Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Side note, thanks for the info about the Mustang.

KTG17 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

No, it doesn't. Or, well, in a very shallow way it does I suppose. The market can give you an indication of what people are willing to pay for, but that doesn't actually give you a picture of what people want, only what they want that is also within their means. As an extreme example, people being unable to buy food does not mean there is not a demand for food, it means that providing food to people at that price level is not profitable. The demand is there, but we'd never know it from the market, because the market is only one indicator of demand, not the absolute arbiter of what people want or not.

You really shouldn't be building a moral system based on capitalism, because capitalism is inherently amoral.

If I produce an item, that no one wants, no one is going to buy it. That itself allows the market to remove unwanted goods. In Communism, there was a ton of waste as factories produced too many goods that no one wanted or became obsolete, but were stuck to the 5 year plan set by the higher powers. Allowing me to create a good and offering to the market, will determine whether the market has any demand for that good. The level of demand sets the price. Those unwanted goods get flushed out and new ones enter it.

BTW I would rather be in a capitalist society than any other. I've been to 32 countries too, so I have seen a few systems.

Starting off, the idea that you understand an entire system because you've been in a country is pretty naïve. I've seen a moose, that doesn't mean I understand it. Capitalism is insane as a moral system because without regulation it creates incentives to lie, cheat, bully and fraud your way to profit. It's perfectly fine on a theoretical level for understanding how markets work, but not even the US bases its morals or ethics on capitalism, because that'd be completely insane. Externalities would blow such a system to pieces instantly.

Further, you're missing my point; I'm not saying that the market doesn't serve as an indicator of whether people want something or not, I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live, which is patently absurd. Your reply didn't even reply to my point, but rather pointed out that the market reduces waste, which wasn't even what we were discussing in the first place.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

The Mustang wasn't introduced until 1942, by which point the Battle of Britain was already over and the Soviets still weren't knocked out and were slowly starting to recover. In the Pacific the F6F Hellcat was the carrier fighter aircraft responsible for the most kills for the US. The P51 was an excellent fighter, but it only got introduced halfway through the war and even then wasn't really the most impactful of the fighters involved.

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

Aye, but then again the Lancaster bomber exists and if I've learnt anything off the US it's that the more ordnance a bomber can carry the better (or toilets, those are good too )

I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

Well yea, but lets be real B-29s outclassed anything in WWII were actually used in two wars, and were the only plane that could drop The Bomb.
(I like the LIberator myself...)

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

Well yea, but lets be real B-29s outclassed anything in WWII were actually used in two wars, and were the only plane that could drop The Bomb.
(I like the LIberator myself...)

Funny story, my grandfather actually helped design the Liberator, and the PBY Catalina (had to bail out of one too on a test flight) while at Consolidated

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

Saying the air frame itself was the reason the Battle of Britain was won is a little disingenuous. Granted, the Spitfire is an amazing fighter, and it played a huge roll. I'd argue that the Dowding System was the more important factor in Britain's victory though. Being able to track German aircraft, and ensure the defending pilots knew where to fly was what won the battle. British pilots could have been flying F-22's, but if they didn't know where the German's were, they couldn't have stopped them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

The Germans had no actual plan nor capacity to invade Britain. The numbers in Sealion were miniscule. She had no real surface navy vs. the 3rd best navy in the world, and one ideally prepared to intervene in a righteously heroic Nelson fashion. Further, the RN and RAF could have pulled back north completely out of range and still been in range of the channel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

No. It started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

Well yea, but lets be real B-29s outclassed anything in WWII were actually used in two wars, and were the only plane that could drop The Bomb.
(I like the LIberator myself...)

Funny story, my grandfather actually helped design the Liberator, and the PBY Catalina (had to bail out of one too on a test flight) while at Consolidated

Awesome.

Lest we forget, the reason the Mustang had a greater range was due to the additional fuel tank, which only ended up there because the engine they ended up using was heavier than the one that it was meant to use.

That engine of course was the Rolls Royce Merlin.

But again this is all down to national bias and what you want the plane for

The best plane of course is the de Havilland Mosquito.

As Göring himself said about the Mosquito

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

No. It started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

If we're playing silly buggers, Frazz, then it began in 1936 when Joe Louis beat Max Schmelling.

