Thread 64208479

Which workhorse is the most underrated?

>>64208479 (OP)
The Soviet one, because everyone has heard about British and American WW2 fighter aircraft a billion times but the only Soviet plane you'll ever hear about outside of enthusiast circles is the IL-2

>>64208484
Probably this.
although the Hurricane also served with Soviet Union and was a workhorse.
P-40 was mainly a fighter pilot advanced trainer after 1943 for the Allies.

>>64208484
>soviet plane
>workhorse
don't look up which planes soviet aces were flying

>>64208484
the il-2 was only good for making german aces

>>64208498
Most aces flew domestic Yaks and La-series fighters, with some favouring the airacobra. Is there a gotcha in there or something?

>>64208500
You're telling me a ground attack aircraft wasn't good in a dogfight?

Playing IL2 made me dislike the Hurricane because 30 cals are worthless pea shooters and the P8 compass is horrible to use. Hate this piece of shit and how the bongs just stick it where your feet are instead of just having a simple magnetic compass up where your eyes are supposed to be.

Wildcat is lovely, and wont cry after taking a hit to the radiator like inline crybabies.

>>64208479 (OP)
Where's the fucking Spitfire?

>>64208801
Stupid fucking retard, is the Spitfire UNDERRATED? Fuck off.

>>64209210
you tell him

>>64208479 (OP)
hm
the Hurricane gets glazed a lot nowadays because everyone jumped on the
>DID YOU KNOW THE HURRICANE SHOT DOWN 80% OF THE AIRCRAFT IN THE B O B
without knowing that that's because the Hurricane was the designated bomber harvester

the P-40, sorry to say, was outdated. period.

I'm gonna go with the Wildcat because people still insist the Wildcat was being slaughtered by Zeroes when in fact it was indeed an early-war workhorse for both USN and RN pilots which blunted the Japanese onslaught in that crucial first year of the Pacific war, 1942
the real fact of the matter is that Japanese pilots were vastly more experienced than American pilots with years of combat experience and mission time in China

>US Pilot:
>"Unless you tried to fight a Japanese fighter on his own terms or did something stupid, you were not at a real disadvantage in the Wildcat. He could climb away from you, but you could dive away from him. In the F4F, we were not going to score a kill in every fight, but we never felt that we were at a disadvantage where we were going to lose."

also, people keep saying
>hurr durr Jimmy Thach durr Thach weave
while conveniently forgetting that he did it in an F4F

tactics and training is just as important as technology

>>64208484
>The Soviet one
served only to pad Luftwaffe tallies

>>64208479 (OP)
Your mum

>>64208523
>Most aces flew domestic Yaks and La-series fighters
Until 1942 when most of them that didn't die yet got retrained to fly P-39s and started racking up victories. Kozhedub was the only Soviet top ace to fly a domestic aircraft and given how his Me 262 kill is a fabrication the rest of his career should be viewed with scrutiny as well.

>>64208479 (OP)
Wildcat fucked shit up despite being "worse on paper" than everything else. He gets my vote.

>>64208479 (OP)
If I was to pick of that image I'd say the P40 is most underrated if you ignore the Flying Tigers.
It put in some really decent work not only in Burma but North Africa as well that gets very much overlooked.
>>64208546
That's because you're playing vidya. The P8 in reality was insanely reliable and able to be used anywhere for instance but that won't be reflected in a game.

Fw 190. People do not realize how revolutionary it was for its day and how much of an improvement it was over the me 109. Not to mention rugged, being able to land anywhere with nice wide landing gear.

>>64208546
>gay war 2
Return to the world of flying knights. Back when men were men and planes were balsa wood.

>>64208479 (OP)
Fw 190 because the 109 looks so sexy it distracts people from all the cool stuff in the Focke-Wulff.

>>64209474
this

>>64208546
>F4F
>BnZ that couldn't get up to altitude
There's a reason why it's pilots hated it

>>64208479 (OP)
Yak 3. it was the sole reason why the Luftwaffe wasn’t allowed to operate under 5000m

>>64209796
Uhhh yeah great for the last 12 months of the war

>>64209779
Because they didn't receive the engine update for better avgas, with ADI and high octane avgas it can achieve +1700 hp during take off, that will climb...

>>64209819
This trend already started with the La 5 tho. These are the words of Hans Werner Lerche.

>>64209847
>The La-5's top speed and acceleration were comparable to Luftwaffe fighters at low altitude
Fearsome

>>64209916
As mentioned before there was a reason why Alman pilots weren’t allowed to fly below 5000m. If they were only comparable it wouldn’t have been a problem at all for them, would it?

>>64209947
Soviets had a similar doctrine to the Japanese Army: light air-frames with large engines (see the Ki-44).
Below certain altitude it would be a suicide go against a La-5. And Germany didn't have enough airplanes to fight against not vastly inferior airplane, they were outnumbered like 5:1 by the allies in the 3 theaters they fought.

>>64209947
>pilots weren’t allowed to fly below 5000m
There was no such blanket ban
You're probably thinking about a general German high-altitude fighter doctrine
Why descend to where it's more of an equal fight

>>64209972
>Below certain altitude it would be a suicide go against a La-5
Yes, below 1000 feet where you couldn't safely dive away from the plywood shitrod that couldn't follow you without falling apart in the process.

>>64209976
"The La-5FN, La-7, and Yak-3 were advanced Soviet fighters developed in the latter half of World War II that were superior to German aircraft like the Bf 109 G-6 and Fw 190 A. The La-5FN was an upgraded La-5 with a more powerful engine, while the La-7 and Yak-3 were even more advanced, with the La-7 being a refinement of the La-5FN and the Yak-3 a high-performance tactical fighter. In late 1944, German fighter ace Hermann Graf, fearing the performance of these Soviet fighters, instructed German pilots to avoid combat with Yakovlev fighters lacking a visible radiator below 5,000 meters altitude."
They obviously did. Lerche came to the same conclusion after testing said aircraft
>>64210292
>plywood shitrod that couldn't follow you without falling apart in the process.
Ironic, because that’s what actually happened to Bf 109s during the Battle of Britain when fighting against Spitfires. Regarding the plywood construction:

(...) The Yak-3 made a very good impression on me, particularly the excellent finish of the plywood surface on the wing. It was smaller than the Yak-9 and weighed only 2,500kg fully loaded, which gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 4.5 pounds/HP. You can imagine what that meant for acceleration alone! Another surprising factor was that, despite the small 15m2 wing area, the wing loading was relatively low due to its light weight (...)

Luftwaffe test pilot: Flying captured allied aircraft of World War 2, de H-W. Lerche. Janes (1980).

Luftwaffe Combat Reports (Luftwaffe in Combat 1939-45), de B. Carruthers. Pen & Sword Military (2013).

>>64210292
>Plywood
You mean like the Mosquito? the material isn't the problem but the design and QC. Most problems soviets had with engines were related to making weird things or using French designs, the Shevtsov didn't have those problems because was based on a Wright radial.

