wasn't the best, maybe in the beginning, but certainly not at the end.

Nice planes ITT btw, have a Condor
>>
>>36090697
Literally gives me erection.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNTQSbvlutg

THE CADDY OF THE SKIES MOTHER FUCKERS
>>
File: Fw Ta 152.jpg (1.89 MB, 2000x1327)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
>>36086583
>>36090925
>>36090933
>>36090697
>>36094978
>>36097671
Nice high resolution image
>>
>>36097671
>>36097662
>>36094978
So if the 152 is the Taylor Swift of WW2 planes, what are some others equivalent to?
>>
>>36095672
>>36088925

Russian bias.
>>
File: yak3.jpg (113 KB, 1280x1024)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>36099256
It disgusts me but I have really strong feelings whenever I look at a Yak-3
>>
File: p38dam.jpg (18 KB, 718x324)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>36097458
The plane that could survive as long as the pilot wasnt killed
>>
File: SBD Adele.jpg (41 KB, 800x590)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>36097767
>what are some others equivalent to?
>>
>>36099444
P-38 is the Dick Bong of airplanes
>>
>>36099284
I recently learned that prewar the USSR began using a system of routing cooled exhaust gases from the engine back into the fuel tanks, which neutralized the explosive vapors. Pretty neat aircraft design.
>>
That one turret fighter the British used that was absolute dogshit
>>
File: majordickbong.0.0.jpg (138 KB, 1600x900)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>36099507
>>
>>36095927
Dispite it's sleek look the Griffon versions weren't anything impressive at the time. Had a lot of problems and cut away a lot of the spits core advantages for that extra speed.

You can sit in an XIV bubbletop in London raf museum, all the bells and whistles still there.
>>
>>36099256

They are not even good. Literally worse Spitfire that dies above 5km.
>>
>>36100120
>and cut away a lot of the spits core advantages

It really didn't. It turned worse but still better than anything Germans had. It was superior to every 109 and equal at worst to best Doras.
>>
>>36088985
>>
>>36086666
Quads of truth
>>
File: 139148959279.jpg (180 KB, 1280x960)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
>>
File: 1508518204692.jpg (369 KB, 1800x1197)
369 KB
369 KB JPG
>>
File: 1404582856132.jpg (271 KB, 1280x1024)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
>>
File: maxresdefault (5).jpg (96 KB, 1920x1080)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>36085618
P-51 master race

USA #1
>>
>>36100787
Definitely the best at the early stages of the war. Not so much in the later ones.
>>
>>36099444
Thicc
>>36097767
>>36097671
What’s the easiest WW2 plane to beat it to
>>
>>36088985
>>36088967
>>36100694

Indeed, my fine nocturnal gentlemen.
>>
>>36101066

Nips were making much better planes in later stages.
>>
File: Chad and Virgin.png (1.12 MB, 3744x1068)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB PNG
Best and worst ww2 biplanes coming up.
>>
>>36102558
>left was directly responsible for the destruction of the most powerful warship in the Atlantic at the time

