Favorite world war 2 plane!

[Otohiko]

The Brewster B-239 enjoyed considerable success in the hands of Finnish pilots during WW2.
In the course of its combat career in Finland, the Brewster was credited with 496 enemy aircraft destroyed against the loss of 19 Brewsters, a victory ratio of 26:1.

Hehe... how's that for bad plane?

[Cyanna]

hmm well dammit has anyone any interest in this. I am going with the P 40 warhawk just because it looked cool.


Mr Oni

I was going to say the exact same plane.

It brings back a lot of childhood memories when I used to watch my dad (an airplane nutcase) make and fly model airplanes. He loved the P-40 too. He had a lot of pictures of them lying around our basement. I once made a complex paper model of the P-40 but I lost it when I moved houses.

You gotta love the teeth.

I love those teeth! If you ever get a chance watch Tora Tora Tora you get to see some actual ones fly.

I actually have seen Tora Tora Tora. That was a really good movie. It's older but it's a much better WWII/Pearl Harbor movie than "Pearl Harbor" and more historically accurate.

[Mroni]

I love it. I have never seen pearl harbor the movie it just looked stupid to me.


Mr Oni

[Mroni]

The Brewster B-239 enjoyed considerable success in the hands of Finnish pilots during WW2.
In the course of its combat career in Finland, the Brewster was credited with 496 enemy aircraft destroyed against the loss of 19 Brewsters, a victory ratio of 26:1.

Hehe... how's that for bad plane?

Well against the I-16 it might have been a superior plane! I know with the I 16 the russians gave up trying to dogfight and instead tried to ram the german planes.

Mr Oni

[Otohiko]

Actually, similarly to the Brewster, the I-16 didn't do too bad against the Bf-109. The trick with the I-16 was to force the faster but less manueverable German planes into a close-up, low-speed dogfight. Another note - by the start of the war, the Russians were actively phasing out the I-16 for the LaGG-3 and MiG fighters which were a close match for the germans.

Plus, you have to keep in mind that a Finnish Brewster is not really the same as an American Brewsters. The Finns heavily modified the basic planes they received, making them faster and heavier-armed. So while the B-239 was a poor American plane, it made an excellent Finnish plane, maybe the most successful fighter in the war. It's kinda like the Russians with the P-39 - the Americans didn't like the design at all, but the Russians were in love with it. top Russian ace Pokryshkin flew it for quite a while.

***

I've checked my facts on something today too, and now move to the argument - Germans, I think (and my facts support it), had a technological superiority throughout the war. I know you said that the Bf-109 was a 1935 design - well, so were many other planes considered modern back then. I mean, look at today's most important military planes - the F-15 was designed in the late 60's, F-16 - early 70's, even the famous stealth fighter - in the late 70's and stealth bomber or the F-22 - 1980's. Similarly, the Germans put down a design in 1935 that did not age even by mid-war much. It evolved from a racing plane into a fighter, and as of the start of the war, the Bf-109 still held the world speed record (!). Sure, the Spitfire was a bit more manueverable, but the main reason Bf-109's lost in the Battle of Britain was their limited range - and the fact that the British were fighting for their own homes. In the early war, the Bf-109 proved quite a bit ahead of its' opponents - but it was easily beatable by more skilled or more desperate pilots. I think it lives up to its' nickname - 'Legend'. It was a cadillac in the sky, with things like automatic prop and mixture control and other luxury fixings.
The FW-190 was another step forward, having good performance and a much faster top speed then the allies could throw at it when it entered combat in large numbers by 1942. But, by that time the allies were starting to get a numerical advantage. By 1944, in the battle of Kursk for instance, the Russian airforce outnumbered Luftwaffe on the battlefield by about 30 to 1. You also had things like the P-38 and the P-51 developed that were a match for it later in the war.
Then, you had the final improvement that came too late - the Me-262. Nothing was even close to it. It could be shot down on takeoff or landing, or when loaded with bombs, but once up to speed, it would be near-impossible to shoot it down. It outran the P-38, the fastest allied fighter, by about 100MPH!

So, there you have it. I think what lost the war for the Germans was not a technological lacking of their fighters, but other reasons, including a deficiency of range.

[kthulhu]

Germany lost because they spread out too far, too fast, and had a madman at the helm who insisted on playing general. Had the Axis powers gone slower and held off on Eastern Europe and Britain, they probably could've taken and held the oil fields of North Africa better, and exploited the resources of France and the Netherlands. Russia didn't seem terribly interested in going up against Nazi Germany because of what they were doing, and Britain had signed that false "peace for our times" treaty with the Nazis that they intended to keep, so long as Germany did.

Germany had a lot of technical advantages later in the war (early jet fighters, the first assault rifle, V2 technology) that, if they hadn't run through their military resources so soon, could've played a huge role in allowing them to hold all of Europe, at least, if not more. Had they managed to develop an atomic bomb, it's not a stretch to think that they wouldn't look at placing one on their rockets. Had Germany not been so genocidal, they possibly could've used many of the people they killed in their camps as a ragtag army against the Soviets or British instead.