>>64209210
Spitfire is a hero plane that gets all the credit. This is about working class planes

>>64209474
I kind of want to agree with you but at the same time I can't think of anyone who doesn't sing its high praises when brought up?
I think you are onto the right idea though and if I was to pick a "workhorse" that tends to go underappreciated I'd actually go with pic related.
She wasn't going to win any awards for performance and she was generally outclassed by similar aircraft when performing a specific role, however as a multirole that could do everything at least competently its a struggle to find anything that could compare.

>>64209779
>F4F
>BnZ
>vs Zeroes
any Allied plane of the era can just head-on pass a Zero and win because of armoured cockpit whereas a Zero folds to a single 20mm shell

^ retarded Warturd player

>>64208479 (OP)
wildcat

>>64208479 (OP)
The Hurricane was less a workhorse and more just what they had in numbers at the time. The Spitfire line rapidly overtook it in production and roles as the war went on.

Wildcats had a 6.9/1 kill ratio in WW2
this is in a different universe to the others with the Hurricane at 0.78/1, couldnt find P40, Yak3 has complete fake kill ratio of 10/1 even though losses make this completely fabricated and went negative

>>64210787
Not really no. The Hurricane gradually became more multirole and ground attack oriented as war went on but she was still pulling service all the way till the end of the war and even got into the occasional scrap with Axis planes as late as 44.

>>64210787
the Hurricane was in use for a surprisingly long time because the RAF lacked planes, it was still useful as a fighter-bomber in the ETO, the Sea Hurricane was much more reliable than the Seafire, and it could at least beat up Ki-27s in India in 1942, and thanks to Jap retardation had at least a fighting chance against Hayabusas and Zeroes IF the pilot had the balls to charge them head-on, which some did

>>64209239
>without knowing that that's because the Hurricane was the designated bomber harvester
well seeing as the point of the whole thing was to keep the Germans from bombing England I'd say that was a pretty important role

>>64210796
>muh 'kill ratio' hurr
fucking videogames are worse than trannyism

>>64210613
Correct the Ju 88 was the Luftwaffe workhorse. Moreso and broader ranging multirole than (on Allied side) either Mosquito or P-38

Later S and T variants of the Ju 88 were stripped down and had uprated engines for high performance

Since it seems like half this thread cant agree: what is a "workhorse"?

Also have to say I feel that the P-39 has the biggest gap between its public perception and how it fared in reality. Yes it was unpopular in US service and wasn't equipped for the high altitude roles that were needed, but its service in low altitude operations was perfectly good.

>>64208500
and ripping up German ground forces.

>>64211964
>biggest gap between its public perception and how it fared in reality
P-47
>every single goddamn article and vidya about it
"amazing fighter-bomber"
>what it did
broke the back of the Luftwaffe during Big Week

>Underrated work horse
>doesn't post picrel

>>64211964
>what is the P-400?
>a P-39 with a zero on its tail

>>64208479 (OP)
Hurricane.
P-40 isn't really that underrated, F4F was shit salvaged by good pilots and tactics and anything soviet that's good on paper is going to be hamstrung by shit fuel and build quality and parts shortages.

>>64211994
Gregs Airplanes sold me on P-47 superiority

>>64212030
Love me some Greg's

>>64210479
>Lerche came to the same conclusion after testing said aircraft
Lerche came to the conclusion that the Yak-3 was superior in low altitude dogfights to both the Bf 109 and Fw 190.
On the La-5FN, while he says its performance under 3000m is noteworthy, both the Bf 109 and Fw 190 are faster at all altitudes using water injection, with the Bf 109 having a tighter turn radius and better climbing performance.
It should be noted that the test results he provides put the La-5FN'ss speed way below the values usually cited elsewhere, and of particular note, below the Fw 190 A-5's speed running at 1.2 ata.

>>64210693
>whereas a Zero folds to a single 20mm shell
Ah, yes! Those 20mm that Americans were known to field in vast numbers throughout the war.
>inb4 you point to some Corsair variant barely produced in triple digits during the war.
The ironic part was the opposite was true with most American fighters getting taken out with a couple Type 99 hits with the biggest limiting factor being the different ballistics between Japanese fighter light and heavy guns and limited ammo.

>>64208546
Playing Secret Weapons Over Normandy made me love the Hurricane. Even when I had the Spitfire unlocked, I still preferred it. It could take a beating and keep chugging along.

>>64212030
>I drank the koolaid

>>64208479 (OP)
The La-7 is the most beautiful aircraft of WW2.

>>64208479 (OP)
As others have pointed out, the La's and Yak's were generally shit and deserve their lesser reputation, so far from underrated. I would swap the Yak for something like the Ki-43 or N1K. Both did pretty well during the war, but the Zero basically took the spotlight everywhere to the point that people still think Japan was purely flying A6M3s for the entire war.

>>64213516
You're right about the Ki-43, it's probably hands down the most underrated workhorse fighter of WW2.

But not the N1K, it came in too late and in numbers too small to really count as a workhorse that did heavy lifting.

It would have been rare for the Homare engine to consistently produce its 2,000 hp rating. The engine used in the A7M test flight must have been perfectly tuned, but it only produced the equivalent of 1,300 hp.

>>64213516
>>64213530
>Ki-43
(don't know about hands down but) Yes the Hayabusa was underrated, somewhat underpowered compared to its competition by 1942 but the plane was an ideal dogfighter and pilot's aircraft, with gradually heavier armament and armor protection it remained at the front lines. Perhaps we could ? say it was IJAAF's workhorse fighter

>>64208479 (OP)
the catalina

>>64212945
>but then i watched Greg's and got better

>>64213530
>But not the N1K, it came in too late and in numbers too small to really count as a workhorse that did heavy lifting.
True, it was good, but can't really be considered a workhorse since it didn't have much time to do the heavy lifting.
>say it was IJAAF's workhorse fighter
For sure the IJAAF's workhorse and like I said, probably the most underrated with how hard every other Japanese fighter was overshadowed by the Zero. I feel like the P-40, F4F, and Hurricane all have some engagement that put them on most people's maps, but for how much work the Ki-43 put in, it really isn't talked about at all.

>>64210479
There is no way nobody ever saw the difference between the Yaks' engine cowlings before its too late. Ive always thought that Yak-3 story is made up bullshit. Made up by whom Im not sure.

>>64213688
>the koolaid gets better the more I watch
checked
He's thorough and makes good arguments but he's got axes to grind and intentionally beats-to-death certain topics, aspects at the expense of (<--intentionally so that viewers minimize/ignore) other just-as-important ones
Also (You) have spent too much time slurping at the 55 gal drum

>>64212777
a battery of 50 cals worked alright too
but yes that's why the British standardised on quad 20mms during and after the war, and most nations switched to 20mms, and even the USN did with the Bearcat
the USAF held out longest insisting that 50 cals were sufficient
>most American fighters getting taken out with a couple Type 99 hits
IF they could hit, yes, virtually all fighters were badly damaged by a couple of solid cannon hits
but one or two shots were sometimes survivable
the Zero however was noted for being particularly fragile to cannon strikes
might be something to do with its fine construction, lack of armour, lack of self-sealing tanks, wing tanks...