I hate this dumb meme.
>>
>>36088967
2spoopy for this world
>>
>>36090321
Really? Figured it would've been a 109
>>
>>36102691
It just crippled the fucking rudder, dumbass, it didn't even finish the fucking job. You're crediting a mosquito for Goliath being eaten by a bear.
>>
File: 090625-F-1234K-159.jpg (321 KB, 2667x2024)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
:fissions aggressively:
>>
>>36102102
Not even a huge fan of the Mustang but if I had to, that would be the one. It’s just curvy enough to do the job.
>>
>>36102880
Without the rudder, Bismarck could not escape back to a port in Europe. Crippling her rudder allowed the home fleet battleships to catch her and sink her. The swordfish was directly responsible for her loss.
>>
File: image.jpg (46 KB, 680x446)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>36090697
MUH DIK
>>
File: P47N-Thunderbolt-Jug.jpg (81 KB, 800x628)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
P-47N all the way.
>>
File: image.jpg (122 KB, 894x894)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
>>
File: image.jpg (92 KB, 900x467)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>
So many wheraboos saying the Ta152s were great fighters pffft I'd agree if they said the doras or the A model 190s but c'mon
>>
File: image.jpg (51 KB, 638x480)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>36094978
>>36097662
That's my planefu you're talking about
>>
File: image.jpg (932 KB, 1175x812)
932 KB
932 KB JPG
>>36103384
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee get out
>>
File: sketch-1511252526825.png (918 KB, 1080x1439)
918 KB
918 KB PNG
>>
File: image.jpg (200 KB, 1200x900)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
Space planes of 1945
>>
File: image.jpg (180 KB, 920x644)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
>>
You're forgetting the P-47M which could outrun the Ta152 at high altitude
>>
File: image.jpg (158 KB, 1319x605)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
What if?...
>>
>>36103483
Only because allied super high octane fuels and hotrodded engine tuning
It was cool but they dropped it for the P-47N for a reason
>>
File: p-47n_640.jpg (57 KB, 640x420)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
The P-47N could still achieve a speed of 466mph (750 or so kmh) at 30000 feet (9144 meters)
>>
File: image.jpg (32 KB, 478x252)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
Sexy
>>
>>36103500

Only for the range basically. The P-47N was very close performance wise, but it carried almost 200 gallons more fuel in its wings.
>>
Which is amazing considering it had nearly double the range of a P-51 without drop tanks
>>
>>36103518
Yeah it was great, still being fair a Ta 152 H-1 built in the summer of 45 would come equipped with a Jumo 213 EB which would make it have 200 more hp and then it could possibly even outperform a P-47M at altitude
>>
>>36103543

But it wasn't, so get rekt.
>>
>>36103524
The P-47M was super fast high up, the P-47N was aswell but it was more reliable and had some key differences to the P-47M
>>
True, though I doubt that the jump 213EB would have been very reliable and probably would have been as temperamental if not more so than the R2800-57(c) of the P-47M
>>
>>36103551
Yeah, just saying though as the P-47N never was in the ETA and assuming the war dragged long enough that it were, that'd be a better comparison
>>
>>36103563
It was nothing crazy, just a further evolution of the Jumo 213 E. The Germans did have crazy hotrod engines, like the late models of the DB603 which would have cooling problems and very short service lives but produced well past 2000 hp
>>
File: P-47N-15-003.jpg (232 KB, 899x553)
232 KB
232 KB JPG
The P-47N was designed specific to meet the requirements for range in the Pacific
>>
>>36085618
By sheer kill numbers and aces that used it it's arguably the best and most effective fighter of WW2.

There were certainly better planes on all sides but the BF109 was competitive right up until the end of the war.
>>
>>36103571

The 47N was designed for the Pacific, the shorter ranged but much more sprightly P-47M was designed specifically for the ETO.

>Max speed: 470-480 mph @ 28,500 ft. Climb, at max. gross weight (including three 75 gallon drop tanks): 4.9 minutes to 15,000 feet at 2,600 rpm (1700 hp).

>Reportedly, the "M" could reach 20,000 feet in 5.7 minutes at military power (2,100 hp @ 2,800 rpm). 20,000 feet in 4.75 minutes in WEP (2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm).

>This is with full internal fuel and ammo. No external stores or drop tanks. In other words, normal load, clean configuration.
>>
If I ever become a multimillionaore, I'll build a flying replica of the Ta 152 H-1 with performance to original design specifications, but at the same time make elements of it more reliable, like the stress prone landing gear
>>
>>36103605
The most common variant, G-6, was outdated mid '44.
>>
>>36103630
It was a really mean bird, which makes me think how well the Ta 152 would have performed with extra high engine settings and engine redesigned for high octane allied fuel.
>>
>>36103668