The Second Sino-Japanese war is related to the greater worldwide conflict, it is not generally considered the starting point.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Lest we forget, the reason the Mustang had a greater range was due to the additional fuel tank, which only ended up there because the engine they ended up using was heavier than the one that it was meant to use.

That engine of course was the Rolls Royce Merlin.

But again this is all down to national bias and what you want the plane for

The best plane of course is the de Havilland Mosquito.

As Göring himself said about the Mosquito

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Oh now you opened the door. Add in the magnificent Mosquito then I can add in the flying tank. Over 36,000 planes built. You want to stop the Hitlerites? You want to pound the Hun? You gotsta go with the Stormovik. I love this part:

The Il-2 aircraft played a crucial role on the Eastern Front. Joseph Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a particular production factory fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent an angrily worded cable to the factory manager, stating "They are as essential to the Red Army as air and bread."[6] "I demand more machines. This is my final warning!"[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

No. It started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

If we're playing silly buggers, Frazz, then it began in 1936 when Joe Louis beat Max Schmelling.

The Second Sino-Japanese war is related to the greater worldwide conflict, it is not generally considered the starting point.

It is in Asia (that or the invasion of Manchuria).

The IL-2 is not a fighter, but rather a ground attack plane. Yes, it is very good at what it does. Fighters are more geared towards air superiority.

It's a lovely plane though

 skyth wrote:
The IL-2 is not a fighter, but rather a ground attack plane. Yes, it is very good at what it does. Fighters are more geared towards air superiority.

Exactly but someone mentioned the Mosquito, so we saw a hole and flew through it.

The most important fighter of WW2 is the Bf109. The most heavily manufactured fighter plane EVER, remained a competitive front line fighter all the way from the Spanish Civil War through to the the end of WW2 and I think pretty much all the top scoring aces flew 109's. It wasn't on the winning side of course

 djones520 wrote:
Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support.

Britain just never invested in long ranged fighters, other than putting the contract out to North American to make them one. Supermarine had modified and tested a MkIX that was capable of flying to Berlin and back with modifications that could be done on existing aircraft, but it wasn't pursued. Also the MkXIV had a pretty short range but had the weight bearing capacity to potentially carry decent sized drop tanks but as far as I'm aware they never tried (it could carry 1000lbs of bombs, but they only ever fitted a 50 gal slipper tank (~370lbs), compared to the Mustang that was fitting with 125 gal worth of external fuel for long ranged missions. I think the foreign export versions of the Spits also had longer range (from memory, could be wrong on that one) able to cover a large chunk of Germany (though not Berlin, but they would have been able to make Berlin with modifications) but they were mostly not used from bases in England..

Probably because the yanks were doing all the daylight bombing and the poms were the ones getting bombed, they felt more value in keeping the Spit as a defensive fighter. Maybe if the pommies had decided to pursue daylight bombing they might have also pursued longer ranged fighters rather than only pursuing defensive fighters and leaving the long ranged duties to the yanks.

Overall I think there were a lot of important fighters in WW2, the Spit, Hurricane, P40 and Wildcats were all there from the beginning so I think they were all pretty important. I don't know as much about the Russian fighters, but without the Yaks and Lavochkins to wear down the Luftwaffe things might have gone differently in the west. And of course the Zero, 109, 190 and Hayabusas were all important aircraft in their own rights, just not from the winning sides.

I think I grew out of having favourite WW2 fighters as a kid, these days I just like them all, almost all of them were amazing planes in their own rights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In the Pacific the F6F Hellcat was the carrier fighter aircraft responsible for the most kills for the US.

Care to put up a source for that?? Literally all of the reading I've done echoes other users here: that it was the F4U series that holds the most kills, and one of the best kill:loss ratios in aviation history, on top of being one of the top 3 most beautiful aircraft ever to see the skies.

My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

The Corsair had difficulty in landing on carriers from a quick google search. So it was more limited to supporting the Marines from a ground based role whilst the Hellcat was the go to carrier fighter of the Navy.

Claimed (but not confirmed) kills puts the Hellcat victory:losses at 19:1 according to wikipedia.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

Now, I do know/have read of the Corsair's "issues" with carrier deck landings, so the carrier ops thing makes sense. Maybe I am conflating K ratio with volume of kills. . .