>>64211964
P-39 problem is that it was sold as a high altitude interceptor where it was just completely incapable at that role. It was considered so bad that there are even stories of pilots deliberately crashing theirs in the Pacific so they would get P-38's as a replacement. It didn't do that well with the Brits either whose entire reaction to being sold the P-39 was "You told me this is a high altitude interceptor, where the fuck is the supercharger on the engine?"
The only salvage to its reputation was indeed that it was good at low altitude in the Eastern Front but arguably there were a few aircraft that could do the same. It really was that it had something known as "build quality" which was an alien concept to the Soviets.
So although a workhorse that does get overlooked its reputation I feel is justified.

>>64213955
Soviets sometimes used it at high altitude too, I think even Hartmann recalls an encounter with P-39 formation at over 6000 m. Soviets liked to strip away the wing guns which surely helped with the performance.

>>64212777
>Ah, yes! Those 20mm that Americans were known to field in vast numbers throughout the war.
P38 had a cannon and supposedly did pretty well in the pacific.

>>64212814
>Playing Secret Weapons Over Normandy

kittyhawk most thetres of battle.
most kills too as well as loses.

LOL lmao
not as bad as navy hellcats but hell cats are faster but can't out turn a p40 kitty hawk

idk hell cat and p40 are close with price profromance.

hawker hurricane idk that plane felt meh to me.
it wasn't good but not bad either
the only good thing about hawker hurricane is it had ejection seats.

none of the other planes had them.

as for Yak 9
it was horriable machice slow and air intakes too small.
horriable climb rate and only meh rate of turn
it could of been better the frame wasn't bad it was the weak engine that let it down.

just my two cents.
so kitty hawk it is. because its a very good all round plane.
the others are not ment for all round profromce.

but like anon said it was retired because it lacked range. that was why the hell cat replaced it.
and why the cosiar replaced both hellcat and p40

turns out range is king in battle field tactics.

I am starting to wonder how much plane opinions are colored these days by vidya like Slav Thunder?

CR.42bros, rise up.

>>64213881
I think it's more to differentiate them from early variants that were plagued by engine problems, poor pilots and just the general state of 41-42 USSR on top of not being stellar designs to begin with, than from the more common Yak-9s. Contemporary Yak-9s weren't that much behind the Yak-3, so the points about the latter still apply to the former.
>>64213929
>the USAF held out longest insisting that 50 cals were sufficient
They weren't wrong, at least not during the war. .50 cals were more than capable of taking down enemy fighters and they didn't really have to worry about bombers.
>the Zero however was noted for being particularly fragile to cannon strikes
>might be something to do with its fine construction, lack of armour, lack of self-sealing tanks, wing tanks...
90% of that "as late war planes got better and better armored" spiel comes down to having self-sealing fuel tanks and sandwiching the pilot between an armored seat and an armored windshield. A Japanese plane having those was about as durable as any other fighter that had them.

>>64214645
>comes down to having self-sealing fuel tanks and sandwiching the pilot between an armored seat and an armored windshield. A Japanese plane having those was about as durable as any other fighter that had them
quite right
the problem is that the A6M in particular didn't begin to get protection upgrades until 1943
it took the Japs 1 year to start rethinking the unprotected GOTTAGOFAST doctrine
whereas both the RAF and Luftwaffe quickly began rolling out armour upgrades shortly after the fall of France, though not in time for the BoB iirc

>at least not during the war
right again
but not postwar. it shouldn't have taken them all the way until the Super Sabre to start using 20mms

>>64214668
>it took the Japs 1 year to start rethinking
The carrier fighters of the IJN isn't the same as the rest of the IJN and IJA
The J1N for example (irving 11) was well protected even for a late war plane.
All new fighters of the IJA and updated models after early 1942 had Self Sealing fuel tanks and armor (see Ki-44, later models of the Ki-43, Ki-84, Ki-61s, heavy fighters). That is, the IJA was fielding fighters with better protection just half a year after Pearl Harbor, that is comparable to other countries even if it's not the first.

>>64212735
> with the Bf 109 having a tighter turn radius and better climbing performance.
He didn’t say that tho, the BF 109 was honestly a dogshit turnfighter and Lavochkins were very well know for it. Regarding climb performance, the La 5FN was also superior to the 109 and 190 till around 3000-5000m

>>64209267
>given how his Me 262 kill is a fabrication the rest of his career should be viewed with scrutiny as well
I have bad news for you about every ace ever then

>>64214734
>He didn’t say that tho
>The La-5 is best suited to low-altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 8-190 and 8-109 (using emergency power). The 8-109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and best climb rate. Acceleration is probably comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than that of the 8-109. Turning times at ground level are better than those of the 8-190 and worse than those of the 8-109. In best rate of climb, the 8-190 is poorer until 3000 m (9840 ft).

>>64210479
Now you're just making it obvious you're a tankie

>>64208479 (OP)
Of those 4?
The kitty.
Of the entire war?
The Catalina.

>>64215345
>catalina
>underrated
Its the most famous flying boat of the war, if not history

>>64209239
>I'm gonna go with the Wildcat because people still insist the Wildcat was being slaughtered by Zeroes
I blame the history channel for that
As cool as I found shit like Battle 360 when I was much younger I can't watch any of those shows now because they are filled with so much stupid fuddlore (especially the tank shit- holy fuck are those specials so fucking retarded sounding, spending 2/3s of the time talking about how the Sherman was going to get it's teeth kicked in and was a death trap, only for the Americans to win basically just because).
The Wildcat was honestly a fine plane for it's time, and like you said the US disadvantage was experience difference. This is further backed up by how, as the war went on, losses didn't just flip in the US' favor, but went on a exponential curve as greener and greener Japanese pilots had to face better trained US pilots in superior planes while themselves often still being in upgraded old models.

>>64208479 (OP)
D.XXIs slaughtered soviets over Finland and the dutch almost singlehandedly halved the Luftwaffe transport fleet with them
might not have been glamorous or large scale service, these ponies proved their worth

>>64216133
>This is further backed up by how, as the war went on, losses didn't just flip in the US' favor, but went on a exponential curve as greener and greener Japanese pilots had to face better trained US pilots in superior planes while themselves often still being in upgraded old models.
Multiple factors changing simultaneously does the exact opposite of proving any one factor's significance.

>>64208479 (OP)
A-29 super tucano

>>64214790
there's fog of war fuckery and myths and then there's soviet fan fiction

>>64216190
>Multiple factors changing simultaneously does the exact opposite of proving any one factor's significance.
That's his exact point.

>>64214668
>it took the Japs 1 year to start rethinking the unprotected GOTTAGOFAST doctrine
It was maneuverability and range they were set on. Focus on speed was on the other side of the Pacific where they were developing the Corsair and Skyrocket. Real GOTTAGOFAST was how quickly it was developed with the requirements it had.

>>64215345
>>64216077
Yes the PBY is one of the greatest 'workhorse' aircraft of the 20th century.
But it's not a fighter plane

Of the entire war (World War II)? Ju 52/3m

>>64208479 (OP)
Honorable mention: Dauntless

>>64208479 (OP)
The Thunderbolt

>>64209239
>the P-40, sorry to say, was outdated. period
P-40 pilots in New Guinea, fighting Oscars and Zeroes, felt the P-40 was "a fine combat plane" (read Bergerud's Fire in the Sky).