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike.
>>
>>36103656
Not really outdated, just not at the vanguard of the best planes anymore. It was still a very competent fighter, and it was cheap to produce, just that you needed a good pilot for it to be effective which was counterproductive at that point of the war.
>>
>>36103674
How about conversely if you used lower 100 or 80 something octane fuels and tuned the engines down on the P-47M, and compared it to the performance of the Ta 152
>>
>>36103398
>those thick propeller blades
This better not awaken anything in me.
>>
>>36103500

No, its because of the p-47s massive turbo supercharger. The aircraft was designed around it and always intended as a high altitude fighter.
>>
>>36103776
All of the P-47's had one, only the P-47M was faster than the Ta 152 H-1 because it also had it's engine tuned to maximum performance. The P-47D could hardly compete with the Ta 152 H-1, except in a dive, all of the P-47's had tremendous dive speed
>>
>>36088967
>>36088985
These niggas know.
>>
File: M.C.205V.jpg (137 KB, 1198x778)
137 KB
137 KB JPG
Reminder that the Italians were actually pretty good at making planes. They just couldn't catch up in the engine developement
>>
>>36104019
They really did make some gorgeous designs. Re.2005 is a favorite of mine.
>>
>>36097458
top tier, patrician tastes, anon.
>>
File: 1311319068134.jpg (355 KB, 2194x1055)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>36097458
>dick bong
>>
>>36103804
>because it also had it's engine tuned to maximum performance.

It wasn't that the engine was "tuned" it was a later variant of the engine in the d
>>
>>36096590
That is an exaggeration of a story about Robert S. Johnson that got jumped in a already crippled plane while running back to England.
190 shot a few bursts of 8mm into it, pulled alongside to inspect his damage, pulled back and emptied his remaining ammo with no noticeable effect.
After that the German pulled alongside, saluted and rocked his wings then waved off.
>>
>>36105074
How courtly of the German
>>
>>36105233
Hey, gotta pad those ace kill rates somehow!
Honestly i think the first burst was just meant as a way to persuade him to bail.
Also looking up the story again the burger did spray his .50s at him after the first pass so that might have annoyed Fritz that thought he was going to get a nice easy kill mark by forcing him to bail.
>>
File: German_P-38Lightning.jpg (48 KB, 550x402)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>36104837
>>36099412
>>36097458
No the superior paint job and German piloted p38 is the best
>>
No He 100?
>>
>>36102738
Because it was the 109
>>
>>36100787
Nice fake.
>>
>>36103689
Fuel octane number and "engine tuning" pretty much go hand in hand because higher octane fuel doesnt really have more energy, but it allows running at higher pressures and temperatures without predetonation aka knocking. t anotherfag
>>
>>36088080
MiG-15's larval stage
>>
File: lightning.jpg (83 KB, 993x661)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>36097458
P-38 was the most modern design that came out early enough to make a difference when it counted.
>>
File: p-38fb.jpg (357 KB, 1024x768)
357 KB
357 KB JPG
>>36105763
P-38 had a comparable loss rate to the P-51 while flying against much worse odds
>>
>>36089635
>Engines caught fire all the time initially
>Cost more than harnessing the power of atoms to vaporise a city
>>
>>36090319
Mistel.
>>
>>36104019
one of the biggest problem of italy was the total lack of quality steel for the engine(the few produced was all used for the battleship)
forcing them to run their engine on reduced setting
Italy did have 2000hp radial by 1939 like the Alfa Romeo 135
>>
>>36102403
Definitely, too bad they couldn't really keep the production of planes and pilots up.
>>
>>36106813
Inferior goyim can't keep up with jewish capital
>>
File: 6_Douglas_C-47_(5).jpg (99 KB, 760x603)
99 KB
99 KB JPG
>>36085618
>>
I would say the Me-262 was the best fighter but too little too late. The P-38 was actually quite similar with the twin engine design and nose mounted guns, and available at the american start of the war.
>>
>>36102371
>>36103847
It's just so perfect, like a tougher P-38 with more firepower
>>
>>36109042
No. built: 706
>slower than a gutted pig
>rear nose cone would implode if you went too fast
>many night fighter squadrons had 0 kills
>No turbo's like the p-38
>many pilots continued to fly critically damaged aircraft in the mistaken belief the radar operator was injured and unconscious when he had already bailed out
>only produced 5 aces over thousands of missions
>outclassed by other aircraft entering the war in 1944
>>
>>36109270