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The IL-2 is not a fighter, but rather a ground attack plane. Yes, it is very good at what it does. Fighters are more geared towards air superiority.

Exactly but someone mentioned the Mosquito, so we saw a hole and flew through it.

Are those bullet holes?
No termites

 Frazzled wrote:
Any plane thats big enough to launch an AA missile or drop a guided bomb on an airfield, is a fighter.

No, a fighter fights other planes. Really, it's a plane which is built entirely to fight other planes, if you were to really stretch the definition you could include mixed purpose aircraft, fighter bombers. But it certainly wouldn't include aircraft that float in the sky and drop surface to air missiles.

Hypothetically you could imagine a future where modern day drone like vehicles hang in the sky, and get directed to put guided rounds in to other kinds of aircraft, that could be a new kind of fighter. But we aren't there, and there aren't even any plans to get us there in any real kind of way. And we are 1/6 of the way in to the 21st century, so its pretty safe to say manned fighters will be a major part of at least large chunk of the 21st century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

No disrespect to the Mustang, which could be called the best plane of the war, if we don't include the very limited number jets that showed up very late in the war. But it can't be the most important fighter of the war simply because it wasn't the war until things were already massively in favour of the allies. It's like the guy who comes in off the bench in the third quarter of a game and scores a pile of points, once his team already had a comfortable lead.

The most important fighter of the war could arguably be the Bf 109 because it was a high performing plane that was the mainstay of the German Luftwaffe for the entirety of the war, and served well throughout, argument against is that the Nazis lost. The argument for the Zero is even weaker, because in addition to Japan losing, the Zero fell badly behind in the upgrade race of the war and was a very weak plane by the end. The Spitfire has a fair case, as it won the most important all aircraft battle of the war, served throughout, but arguably was on the smaller scale compared to what happened in the East. The Yak aircraft were made in huge numbers and served reasonably well, and were an important part of winning the war, but the argument against is that they only served reasonably well, and you maybe have to get in to a lot of detail about exactly which Yak you mean.

 sebster wrote:
The Yak aircraft were made in huge numbers and served reasonably well, and were an important part of winning the war, but the argument against is that they only served reasonably well, and you maybe have to get in to a lot of detail about exactly which Yak you mean.

From my understanding the combat Yaks (1, 3 and 9) were all developed from each other, so you could lump them together the same way you lump together Spitfire Marks or the 109 series. Afterall, the Spitfire that flew in the Battle of Britain topped out at around 350mph with a 27L engine, very different aircraft to the late war Spits that reached 450mph with a 37L engine.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

Well, the idea of an occupied Britain is pretty out there, the German planes for invasion over the channel were more than a little far fetched. I mean, consider the scale of works that went in to D-Day, and that was by two countries that already had massive navies at their disposal. The Germans had a much more modest navy, and were running about trying to pinch all the fishing boats they could find to put some troops on.

The real risk of defeat in the Battle of Britain would have been a cease fire. Without a British blockade the war in the East could have gone very differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

20 million dead Chinese and they're so forgotten people don't even count 1937 as the start of fighting...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Saying the air frame itself was the reason the Battle of Britain was won is a little disingenuous. Granted, the Spitfire is an amazing fighter, and it played a huge roll. I'd argue that the Dowding System was the more important factor in Britain's victory though. Being able to track German aircraft, and ensure the defending pilots knew where to fly was what won the battle. British pilots could have been flying F-22's, but if they didn't know where the German's were, they couldn't have stopped them.

That's a good point. You can also to that the general mediocrity of German bombers meaning successful sorties weren't destroying that much stuff. And then on top of that you can add the Germans having to cross the channel, meaning German planes had much less time in the combat area (a situation reversed earlier in the war, which caused the British to have very little impact in the Battle of France (though the Spitfires weren't deployed, iirc), and later in the war, which hampered Allied bombing until longer range planes and continental bases were established).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Britain just never invested in long ranged fighters, other than putting the contract out to North American to make them one. Supermarine had modified and tested a MkIX that was capable of flying to Berlin and back with modifications that could be done on existing aircraft, but it wasn't pursued.