>>64209779
F4F's supercharger could get it higher than a Zero, but a zoom climb was needed; the Zero could hang on it's prop better.

>>64209239
>the P-40, sorry to say, was outdated. period.
Not really, at least for medium and low altitude, by 42 it could be boosted to 1500-1600 hp, then 1800 and ~2000 with overboost. Bongs were using it at +70" Hg during winter, that is around 2000 hp, that's a monster

>>64213886
Greg bring the receipts.
You bring "nuh uh!"

>>64210693
Your armoured cockpit ain't stopping 20mm shell, even then shitty Japanese one

>>64218106
Greg is an airline pilot with opinions.
idgaf about everything he says, and years prior to his channel I owned every single maintenance and performance test manual he cites along with a larger aviation and engineering library than his.

>>64218124
>I owned every single maintenance and performance test manual he cites
Maybe you should read them.

>>64218127
You just killed him

>>64218127
>>64218133
>videogamerairsoftlarper Greg knobgobblers 'm-maybe you should read them'
Greg's entire channel is from a pilot p.o.v.
Not everything about military aviation (in World War II or otherwise) is about piloting let alone historical cherrypick-re-examination of 70-year old technical manual reports.

>>64208479 (OP)
The Hurricane is the very definition of the underrated workhorse.
>simple, inexpensive, and time-proven construction methods and materials
>easy to repair
>could be shipped in crates and assembled in the field
>no nasty habits
>received sensible upgrades at sensible intervals
>was there from start to finish
>still gets shit on because "it wasn't as gud as the spitfire hur dur
Spitfire was the plane that the UK wanted, but the Hurricane was the plane that they needed.

>>64211964
It was shit. It had shit performance, shit armament, and shit flight characteristics. The US gave them to the Russians because American pilots wouldn't fly them and the UK and Aussies preferred being short on planes to having Cobras. They were that bad.
>but the russians loved them
That says a lot about just how shitty the Russian planes were, vidya game performance notwithstanding. "Better than the Russian equivalent", in the context of military aircraft, was only a compliment for about a 20 year period during the 20th century, and even that was only possible with British assistance.

>>64218292
before i entered this thread i thought the hurricane should be the winner, but after looking a bit further into it i've come to appreciate the wildcat as perhaps the greatest unsung hero

>>64218314
>the wildcat
It was important in 1942 (remember for the United States the Pacific War began in January of that year) and part of 1943 in the southwest Pacific but after that the Hellcat, and Corsair (from land bases) supplanted it.
the General Motors/Eastern FM-1 and FM-2 were kept in production for use from smaller 'jeep' (escort) carriers as antisubmarine mission fighters in the Atlantic. It was simply 'kept in production' after 1943 otherwise would have been forgotten. (In my opinion all Wildcat F4F / FM should have halted totally after 1943 but General Motors had their gov-authorized contracts)

>>64218146
You still haven't brought anything to the table to challenge Greg's perspective except that hes a pilot (okay) and that you've totally read everything he cites and he's wrong (dude trust me)

>>64218427
Go ahead and point-by-point airplane-by-airplane bring up the assertions, specifically and we'll discuss each separately in detail.
otherwise stfu

>>64211964
>>64218292
>P-39 / P-400
it's an interesting plane in the 1942 outset of Pacific war as it was one of the only ones readily available for the USAAF and regional allies in that theater.
the P-51 Allison-engined (same as Airacobra) ought have been sooner adopted by USAAF and could have entirely replaced both P-39 and P-40 on fighter aerial combat front lines.

>>64213690
>for how much work the Ki-43 put in

Yes, see ----- >>64213645

>>64208500
>>64211977
>>64213281
the Il-2 was World War II's Sherman tank of the skies

>>64208801
>Where's the fucking Spitfire

>>64218483
The topic that kicked this off was the P-47. Given that Greg's largest soapbox regarding it was that it was far more capable of performing long-range escort missions than European Allied commanders permitted it, that would seem a good place to start.

>>64216163
>D.XXIs
Several of the lesser-known and 'obsolete' types (not just fighter planes either) with much small air forces were workhorses, and reasonably successful considering the odds and circumstances, combat/logistical conditions.

>>64214088
checked, unfortunately (for the planet Earth) the entire internet is populated with videogame- and YouTubechannel-addled brainlets pontificating about World War Ii and its weaponry
many such cases

>>64218542
I think OP was looking for B Team nominations.
I nominate the British Drop Tank. Apparently the US didn't like them but they were available in England and made lost of impossible things possible.

>>64218743
*lots

>>64208523
>>64209267
>[U.S.S.R.] some favouring the airacobra
What-who were the highest scoring VVS pilots flying the P-39? (air-to-air scores during the time they flew it)
My understanding is that they kept flying them until the end, also the P-63

>>64210479
>>64212735
>>64213881
>>64215168

Carruthers is *not* at all a reliable reference, Lerche somewhat more so (but is an 'impressions of flying' memoir not combat data)
As mentioned many of the pilot (this doesn't just apply to Axis aircrew, either) combat reports may be the result of mis-identification of the aircraft which is particularly of importance with the post-1941 VVS fighter planes that were highly similar in external appearance/configuration

>fog of war fuckery
Most of World War II air combat reports are.
From any side Axis or Allies. All any one can do is read and re-read multiple (<--if they even exist) reports and surviving data about the same incident and try to sift out the 'best' or 'most accurate' variant of what actually occurred.
Same goes, obviously, for the claimed/"confirmed" victories (by any side's aviators)

>>64209544
>Fw 190
checked, the F and G models replaced the Stuka

>>64208479 (OP)
tactics>equipment
the Wildcat was a slow "hunk of shit" that couldnt turn or climb, but one week of getting shot up by zeroes and reflecting on their retardation had them dunking on the japanese years before the turkey shoot

>>64216163
Is there a single plane that didn't do well against the soviets?

>>64218797
after everything i heard about the wildcat being shit, i was absolutely stunned to see it's final combat record

>>64218797
>tactics>equipment
Exactly the F4F (during crucial 1942-1943 in the Pacific at least for the Allies) is a perfect example of this.

>>64218806
It depends on the specific location operational theatre. And logistics/training etc. therein

Comparing the number of lost aircrafts and pilots from official reports from both countries is informative, but the language barrier remains high.

>>64218808
I mean even ignoring the effectiveness of US tactics, the Wildcat is a good plane. Zero bad habits, very durable, stable shooting platform, four 50 cals trumps any number of 30 cals, great cockpits layout, just good. Landing gear is 100% manual which sucks I suppose

>>64218743
>OP was looking for B Team nominations
Sure and many itt are derailing from that.

>British [glue-impregnated kraft paper] Drop Tank
Leave it to the inventors of the Mosquito, these tanks had wooden internal slosh baffles and were constructed and shaped over wooden forms.