If this things had a better designed rear canopy and engines it could have been the SR-71 of WWII
>>
>>36109323
Instead the P-38 did 90% of american aerial recon and only needed one guy to operate it. The P-38 was faster and quieter. The later 1944 versions of the P-38 with the dive flaps could exceed 500 mph in a dive, around 600 mph it would start to bend the frame but could still pull out of the dive with it's hydraulic ailerons. The P-61 couldn't even do 400 mph. It was just the fucked up middle child between the P-38 and the F-89
>>
>>36103656
G6 could hold it's own with a spitfire mk9, a p51D, or a fw190 a8

And by mid 44 they were making g14's, 16's, etc

And the last model of the 109, the k4, was among the best planes in the air period. It had the highest power to weight ratio I've ever heard of in a ww2 plane, at TAKE OFF it was close to .3 hp per lb.

Not to mention the k14 of which only two were build.
>>
>>36096273
Yes it did. By 1944-45 the failure of Germany was all to apparent. If anything there was a lack of German fighters to engage and wat was left of the german airforce was brainwashed children being fired on one way trip rocketplanes in near suicide missions. Neither the 109 or FW would match it at all.
>>
>>36109722
>And the last model of the 109, the k4, was among the best planes in the air period. It had the highest power to weight ratio I've ever heard of in a ww2 plane, at TAKE OFF it was close to .3 hp per lb.
If by some miracle they managed to get fuel to it and a pilot that wasn't a 16yo Hitler Jugend volunteer that had only flown gliders before that might have mattered.
>>
Naturally there are zero 190s and 109s because flying example can be counted with one hands digits, but there also very few Spitfires in Reno air races despite there being plenty of them still flying, and that IMHO says something about the airframe, potential wise. Even Corsair and Tigercat do better. Low wing load or not, that big, thick wing just isnt fast until very high altitudes.

Especially as this year a frigging Yak took the 2nd place, behind the mighty Voodoo. The only Spitfire. a modified IXc, was the slowest of all Unlimited racers and even lost out to a P-40.
>>
>>36109722

The G's and K's had massive torque issues that would literally rip the plane apart if you lost focus for even a second. Not the greatest thing to have to worry about in a light interceptor.
>>
>>36109906
Torque issues ripping the plane apart mid flight? Who told you that?
>>
>>36109933

30% of all 109 losses happened during landing or takeoff, a lot of those were attributed to the excessive torque on the later models causing the plane to go into ground spin, which fucked up the wings. The shitty landing gear don't help either.
>>
File: chaika.jpg (513 KB, 1920x1080)
513 KB
513 KB JPG
>>36087992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEIRSRViSDQ&t=719s
Extremely cute but i-53 is cuter
>>
>>36109906
>>36109933
Engine torque is a big issue with a high power to weight ratio on a single radial engine, the bigger the engine, the worse it handled, especially during take off and landing. P-38 didnt have any engine torque because the counter rotating engines.
>>
>>36086672
>lacking in upgrades
>2x 7.92
>2x 20mm
>fuck it lets slap some fucking 15mm cannons under the wings too
>could also carry bombs
Kys
>>
>>36090207
For a warbird. All fighters were hot planes. Besides, the F4F had a tendency to ground loop.
>>
>>36110016
Can you give source to the 30 %? Usually researchers dont account the fact that Germans recorded damaged planes as losses(at varying % of damage) if the planes could not be returned to service for the next day.

IIRC the 30 % is a myth and during BoB 109 and Spitfire surffered similar "kaputt" loss ratios.