However, they got cocky and greedy, and ended up succumbing to British determination, American support and weapons technology, and the sheer number of people Russia threw at them, among others.

[§_Akuma_§]

ok, back on topic now.......

"THE ANOLA GAY" 4 LIFE!! hahahha i still cant belive they named an actual plane that ^_^

[Mroni]

Actually, similarly to the Brewster, the I-16 didn't do too bad against the Bf-109. The trick with the I-16 was to force the faster but less manueverable German planes into a close-up, low-speed dogfight. Another note - by the start of the war, the Russians were actively phasing out the I-16 for the LaGG-3 and MiG fighters which were a close match for the germans.

Plus, you have to keep in mind that a Finnish Brewster is not really the same as an American Brewsters. The Finns heavily modified the basic planes they received, making them faster and heavier-armed. So while the B-239 was a poor American plane, it made an excellent Finnish plane, maybe the most successful fighter in the war. It's kinda like the Russians with the P-39 - the Americans didn't like the design at all, but the Russians were in love with it. top Russian ace Pokryshkin flew it for quite a while.

***

I've checked my facts on something today too, and now move to the argument - Germans, I think (and my facts support it), had a technological superiority throughout the war. I know you said that the Bf-109 was a 1935 design - well, so were many other planes considered modern back then. I mean, look at today's most important military planes - the F-15 was designed in the late 60's, F-16 - early 70's, even the famous stealth fighter - in the late 70's and stealth bomber or the F-22 - 1980's. Similarly, the Germans put down a design in 1935 that did not age even by mid-war much. It evolved from a racing plane into a fighter, and as of the start of the war, the Bf-109 still held the world speed record (!). Sure, the Spitfire was a bit more manueverable, but the main reason Bf-109's lost in the Battle of Britain was their limited range - and the fact that the British were fighting for their own homes. In the early war, the Bf-109 proved quite a bit ahead of its' opponents - but it was easily beatable by more skilled or more desperate pilots. I think it lives up to its' nickname - 'Legend'. It was a cadillac in the sky, with things like automatic prop and mixture control and other luxury fixings.
The FW-190 was another step forward, having good performance and a much faster top speed then the allies could throw at it when it entered combat in large numbers by 1942. But, by that time the allies were starting to get a numerical advantage. By 1944, in the battle of Kursk for instance, the Russian airforce outnumbered Luftwaffe on the battlefield by about 30 to 1. You also had things like the P-38 and the P-51 developed that were a match for it later in the war.
Then, you had the final improvement that came too late - the Me-262. Nothing was even close to it. It could be shot down on takeoff or landing, or when loaded with bombs, but once up to speed, it would be near-impossible to shoot it down. It outran the P-38, the fastest allied fighter, by about 100MPH!

So, there you have it. I think what lost the war for the Germans was not a technological lacking of their fighters, but other reasons, including a deficiency of range.

Ok Ok while I agree with the 262 part now we are going to have to battle! there is no way in hell the P 38 was the fastest plane of the war it didnt even come close. The Book I am using is Janes encyclopedia of aviation just to give you a source. The maximum speed for the fastest version of the P 38 was 415 mph. The Me 109 was out of date dude face it! lol The focke wulfe wasnt but they needed more. The war in Russia was fucked the germans were hoping for a quick victory instead they got involved in a war of attrition they couldnt win. So despite their superior technical skills they got thier asses kicked. Btw the P 38 was pre war plane the only one of ours that was produced the entire war. The P 47 was more than a match for the Folke wulfe and also remember that the the top speed of the best planes of the war were all within 20mph(jets excluded) of each other so the advantages had to be in Ceiling and manuveribility. The spitfire btw was 30 mph faster than the Me 109E. Maybe you are confusing the P 38 with the the twin mustang. The twin mustang could fly at 480 mph!

Mr Oni

[Mroni]

ok, back on topic now.......

"THE ANOLA GAY" 4 LIFE!! hahahha i still cant belive they named an actual plane that ^_^

Dude It's the Enola gay. It was the pilots moms name. They only have the fuselage on display at the air and space museum in washington because of stupid political reasons.

Mr Oni

[Otohiko]

Hmm... well, for the Spitfire and Bf-109 stats - I would probably attribute the difference in our stats to the fact that you probly have all the 109's lumped together, same with spitfires.
You gotta keep in mind that there were different versions, and 109's especially went through a massive number of different variants throughout the war. It's the same with all the planes really - you have the LaGG-3 and La-7 which were technically based on the same airframe, but the difference between the two is massive (due to engine, weapons, cockpit upgrades etc.), or the FW-190's A version vs the D version (first used a rotary engine, good low alt performance, second used an in-line engine, was much longer, had good high alt performance).

So, I can believe that a later-version Spitfire was faster than a Bf-109, sure.

Besides, it's really tough to figure out the 'best' plane. There's different stats to go by, and no plane really had the upper hand in all terms. A lot, as I said, depended on the pilot.

***

Another reason I'd name for Germany's defeat - lack of long-range bombers.

***

PS - with Mroni, I don't mind agreeing to disagree - heck, we don't agree on Eva and FLCL too, but it's much better arguing against you that against some ass like Serpico. At least you got your arguments straight.