>>64218837
>Wildcat
>good plane
>very durable
>stable shooting platform
>four 50 cals trumps any number of 30 cals
>great cockpit layout
Underpowered (esp. the later bloat-variants)
yes it's good/serviceable but there's only so much that can be done with the template

>>64218837
not being able to turn as well as a zero isn't much of a failure, i got hoodwinked by some pithy one liners that concluded that it was slow and clunky, but it was far more capable than i was led to believe

>>64218880
>capable
It's simply the tactics>equipment that the anon upthread mentioned. You take what you have, and maximize its strong points while not giving in to the enemy (equipment) strengths
In the case of the A6M, that strength is turning and maneuverability (and the Zero's weakness was armor protection and airframe robustness)

Since the F4Fs were unable to participate in the escort mission to Rabaul, which was full of hardships, I have the impression that they had an easier time in the air defense battles over Guadalcanal.

>>64218073
>(read Bergerud's Fire in the Sky)
I need to get around to reading that, Parshall highly reccomends it

>>64218892
I think this is true of a lot of the F4F / FM combat assignments. They were relegated to specific roles (such as Guadalcanal air defense, later in Atlantic mainly as ASW combat escorts) that were advantageous to the plane's best engineering and performance characteristics or at least those that could be maximized for those tasks at hand. 'Most suited' tool is what you have in hand, don't abuse or waste it for jobs that aren't appropriate (get another tool for that)

>>64218717
The stuff about P-47's operating under Kenney is quite interesting

>>64218109
Japs aren't always going to be landing that shitty 20mm shell though before six 50 cals / eight 303 Brownings cut through the flimsy Zero / Nate like a knife through butter
it's a matter of probabilities

>>64219069
A lot of it (dogfight-wise) is who gets the jump or fires first

>>64218356
>In my opinion all Wildcat F4F / FM should have halted totally after 1943
bongs needed them
unless you're saying these Wildcats were superfluous to British requirements

>>64218773
>read and re-read multiple (<--if they even exist) reports and surviving data about the same incident and try to sift out the 'best' or 'most accurate' variant of what actually occurred
aka research

>>64218837
I'm the guy saying Wildcats are underrated, but
>four 50 cals trumps any number of 30 cals
no

>>64219077
>bongs needed them
checked, for what?
they had Hellcat Mk I and Corsair (<--which Fleet Air Arm operated from carrier decks years earlier than USN)
as mentioned in my post you quoted the F4F after 1943 was kept in production (by General Motors as the FM-1 and -2) for second-line roles, aka not front line air combat

>research
Yes, that's why printed books by scholars (researchers) of the topic by authors such as for example Christopher Shores, Hans Ring and others are authoritative

>>64218865
>esp. the later bloat-variants
folding wings were super worth it, almost doubling a carrier wing size and the late war wildcats matched the performance of the early variants using more powerful engines.

>>64219093
>for what?
Martlets for their carriers
although Wildcats couldn't defeat any German fighter better than the 109G6, they were still useful for everything else
>they had Hellcat Mk I and Corsair
not enough of them yet
>for second-line roles
still very useful
the British used them to protect convoys and assist in strafing and bombing Uboats
during the Tirpitz attack, escort carriers provided the carrier CAP for the fleet, and employed Wildcats; Corsairs were flown for the strike CAP
down to the last week of the war they were dogfighting 109s in Norway

Wildcats were especially useful here because being smaller (and IINM having shorter take off needs) more could be stuffed into British escort carriers, compared to Corsairs

>>64219110
>matched
Maybe but their performance wasn't improved. Just a bloatplane.
Should've been scrapped after 1943 all production put into F6Fs until the F8F was ready
Yes obviously: the lower-performing FM-2 would have been less of a learning curve for many pilots than more powerful fighters. That's the reason why many forces (not just U.S. Navy or allies) kept some of the earlier pre-war aircraft designes in use and production, they needed second-line combat planes or airframes that were easier to fly and train on.

>folding wings
Yes that was one of Grumman's specialties and made their product invaluable during World War II

>>64218865
My favorite anecdote of the Wildcat was that it had no "never exceed"-speed, due to a combination of being somewhat chunky and sturdy it would never reach it, not even in a dive

>>64219128
>Should've been scrapped after 1943 all production put into F6Fs until the F8F was ready
They did, for US. They kept making them for the bongs and backup carriers because they already had the production lines set up.

>>64218773
again, there's lies, there's statistics and there's soviet claims. they'd claim a plane that failed on every mission was their primary ace maker, if the soviets declare something then it's most likely the very opposite of that has occured.

>>64219074
This was the thinking behind the race to up-armour fighters in the ETO; would also apply in the PTO. if you're both unarmoured, and both have roughly equivalent planes:
>you jump enemy, or enemy jumps you
it's up to pilot aiming; one well-aimed pass and you're toast
>you both are aware of each other, and you dogfight
it's up to pilot manoeuvring skill or deflection shooting

however, if your fighter is armoured, and the enemy's isn't:
>enemy jumps you
you stand a good chance of taking it on the seat armour, and either running for home, or dogfighting the enemy
>you jump enemy
if you don't hit, you can try to escape / reposition and even if the enemy hits you, you might survive
>you both are aware of each other, and you dogfight
you have the option, EVEN IF the enemy is more agile, of turning to face the enemy head-on
you can force a duel of armour and guns with an advantage; you have armour, the other guy doesn't; you can take a few hits on the chin but he can't
this option is particularly important fighting the Zero / Nate, since the Allied machine-guns effectively outranged the underpowered Jap 20mm, and you might even have De Wilde incendiary ammo or Hispano 20mm which gives you an even greater edge

even if you get hit by a 20mm, it might not kill your plane outright. the rear armour might absorb some of the hit and leave you merely wounded, not dead. the shell might blow up an empty fuel tank and leave you with a crater in the fuselage you can fall through, instead of the entire plane in flames. you stand a slim chance, of getting home or converting, which you don't have without protection. it's slim but

>>64219126
>wall of text
Sorry, not convincing.

>more could be stuffed into escort carriers
That is the sole 'justification' for the F4F after 1943. Meanwhile same carriers were packed to the gills with gigantic TBFs/TBMs, and F6Fs don't take up hardly any more deck or hangar space per-plane, than an F4F: perhaps the difference of 1 or 2 ?? fighters out of two dozen

>OAL F4F = 28 ft 9 in , F6F = 33 ft 7 in
>Span (unfolded) F4F = 38 ft , F6F = 42 ft 10 in
>Height F4F = 11 ft 10 in , F6F = 13 ft 1 in

each Hellcat airplane is about 5 ft longer, 1 ft higher than a Wildcat
it's a marginal size/deck-hangar storage difference (but apparently military contractor corporations and Navy procurement of the mid-war thus deemed it 'justifiable' to keep an obsolete design in series production)

>>64219139
Allies did that stuff as well.
Part of warfare, and total war, is constant propaganda and deliberate mis-information to deceive the enemy.
Ideology and adherence to it compartmentalizes (You)r thinking (also a primary psychological charateristic of cults)

>>64219149
>measurements
I said
>compared to Corsairs

>F4F vs F6F
it takes significant time to shift and ramp up production even if the F4F and F6F shares many common components, the escort fleets' need for aircraft was insatiable

Operating large, heavy aircraft requires speed, flight deck length, catapult capacity, etc.
Even when landing, it's difficult to lower a heavy aircraft onto the narrow deck of an escort carrier.