>>36110276
I was speaking about upgrades on the plane, engine and other systems, not field kits.
>>
>>36087751
Why didn't the Jap rear gunner shooter him though?
>>
>>36110276

>only aim true at a specific range that is difficult to determine mid air

Wing mounted guns are a meme. Nose mounted guns were accurate to 1000 yards and wing mounted guns maybe 250. Those extra cannons might as well be dead weight unless the pilot wants to engage well within the range of the bomber's gunners
>>
>>36103490
>literally a coal powered plane in the background.
>>
>>36090209
>No armor was a choice because muh japanese honor
Moreso because they focused EVERYTHING on getting extreme range out of it. Japanese naval aviation doctrine emphasized strike range above all else. Yes, this light weight did end up making the Zero very maneuverable, but that was a secondary benefit.
>>
>>36094026
Brits figuring out how to fly Corsairs from a carrier is a meme.
>>
>>36092529
ever been to planes of fame? is it any good if you have?
>>
>>36110471

Zeros were specifically designed to be turnfighters because of Khalkin Gol experience.

M5 had armor and self sealing tanks yet still outturned every Spitfire.
>>
>>36110564
Yes, that's true, but you're not understanding what I'm saying. The purpose behind the lack of armor and self sealing tanks was the IJN's desire for long range strike out of its carriers. They were under the belief that if a carrier group could launch their fighters before the enemy carriers could, the battle would essentially be decided in their favor. As such, they designed all of their aircraft with the utmost range possible.
>>
>>36105772
Probably attributed to twin engine reliability/redundancy and the fact that mustang pilots were using a bomber escort with an inline engine to strafe ground targets. Lots of losses to groundfire
>>
>>36085686
The romanian iar 80
>>
>>36110043
No
>>
>>36110692
This is true, and the same philosophy can be observed in their other planes, not just fighters. The whole package of fighter, torpedo bomber, dive bomber and naval air patrol had extreme range at all costs, and it only made sense for the last(E13 was perhaps the best floatplane of the war). During the war they tried to listen to pilots and feedback from the field, but in the end old guard of Navy and Army delayed more rational design foci for years.
>>
>>36111511
To be fair to the IJN, their focus on range was not a bad one for their circumstances. The Pacific is full of large empty spaces and airpower is very scary to allow in range of your carriers, ESPECIALLY land based airpower. I'd want that long range both for being able to outrange the enemy as well as being able to fly between the often very widely spaced islands of the Pacific, tango when they get there, and make it back home, even with small leaks. Perhaps they went a bit too far with it, but it's not a bad priority. IJA planes DID have such features as self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor for most of their modern aircraft for the entire war.
>>
>>36111813
The problem is they focused too much on range, the zero had a 1600 mile range but would only go 200 mph. Commercial pilots are only allowed to fly 8 hours a day and they don't even have to dogfight. It's hard to be mentally prepared for combat after flying a plane for several hours. The P-38 had a 1300 mile range and was 75 mph faster
>>
>>36111511
why even have the fuckin aircraft carrier if you are just gonna fly 800 miles to target
>>
>>36112038
You've got things somewhat confused, in this case, because you're not differentiating between range and combat radius. So you have to cut that in half in order to get a reasonable combat radius. 800 miles, or four hours of flight before the fight, then the fight, and then you go back another four hours. While yes, that is substantial, it's not going to substantially hinder a pilot during the fighting portion. One thing to note about these long strikes is that pilots, having exhausted themselves in the fighting, falling asleep at the controls as they fly level over the featureless ocean and ending up nosing into the drink.

