What are the top three fighters of WWII?

[kraftwerk1976]

 Hi, all.  Just wondering what you think the three best, overall American fighters of WWII were.  Your opinions can be based on actual Combat Flight Simulator I, II, and/or III play, internet, books, television channels (Discovery Wings, History Channel, etc.)or actual flight/combat time.  I can only go by the CFS game and various facts here and there, but the three I choose are:

P-51 Mustang (need I say more?)
F-4U Corsair (best Pacific Theatre fighter, perhaps?)
P-38 Lightning (destroyed a bunch of targets...Great Pacific Theatre plane)

P-40 Warhawk (Honorable Mention!)

[Hagar]

Hi Kraftwerk. This argument will still be going on long after I've departed this mortal coil. Everyone has their favourites but I think the best all-round land-based fighter of WWII would be the P-51D Mustang. I believe the Hellcat had the best kill ratio of any fighter in WWII, 50% better than the Corsair. Remarkable when you consider that much of this was over the ocean. Legendary RN test pilot Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown probably still holds the world record for the number of different types flown & evaluated, 487 including captured German & Italian aircraft. He was the only Allied pilot to fly the Me 163 & also carried out the first jet landing on an aircraft carrier. I can't find the quote but I heard his favourite WWII fighter was the little Grumman Wildcat.

[james007]

Its all a matter of opinion. You are never going to get a true answer to that question. Every one has different opinion.

According to some sources the Corsair was a better plane than the P51. To me the P51 was the best American plane because it not only dominated the LW but it made such a big difference in that theater. No other plane achieved that honor or made such a difference in that theater.

You can make the same arguament about the Hellcat but I"ll hold on to my opinion.

As for kill ratio the only thing I can tell you is that they are all inflated and not very reliable.  

PS all airforces inflated their achievements and

[RichieB16]

I am shocked that nobody has mentioned the Spitfire-since thats seems to be the overwelming favorite on this board.

My personal favorite of the war is either the P-51D or the P-38, but I would image that the P-47 was probably superior to both in many ways.  

But again, this is all a personal opinion thing-so I guess there is no right answer.  

[Smoke2much]

Hi, all.  Just wondering what you think the three best, overall American fighters of WWII were.

That's why there's no mention of the Spitfire...

[H]

I got hooked into plastic modeling of WW2 acft when I read "The Hurricane Story" (until @9 yrs old, I primarily read midieval stories) and also took particular interest in their characteristics and whatever facts I could glean from WW2 veterans who knew anything about them.
As each of these responses indicates, everyone has their own opinion, including the veterans that flew them. Obviously, each acft is better for certain operations than for others. It may be neat to think about a dogfight between a B-17 and a Heinkel 111 but in reality it would probably be quite boring to an observer. My point is that the P-38 and, especially, the P-47 hit the scene in large numbers sooner than the P-51, were fast for their time but not as manouverable in a dogfight as were many contemporaries -- if they got their guns on you, however -- yet this was true for most! The P-47, in particular, was very durable and could carry a substantial payload; although the P-51 (or even a Spitfire) could definately do the job, I'd agree with many that the P-47 was the better choice for a ground attack -- but I'd certainly vie for the P-51, Spitfire or even a Hurricane (a bit slower but very manueverable) for a tight-in dogfight.
Then you have the fact that many designs would have been more proficient had a better power plant -- or other factors -- been applied to them (the first P-51s did not perform so well with the Allison engine). For some, looks seem more important than performance: good and bad are not necessarily stand alone adjectives when both looks and performance are considered.
My overall opinion is that, when it comes to flight, any operable plane is much better than flapping your arms real fast at 3000 feet without one .

[james007]

Guys I love the Spitfire. It was probably the best Allied fighter in world war two when it came to performance but it never did dominated the LW like the P51 did.

For that reason I did not place it on the top of my list. When evaluating a plane or anything else for that matter you always have to take into account not only its performance the looks but what effect did it had on the subject matter.

In other words the Spitfire impact on the war with the exception of the Battle of Britain was not excetional. Reasons where many. One was its short range. Another reason was the poor tatics chosen by the RAF like the Vicker formation that killed so many poor RAF pilots.

Perhaps the greatest reason was over respect the RAF had the for the LW.

The Americans with their Cowboy mentality of the day had very little fear of the vaunted LW. Its not to say they did

[Hagar]

The Spitfire doesn't come into it. This was the question.

Just wondering what you think the three best, overall American fighters of WWII were.

[Bombardier101]

P-40 is my fave. Go 75 Squadron!

Welcome to the forums, Kraftwerk! The band?

[papa-metro]

I think my answer would be to consider WHICH WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO CARRY OVER TO THE KOREAN CONFLICT... that brings in the p-(nowF)51, AND the Navy original piston CORSAIR.
BTW the '51 actually killed a few MIGS.
papa-metro USAF 1953-57

[waco_jaco]

The Spitfire doesn't come into it. This was the question.

It depends on what you call American fighters, the eagle squadrons used spitfires and hurricanes. Started as RAF units they became regular USAAF units (4FG), and later converted to P-47 and later on to P-51.
If you talk about American fabricated fighters the spitfire does not come into play.

Either way the spitfire was an interceptor while the P-38, P-47 and P-51  are praised as escort fighters, it's like comparing eggs with apples. The P-47 was preferable over the P-51 for ground attacks, but in a dogfight I would choose the P-51.

So the answer varies on what someone defines as the major task(s) of an overall fighter.

[dcunning30]

It's hard to say.  All of these were superior:

Early war:
BF-109 - manuverable but with limited range
Mitsubishi Zero - manuverability, but no armor or ss tanks
Supermarine Spitfire - manuverability, higher celing than BF109
F4 Wildcat - limited manuverability but good firepower and rugged

Late war:
P39 Thunderbolt - can outdive a rock, and rugged and firepower
FW-190 - manuverability
ME-262 - can you say, speed?
P51 Mustang - fast, manuverable, long range
F4U1 Corsair - rugged, firepower, speed
F6F Hellcat - rugged, firepower, speed

Honerable mention
Mosquito - not a fighter, but what a FAST!!! attack plane

[Corsair Freak]

P39 Thunderbolt - can outdive a rock, and rugged and firepower

I'm guessing you mean P-47 Thunderbolt... I doubt the P-39 was rugged... or had good diving characteristics.  ;D

[H]

The Soviet Union made good use of the P-39 Airacobra; a comparitively small plane, it was a bit underpowered but still served in ground attack.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

I'd have to say the Martlet, the Mustang and the Lightning/Thunderbolt....I really can't separate those two...

A highly subjective question indeed!!


A.