>>64219158
>Corsairs
the Royal Navy clipped wingtips of their F4U-1s so they would fit below decks.
(aside from the folded wingspan/height) F4U was never a suitable carrier fighter, we've discussed this on recent /k/ threads. Even the Fleet Air Arm, which was the first to adopt and deploy it on carrier decks, had problems with landing (would rip out arrester wires) and on-deck handling, the airplane had a shitty forward view from-cockpit for obvious reasons. No wonder the USN didn't fully approve it for carrier deck deployment until almost Jan 1945

>dimensions
the F4U Corsair was same length 33 ft 8 in as the F6F Hellcat, and at 14 ft 9 in almost two feet taller than the F6F Hellcat. They were similar mass except the F4U had higher gross weight.

>>64219164
>difficult to lower a heavy aircraft onto the narrow deck of an escort carrier
Yet TBF and TBM Avengers did that successfully across the Atlantic and Pacific for three years

>>64219134
>production lines
Eastern Aircraft was producing the TBM ('M' for General Motors/Eastern) Avenger after 1942, and Grumman abandoned all other type production in Bethpage to concentrate solely on F6F Hellcat output.
I've never found a clear explanation in historical references for why the FM-1 and FM-2 were even built by GM/Eastern. Avengers overall were far more crucial to and needed in the Allied war effort than were Wildcats. (and as mentioned, Grumman was now pumping out F6Fs full-time)

>>64219168
leaving aside the other issues,
>so they would fit below decks
IIRC the Illustrious class never operated Corsairs because they still couldn't fit; and operated the Cat family all the way to VJ Day
I might be wrong; I'm operating off memory. I'll need to hunt up my reference books for confirmation

for the escort carriers however mainly it seems the F4F was used because it could be churned out faster
switching the line to Hellcats takes time

>>64219220
>Avengers overall were far more crucial to and needed in the Allied war effort than were Wildcats
both were needed; escort carriers need CAP too
>Grumman was now pumping out F6Fs full-time
if you could be so kind as to give us annual production rates for both F4Fs and F6Fs, it would be useful

>>64219227
>annual production rates
My point (of post you quoted) is that,
production of major Grumman types was totally handed over to Eastern Aircraft/General Motors after 1942 for *strategic logistical* reasons (remember, during WWII the major manufacturers were effectively state-owned industries). Thus it was probably a gov-level State Policy decision in a time of War.
Given that a State Policy decision was made, and that the F6F was a central part of that decision (Hellcat production for remainder of the war would be Bethpage's sole output) and it already did exist, if ? Eastern was going to license-produce Grumman fighter aircraft *in addition to* their Avenger bombers then: why wasn't Eastern tasked with also building F6F Hellcats (for even more F6F goodness than solely out of Bethpage)? It's the latest and best performing, most effective naval fighter. Why go back to churning out an obsolete F4F design, when you're re-tooling for new output anyway (Avenger bombers) over at Eastern/GM.
(For context, the also-then-new F4U Corsair was outsource-produced by not just Vought but also Brewster and Goodyear)

>>64219241
it's not clear from your posts, but was the F4F line shifted, or was it the same line? regardless of the company in charge

>>64219267
(You) not only need to carefully read my posts but also educate (You)rself on World War II aviation and industrial history.

The F4F Wildcat was one of Grumman's airplanes that was handed over for production to Eastern Aircraft, a subsidiary of General Motors.
General Motors is an automobile manufacturer.
Its subsidiary Eastern AIrcraft was created in January 1942. All major United States automobile manufacturers and their existing subsidiaries were commandeered for war production (of engines, tanks, aircraft, artillery/small arms, ammunition, components) by the federal government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Aircraft_Division

Grumman stopped manufacturing its F4F Wildcat in early 1943, Eastern had begun Wildcat production in September 1942 (<--apparently ?? this might be a reason they never switched to F6F) and began Avenger production in November 1942.
Presumably ? from all the references I've ever been able to find, both the TBM and FM-1/ FM-2 were seen, strategically and-or logistically (probably ?? by gov war industrial planners) as a 'team' of aircraft types to fill out escort carrier decks and hangars for anti-submarine warfare, all produced by Eastern Aircraft/GM. As it turned out Eastern output "nearly three quarters of the total number of Wildcat and Avenger aircraft produced during the Second World War" (<--sources differ on the exact Eastern numerical output of each type particularly the earlier FM-1 model of Wildcat)

>>64219300
(You) need to climb down off that high horse, take your head out of your ass, and then fuck off

>>64219303
(You) need to Shut The Fuck Up and go back to plebbit, mr. BTFO

>>64219154
>le both sides
again, you're so full of shit you're like a concentrated gutter, tankie scumbag.

soviet claims are literally the opposite of reality and always have been.

>>64208546

That's why the Hurricane had a Direction Indicator you fucking dingus.

https://youtu.be/EeWw5VkL_R8?t=425

The P-8 was a very effective compass that was perfect for complex course following (not something you ever do in IL2). It is meant for head down navigation (or being used by a navigator like in the Mosquito) and setting the direction indicator for the quick course indication on the instrument panel your walnut brain wants.

Later British aircraft also had a smaller and more simple repeater compass (with an adjustable course line like the P-8) on the instrument panel.

>>64214415
I don't think she was underrated. Most people concede she was an excellent biplane for the 30's. The problem was this was the 40's and she was hopelessly obsolete and what you could realistically expect. If I was to pick an Ital underrated workhorse I'd go with pic related. To oversimplify she was the Ital equivalent of the Hurricane and the plane they used the most. Still managed to give a good showing despite being outclassed later in the war.
>>64218806
Probably a paper airplane but against Soviets I wouldn't be too confident in saying yes?

>>64219451
>she was an excellent biplane for the 30's
1931 and 1939 are vastly different eras in aeronautics, though
the CR.42 is a definite match for say the F3F but it's three crucial years behind
>she was the Ital equivalent of the Hurricane
period-wise, yep
and the Hurricane was significantly better

>>64219360
>'literally'
Fuck off back to plebbit Brainlet

>>64219462
>1931 and 1939 are vastly different eras in aeronautics, though
>the CR.42 is a definite match for say the F3F but it's three crucial years behind
That's basically my point. If she came out in the mid 30's like the F3F or Gladiator she'd been great. She came out in 1939 which was Jesus Christ what were they smoking tier?

>>64219508
yep, I agree completely

>>64219508
>>64219512
the years 1935-1939 were of extremely rapid in aeronautical powerplants and technology.
The years 1940-42 were even more accelerated advancements

>>64219545
>rapid in
*rapid advancements in

>>64219545
Ive heard people sum it up with "Italy blew its load in 1935 R&D, leaving them with no ability to keep up after 1938" when it came to aircraft

>>64219545
yup
my favourite example is that the Blenheim was developed and beat the Gladiator before the Gladiator was introduced; the Hurricane then beat the Blenheim within the year; and the Spitfire then beat the Hurricane about 5 months after
>why Blenheim
because a bomber which can outrun a fighter is a hell of a thing; just ask de Havilland

>>64219241
Eastern did TBMs and FMs so Grumman could focus on the F6F.
btw no Brewster Corsairs were used in combat because they were subpar.

>>64219220
FMs were improved F4Fs and were more than a match for any opposition by then, and were better for operating from escort carriers.