No, the real danger is on the return trip home, especially if they're carrier launched. If you launch too late in the day, by the time you return it'll be dark out. At the start of the war, nobody had trained in that, nor was there appropriate equipment to allow for it. This is why the potential third strike on Pearl Harbor never took place. The Japs would have lost a substantial portion of their planes and pilots in the rink if they had tried it. You can launch a strike at dawn, and a strike a few hours later, but you can't be launching long range strikes in the afternoon.
>>
>>36112168
Because you don't have an airbase within 800 miles of the target. Have you ever looked at distances in the Pacific?
>>
>>36112269
idk about you but I hate my fucking life 4 hours into a car trip. I think the americans have the advantage with their faster planes that are more durable and better armed with slightly less range
>>
>>36111813
They didnt have even self sealing tanks but in a minority of planes... Range can make sense but for a naval attack, not so much. They needed to find and track targets at that range too and they rarely managed to exploit it. Reconnaissance and land target bombing(like how they routinely flew from Rabaul to Guadalcanal or Formosa to Manila) excepted.
>>
>>36112269
Also for many planes the best altitude to cruise, fuel mileage wise, was very high. Something like 25k ft for Zero. So 8 hours of breathing oxygen and freezing
>>
File: reeeeeeee.jpg (24 KB, 520x341)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>36112269
You've got things confused faggot
>>
>>36112453
I feel the need to stretch my legs after 4 hours, yeah, but I imagine combat probably is enough of an adrenaline rush to make you forget it. 4 hours shouldn't significantly hinder you. 8 hours? Yeah, you'd be exhausted, but 4 hours should be eminently doable.

>>36112496
Ki-43s had self-sealing fuel tanks, even if they sucked, and they were the IJA's primary fighter of the war.
Zeroes flew OCA missions out of Rabaul to Guadalcanal. Considered to be the edge of their range, but they did fly them. I'm holding in my hand a memoir of a pilot who flew one such sortie.

As for range in naval attack, obviously they're not going to be launching strikes from 800nmi, if the enemy carriers turned around, they wouldn't be able to make it back! However, that's not to say that the range is meaningless. The extra range still lets you launch from farther out. Or it could give you extra time to find exactly where the target is, as ships move quite a lot in the hours since the spotting report that you launched after, so you've got to find exactly where the target for yourself. Or it lets you do both. You get bonus points for using strike aircraft in the scouting role to find the enemy in the first place, in which case the range is very much a great thing. Sadly, the Japs tended to avoid doing that like the plague, but it's still good design!
>>
>>36112743
They werent proper self sealing tanks, it was actually the same method used on G4M and we know how well that worked. Ki-43 was very fragile just like Zero... Though I dont think that ever was the weakest area of either of the two, slow speed was.
>>
>>36112743
Yes, the IJN did rarely used CV attack aircraft for naval search. Their doctrine was to let floatplanes from escorts(thats why Tone and Chikuma with 5 planes each accompanied Kidu Butai) and other dedicated to the task planes do it and reserve attack aircraft for attacking. That was one of the reasons why they lost at Midway.
>>
>>36099563
boulton Paul Defiant.

crappy as a day fighter, did passably as a night fighter until replaced
>>
>>36112772
Nobody had what we think of as "proper" self sealing fuel tanks until the B-26 entered service. Before that point, there were a mix of designs in service across the world with varying degrees of success, but these designs were typically only used on wing tanks with the fuselage ones left bare.
>>
>>36112743
>be 4 hours into flying
>get ambushed
>never see it coming

>>36112808
So the japs were autists while americans were adaptable with multirole planes
>>
>>36113307
It's somewhat difficult to be ambushed in the middle of the open ocean. Not even from a visibility point of view, from the point of view that there's nothing there, so why the fuck are there going to be fighter planes in exactly the right spot to be able to bounce you? There's nothing there for them to defend.

As for your
>>
>>36113307
>>36113425
Whoops, hit send too early. As for your second point point, it's not so much the difference in planes, but in how they used them. The Japanese could have used their dive or torpedo bombers very effectively as scouts, but they didn't do so often, as they wanted to throw knockout punches on the first strike, meaning as many strike aircraft as possible. They felt like diverting planes that could be carrying munitions to scouting was a waste, as it was done by floatplanes launched off platforms other than carriers. The American doctrine felt more comfortable using their dive bombers in that role. Just look at the SBD label their dive bombers had. It stood for Scout Bomber, Douglass, clearly indicating that they were expected and trained for use as scouts. So really, not a difference with the planes so much as it was doctrinal differences.
>>
>>36113425
There's 360 degrees you can attack from. And far less degrees of visibility in a cockpit.
>>
>>36113515
It's like you didn't read the post at all. Could you try rereading it and seeing if that's really all you got from that, because I specifically said that visibility wasn't even going to factor into the consideration.
>>
>>36113307
>be 4 hours into flying
>get ambushed
>never see it coming

This was not the case until years after the original designs had entered production, and newer designs were being introduced that sacrificed said range for self-sealing fuel tanks and armor.
>>
>>36099545
Before WW2 Soviets had the most advanced plane Tech in the world.