The British were flying at night. So it would have needed to be not just a long range escort, but also a night fighter. Did anyone have those? I kind of suspect the most kills such an escort would have got would have come from crashing in to their own bombers.

The US was flying during the day, so it needed the long range escort. Even then the Mustang did it's amazing work when it decided to screw that escort nonsense, and just went hunting any German silly enough to leave the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The Yak aircraft were made in huge numbers and served reasonably well, and were an important part of winning the war, but the argument against is that they only served reasonably well, and you maybe have to get in to a lot of detail about exactly which Yak you mean.

From my understanding the combat Yaks (1, 3 and 9) were all developed from each other, so you could lump them together the same way you lump together Spitfire Marks or the 109 series. Afterall, the Spitfire that flew in the Battle of Britain topped out at around 350mph with a 27L engine, very different aircraft to the late war Spits that reached 450mph with a 37L engine.

That's a fair point. It also possibly raises a point about upgrades over the course of the war, and how it affected performance. The Spitfire and the Bf 109 are often compared, but generally only in terms of the Battle of Britain. Both planes undertook extensive upgrades, and at different times in the war held performance advantages over each other. But maybe that's getting more in to 'best' plane of the war rather than 'most important'.

20 million dead Chinese and they're so forgotten people don't even count 1937 as the start of fighting...

Well I noted it anyway...

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

Interesting note per Wiki:

Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.[7][Note 2] This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.[9] Postwar, the Hellcat was phased out of front line service but remained in service as late as 1954 as a night fighter.

Statistically the Corsair was a better aircraft, but as noted, the Navy preferred the Hellcat initially as it was better for landings. The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem. Later in the war the Navy started using corsairs heavily as well once that was fixed.

Interestingly in the plans for the leadup to Downfall, Nimitz planned to sortie the carrier fleets to Japanese waters, armed only with fighters. The plan was to draw out enemy aircraft and curb stomp them with the Blue Blanket.

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Britain just never invested in long ranged fighters, other than putting the contract out to North American to make them one. Supermarine had modified and tested a MkIX that was capable of flying to Berlin and back with modifications that could be done on existing aircraft, but it wasn't pursued.

The British were flying at night. So it would have needed to be not just a long range escort, but also a night fighter. Did anyone have those? I kind of suspect the most kills such an escort would have got would have come from crashing in to their own bombers.

British bombers didn't have close escorts, but they did find it effective to have night fighters ranging away from the main bomber formations and disrupting enemy night interceptors. That job was typically given to the Mosquito. The Mosquito was a pretty awesome plane in its own right, it could carry a 4000lb bomb deep in to Germany at 300mph and faster while the much much larger B17 on a long range mission could only carry 500lbs more for 4500lbs of bombs cruising at around 200mph (though the B17 could carry 8000lbs on a short range mission). It was a Mosquito that knocked out a Berlin broadcasting station taking Hermann Goring off the air during a radio speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

Interesting note per Wiki:
Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.[7][Note 2] This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.[9] Postwar, the Hellcat was phased out of front line service but remained in service as late as 1954 as a night fighter.

Statistically the Corsair was a better aircraft, but as noted, the Navy preferred the Hellcat initially as it was better for landings. The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem. Later in the war the Navy started using corsairs heavily as well once that was fixed.

Interestingly in the plans for the leadup to Downfall, Nimitz planned to sortie the carrier fleets to Japanese waters, armed only with fighters. The plan was to draw out enemy aircraft and curb stomp them with the Blue Blanket.

From my understanding the Wildcats did most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, if I recall correctly the Japanese were struggling pretty hard by that stage both with lack of well trained pilots and lack of planes. Once the allies started figuring out the Zero was only good at low speed and the Japanese started lacking well trained pilots they didn't have much hope.

Add to that the manufacturing woes, the Zero was the most heavily manufactured Japanese fighter, they only made 11,000 of them. Compare that to the Germans who churned out 35,000 109s and 20,000 190;s, or the British who churned out 23,000 Spitfires and 15,000 Hurricanes, the Soviets who churned out around 35,000 Yaks (-1, -3, -7 and -9) and the Americans who churned out 15,000 Mustangs, 15,000 P47's, 14,000 P40s and around 12,000 Hellcats and 12,000 Corsairs.