THREADJACK

Absolute best WW2 Italian fighter?

>>64220667
Define 'best'

>>64220844
This and checked!

>>64220844
as you like
best specs, best trial performance, etc

just not
>ackshuall it's the C200 Saetta because it's the one they could build most of and good enough for government work etc etc

>>64220903
So unicorn it is.
If I was to say its a tie between the Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario and Macchi C.205 Veltro
I am more inclined to give it to the Sagittario as she had a fair bit of scope for improvement and had the best overall performance of them both even if the Veltro was supposedly a bit better to fly. Allied pilots thought highly of these designs as well.

>>64220982
>Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
impressive record according to wiki
>So unicorn it is
yeah, bearing in mind Italy's limited wartime involvement and production, I opened up the field

>>64219128
FM-2 was smaller, in production and the CVE variant would have to make some sacrifices.

>>64208546
>muh vidya
Idiot

>>64221043
Itals could build some rather impressive aircraft when they put their minds to it. They just never were ever going to be in a position to produce them in any meaningful numbers.

>>64220903
>just not [correct answer]
Well, uh, probably that Reggiane paper plane with the DB603?

>>64214790
There's dubious claims and then there's Stalinist dubious claims

>>64224388
That's one sexy looking plane.
>>64224464
To be honest he is kind of right that the C200 Saetta wasn't their best fighter but was one of their best workhorses, it put him some good work in a CAS role.

>>64218109
Just gotta dodge six then they run out of ammo.

>>64208479 (OP)
If the P-40 was the American equivalent of the Hurricane, and the Spitfire was the British equivalent of the Bf-109.... what was the German equivalent of the Hurricane/P-40?

>>64225080
The P-40 was the best fighter the USAAF had in 1940 and it was just a re-engined P-36, kinda a stopgap. And the same applies to 1941 when the P-39 project turned to be a failure and the P-38 was of a different class and still not ready for service.
If you really force to do a comparison then the US didn't have a 'Spitfire' before the P-51. And the bomber mafia was unrelated to the lack of small fighters.

>>64225132
Yep

>>64225080
>German equivalent of the Hurricane
Bf109, duh

The only plane before that would be the Arado 68, and that's more of a Gloster Gladiator

>>64225080
109 before E and he112

>>64225080
Jumo Bf 109s.
>>64225132
>And the same applies to 1941 when the P-39 project turned to be a failure
The P-39 was an improvement over contemporary P-40s in nearly every aspect.

>>64224829
100 rounds per gun wasn't terrible for the Zero's 20mms, the much worse problem was their low velocity
I don't know if they synced it with their MGs. Logically they ought to have if they knew of the problem, but did they?

>>64225331
>I don't know if they synced it with their MGs.
You mean ballisticly?

>>64225346
Yep, ballistically

Good question however. Not all fighters had separate triggers. In fact i think separate triggers were an exception rather than the norm.

>>64225363
From what i can remember, the 7,7mm and the 20mm had really different ballistics so that "walking" on to a target with 7,7 before switching to 20mm was never really a thing. At least i seem to remember this being a critique of the Zero's armament

>>64218806
Even the Brewster Buffalo did well against the Soviets

>>64225870
The difficulty is finding a plane that didn't do well against the Soviets anon.

>>64225703
"walking" the shots onto the target is an expedient that some pilots did but it wastes precious ammo
the proper method of course is to adjust the guns, i.e. synchronise them so that regardless of ballistics they all hit the same beaten zone

The Finns like the P-36 to.

>>64226327
Hmm.. well on paper the Mig 15s that went up against the F-86s and P-80s in Korea were the superior airplane; it was the superior skill of UN Pilots that carried the day

>>64227073
Except for the fact that the F-86 had a radar gunsight so it could you know, hit a target? Nevermind that the cockpit was so cramped in the MiG-15 that the pilots rarely could see where they were going or if someone was behind them.

>>64225331
It was 60 in the earlier Zero models and raised in later variants. Muzzle velocity was also improved to an extent.

>>64225703
Lundstrom mentioned something like this.
>A selector switch on the control stick permitted the machine guns to be fired with the cannons or separately. Common procedure was to open with the machine guns for sighting, then cut in with the 20-millimeters when the bursts were on target.

>>64226393
I thought it was supposedly done to save the cannon.

>wrecks the Italians at Taranto
>noclips through Bismark's flak to score a critical assist
>responsible for sinking the most axis shipping in the European theatre
Swordfish got shit done, people always seem to forget about it.

>>64227380
The swordfish is incredibly famous amongst anyone who isn't an übernormie

>>64208479 (OP)
hurricaine,
p40 was a piece of shit, not even russians liked it and they had trash planes

>>64227364
>Muzzle velocity was also improved to an extent.
in a later model of Zero, I think

>supposedly done to save the cannon
in a stupid way, cause you're still gauging by eye

consider this analogy: you know your 50 cal spotting gun throws its bullets higher than your 120mm tank cannon. so what you do is you walk your spotting gun up to the target, and then give it a bit more elevation to account for the discrepancy, and then let rip with the cannon.
instead of making sure that your 120mm goes the exact same place as your 50 cal.

genius.

>>64227380
>>responsible for sinking the most axis shipping in the European theatre
not true in the slightest, where did you possibly get this idea?

You mean the early used P-40 that were sent to Russia?

The P-40 became good when everyone realized they were running the Allison at like 50% of the boost it could handle

>>64227223
I thought Soviet spies stole the plans for radar gunsights and implemented them on the Mig-15 as well(?) - or maybe that was the Mig-17

>>64227380
>Bismarck
>flak

>>64208479 (OP)
Wildcat hands down. It was planes that came before the F4F that were getting slapped by the Zero, but when the F4F came along it evened the playing field. F4F was the fighter during midway and the turning point of the war. By the time the F6F came around it was fish in a barrel with zeroes.

>>64227364
>Lundstrom mentioned something like this.
Yeah i think The First Team includes a subsection on US vs Jap pilot training, including a part of gunnery. Especially deflection shooting, which the japs sucked at

>>64228813
the Japs had provably poor shooting in general, but Lundstrom glazes the US pilot corps by focusing on the elites and ignoring that the American air arm had expanded so quickly in the previous couple of years that the average US pilot had 3 years in uniform - not flight time, UNIFORM

the Jap pilot corps was small as well. but they had far more training, and combat experience in China

>>64227380
You forget sunk a sub at Narvik with a precision bomb strike at speeds slower than humanly thought possible.
>>64228123
MiG-15's definitely didn't have them in Korea, we know this cause we captured one. MiG-17 supposedly used reverse engineered ones but even that was on later models.

>>64218892
F4F-3, 4 and 5 units in Cactus had a really easy time of it. They received EW of incoming bogeys and always scrambled to very high altitude before bogeys were over Henderson. They were vectored to contacts, made dives and that was all they were good for. With all this advantage they could only break even with New Guinea's fighters. In most other battles the Wildcat didn't hold a candle to the Zero. In the first air battle of the Guadalcanal campaign 10 cats were shot down by Rabaul Zeroes in exchange for just one damaged Zero. Those were Enterprise-based carrier cats piloted by some of the best the USN had at the time. That was the reality of any air engagement where the cats didn't have the altitude drop on their enemy.