Then Stalin killed all of the designers and you ended up with the shit they used during WW2...
>>
>>36113588
I ignored it because it is still a fucking factor you fucktard. There was no radar in the air, you never knew when something was coming unless you saw it. A high percentage of sorties were just patrols trying to find something to shoot at or to discover the enemy fleet. The patroller has a huge advantage over someone flying a long range mission.
>>
File: clusterfuck.jpg (163 KB, 1664x334)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>36113599
Battle of coral sea in 1942 was full of ambushes
>>
>>36113798
But not on flights of tired pilots that had taken off 4 hours earlier as >>36113307
claimed. So all you're saying is that the flight time mattered fuck all and the extra striking range given by the Japanese aircraft designers was not a detriment regarding pilot fatigue during the mission.
>>
>>36113700
>There was no radar in the air, you never knew when something was coming unless you saw it.
That's my point exactly, you fucking idiot. Nobody is going to patrol around a random fucking spot in the ocean. There's a lot of ocean, so if you decide to patrol in any one spot of it, you're probably not going to catch any planes, because they have hundreds of miles in either direction they could go. So no, you're not going to get ambushed in the middle of fucking nowhere, because the odds of such an intercept occurring without radar is fucking NEGLIGIBLE. Apparently, you couldn't fucking understand this.

And no shit, once they start approaching a target that might actually be guarded they'd perk up. They aren't incompetent.
>>
>>36113842
Do you see that the japanese pilots were sent on a second mission right after the first one and got fucked
>>
>>36112038
>zero had a 1600 mile range but would only go 200 mph

This is bullshit. Model 21 had top speed of 330 mph. Which was faster than any other CV based fighter on the planet when Zeros first appeared.
>>
>>36114098
He's talking about cruising speed, anon. Which you'd go at if you were flying that distance, because you need to be very conservative with your fuel if you want to get that far.
>>
>>36114046
Due to heavy cloud cover and shipborne RADAR vectoring the CAP onto the strike force as they approached the US task force. How does this show that having a long combat radius is a bad trait? Are you mentally retarded? Because you keep trying to support the theory with completely unrelated arguments.
>>
>>36113798
Imagine circling a carrier fleet in darkness not knowing if it was even yours. Those pilots were all fucking nuts. Fuck being a carrier pilot.
>>
>>36114137
You win anon I can't defeat your ignorance. Japs won the war with their long range.
>>
>>36114497
You realize that that's not me, nor is whether the focus on range warwinning or not the object of our argument?
>>
>>36114737
Well my point was that fatigued pilots are much less effective combatants
>>
>>36114792
And I fucking told you that any flight group would have been fucked when their opponent had RADAR and could guide defending fighters on to their position despite heavy cloud cover. Fatigure was a nonissue in that instance, since two much larger factors contributed to the strike's failure.
>>
>>36114829
yeah theres probably a better example but they still lost the dogfight after being engaged
>>
>>36114886
Because of two far more significant factors, so we can't even reliably determine that fatigue WAS a significant factor.
>>
>>36114792

Tell that to Mustang pilots idiot.

Remember kids, long range is a bad thing. Obviously Japan lost the war because of long range not USA outproducing them 20:1.
>>
>>36115080
They sacrificed durability and speed for long range and being able to out turn the american fighters. Once americans caught on and stopped getting baited into dogfighting and just did sweeping passes the japs lost their positive kdr.
>>
>>36107412
This.
Churchill even said that the C-47 was one of 5 things that the war couldn't have been won without.
Also, wasn't there a anon here that flew one?
>>
>>36103416
What a girl.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.