The cats also had terrible range and as mentioned couldn't do escort runs even halfway to Rabaul. The allies couldn't make a real air campaign against New Guinea until late 1943 as a result, when auxiliary tank lightnings became available in large numbers.

>>64210693
>any Allied plane of the era can just head-on pass a Zero
absolutely dogshit take my nigga. any good pilot worth his salt knew that head-ons were dumb and avoided them. The Japs in particular.

>>64228813
They had less focus on deflection shots than the USN and the Zero wasn't as well suited for deflection shooting. He put he didn't really push the idea that they were particularly bad.

>>64228853
He had a section on the training/expansion.

>>64231436
>head-ons were dumb and avoided them
all else being equal, certainly
EXCEPT if one has an armoured windshield and the other doesn't
HENCE the emphasis on cockpit protection

>>64231768
yeah, because enemy bullets are absolutely guaranteed to only hit the front cockpit glass, no where else on the plane. and when they do, that glass is 100% bulletproof and absolutely guaranteed to stop them. maybe that's how it works on warthunder or whatever shit you're angling from.

>>64208479 (OP)
Anything that isn't the most famous from each nation really.

>>64231866
it's a known tactic described in histories of the war, dickhead
>absolutely guaranteed
anyone who talks about "guarantees" in war isn't qualified to say a word on it

>>64218749
yeah but the P-63 was limited to use on the eastern front as per the contract and didn't see as much action

Gyro optical sights had just been introduced.
Deflection shooting was not an easy skill to master, which is precisely why Hans Marseille became famous.
However, US aircraft equipped with four or six .50 guns, which had good ballistics, may have had the advantage of placing a barrage of fire at the enemy aircraft's future position.

>>64232129
I wonder why nobody tried 14.5mm aircraft guns. 1 kilometer per second means you don't have to lead your target as much.

>>64232380
>nobody tried 1km/s MG-autocannons
>MG 151/15
>Mauser MG 213
>M61 Vulkan
>A lot of late war autocannons had a MV of 850-1000 m/s
Gyro sights is to reduce the mental complexity of aiming off-axis, something soviets had problems and cheated in their tests to avoid punishment.

>>64232380
>nobody tried 1km/s MG-autocannons
>MG 151/15
>Mauser MG 213
>M61 Vulkan
>A lot of late war autocannons had a MV of 850-1000 m/s
Gyro sights helps to reduce the mental complexity of aiming off-axis regardless the target movement (that n), something soviets had problems and cheated in their tests to avoid punishment.

>>64232380
>14.5mm
it costs big money to build up a big fleet / air force in a boutique calibre
all sides used machine-gun calibres because they were readily available. some spent money and R&D on developing aircraft-specific guns such as the British Hispanos and German MGs, but in a total war how much time and effort can you spend on that sort of thing?

Hurricane

>tfw you'll never fly your all black painted hurri on a moonlit night intruder mission, strafing hun airfields with 4 hispanos.

>>64213690
>really isn't talked about at all.
there's an anime called "The magnificent Kotobuki" showing ki-43s

>>64232380
The juice was just not worth the squeeze, as the Germans would find out with the MG151; you're looking at a gun in the 20mm weight class with terminal effects closer to .50 cal (keep in mind the primary reason .50 cals worked out for the US is they shoved 6 of them in most planes).
>>64233352
>it costs big money to build up a big fleet / air force in a boutique calibre
>but in a total war how much time and effort can you spend on that sort of thing?
Plenty enough apparently, as the US was the weird outlier with their primary aircraft weapon both using a cartridge and being based on a gun that were already in service.

>>64234551
>Plenty enough apparently
Britain and Germany were leaders in aeronautical engineering so it wasn't too difficult for them; besides, the Brits got the Hispano cheaply to mod from
The Japs IMHO mismanaged their limited engineering capacity, AND also based their cannon off... was it a Hotchkiss? Anyway. Whoop de doo the A6M has a cannon. Yamato gunners probably fucking loved the resources spent on that instead of a decent close-in AA gun. Or the IJA artillery arm.
>as the US was the weird outlier with their primary aircraft weapon both using a cartridge and being based on a gun that were already in service
As some anon said, they didn't have an urgent need to counter bombers, and you're right, massing 50 cals is pretty deadly against fighters. They made the right call here to focus on other stuff.

>>64234662
>Britain and Germany were leaders in aeronautical engineering
I don't think there is much merit in such labels, pretty much all major air forces had their moments of ingenuity and bouts of profound retardation and it doesn't closely relate to gun development in any case. Though Germany does have a leg up in that field considering their rearmament, including artillery, had to be done in house.
>The Japs IMHO mismanaged their limited engineering capacity,
Branch rivalry did do a solid favor to her enemies, but within the IJNAS (and the IJAAS for that matter) things were mostly kept sensible.
>AND also based their cannon off... was it a Hotchkiss? Anyway. Whoop de doo the A6M has a cannon.
The type 99s were straight up Oerlikons in Japanese service and their machine guns were all based on proven designs. The navy did have Hotchkiss guns for their surface vessels, but the aircraft gun you're thinking of is essentially an M2 Browning adapted to the Hotchkiss cartridge. The IJAAS followed the idea even more, pretty much all their guns after the rifle caliber Vickers MGs were Brownings scaled up to X caliber, up to and including their 30mm gun. Naturally, absolutely nothing between the Navy and Army guns was interchangeable.
>As some anon said, they didn't have an urgent need to counter bombers
[spoiler]Why yes, I know that anon, he's me.[/spoiler]
But yes, that's another factor in the German, Japanese and to some extent, Soviet air forces opting for larger caliber guns instead of higher velocity guns. Case in point is the MG213, a brilliant gun with exceptional fire rate and muzzle velocity that served as the basis of numerous post-war aircraft guns. It's also a 20mm gun about 50% heavier than the low velocity 30mm MK108 that fits in tiny Bf 109s and absolutely shreds anything it hits. It never never saw wartime service, while its scaled up 50mm sibling was rushed into a few bomber hunter Me 262 variants.

>>64234662
There wasn't a call to focus on other stuff, the US just botched domestic production of the H-S so badly it'd be a Mark 14 torpedo-level legend of failure if the M2 hadn't worked alright.

>>64235049
Such a sexy plane. With all its advantages like easy maintenance and wide overseas deployment, I'm surprised they didn't try to improve it aerodynamically to keep it competitive. Thinner wings, bubble cockpit and cut off fuslage like later mustangs, get rid of that dumb mirror on top causing drag (pilots said it slowed them down by about 5mph), retractable tail wheel, could have easily got an extra 30-40mph out of that airframe never mind giving it a Merlin 60 series.

>>64218717
>>64218920
>>64218483

Kenney brought Lindbergh to train all his guys on tricks of the trade to extend range, there was tons they could do in the p38s and 47s to go further beyond strapping on more bags.

I will say the ETO was a whole different beast when it came to flying escort missions, having enough range was not enough. that why it took both proper range range of the p51 and doctrine to go and mix it up with german fighters before they could confidently try to win air superiority.

in the pacific there would be 1000 carrier planes BTFOing everything before the land based planes even started to operate over japanese airspace.