Military channel, greatest ever fighters

[Kyle Holgate]

Here is what their website had for describing the fighter criteria:

These are the planes that combine fire power, maneuverability, historical significance, sheer esthetics and special design features. Our team puts their picks through the paces, testing out their claims of the Greatest Ever Fighter Planes.

What 10 do you suppose they'll have? In no particular order...

P-51, Mig 15, Zero, F-15. These come immediately to mind but from here on I'm less certain. Me-109? Spitfire? P-47? Maybe the F-4? That's just 8 - I'd need 2 more. Hmm.. LA-5 first Soviet fighter that could meet the FW-190A and ME-109F/G models on at least equal footing. I-16 maybe? First all metal low wing monoplane with retractable gear. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hellcat was in their list either. The Military channel is very US oriented.

I note that they don't list speed or climb rate as a factor in choosing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is what their website had for describing the fighter criteria:

These are the planes that combine fire power, maneuverability, historical significance, sheer esthetics and special design features. Our team puts their picks through the paces, testing out their claims of the Greatest Ever Fighter Planes.

What 10 do you suppose they'll have? In no particular order...

P-51, Mig 15, Zero, F-15. These come immediately to mind but from here on I'm less certain. Me-109? Spitfire? P-47? Maybe the F-4? That's just 8 - I'd need 2 more. Hmm.. LA-5 first Soviet fighter that could meet the FW-190A and ME-109F/G models on at least equal footing. I-16 maybe? First all metal low wing monoplane with retractable gear. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hellcat was in their list either. The Military channel is very US oriented.

I note that they don't list speed or climb rate as a factor in choosing.

Kyle:

I would have expected better from the Military Channel. Oh well it's only TV.:rolleyes:

[Kyle Holgate]

Here is what they actually picked...

1. P-51 Mustang (WW2)
2. Supermarine Spitfire (WW2)
3. Mig-21 Fishbed (Coldwar)
4. F-18 Super Hornet (Modern)
5. Messerchmitt Me-109 (WW2)
6. F-86 Sabre (Korean War)
7. Harrier Jump Jet (Modern)
8. Mitsubishi Zero (WW2)
9. Fokker Triplane (WW1)
10. F-117 Nighthawk (Modern

I was a bit dissapointed - they apparently decided to go with well known aircraft vs ones that actually met their requirements. Why the F-86 and not the Mig-15 for example? I stopped watching when they picked the Nighthawk as a fighter - that lost me right there. :rolleyes:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is what they actually picked...

1. P-51 Mustang (WW2)
2. Supermarine Spitfire (WW2)
3. Mig-21 Fishbed (Coldwar)
4. F-18 Super Hornet (Modern)
5. Messerchmitt Me-109 (WW2)
6. F-86 Sabre (Korean War)
7. Harrier Jump Jet (Modern)
8. Mitsubishi Zero (WW2)
9. Fokker Triplane (WW1)
10. F-117 Nighthawk (Modern

I was a bit dissapointed - they apparently decided to go with well known aircraft vs ones that actually met their requirements. Why the F-86 and not the Mig-15 for example? I stopped watching when they picked the Nighthawk as a fighter - that lost me right there. :rolleyes:

How could they leave the F-15 off? It's never been shot down in combat and has a superb record for a plane its age. I agree about the Mig-15, it was actually a better plane than the Sabre. The Fokker Triplane was actually not very good and was soon replaced by the Fokker D7, a much better plane.

[JMS]

If they had to pick a Soviet aircraft they could have just as well have picked up the Yak-9, a truly multi-role aircraft.

Neither Harrier nor F-117 belong to that list, the F-4 does. If they are going to pick a WW1 plane the Spad 13 or the Bristol fighter will fit better. What's the Super bug claim to fame?

What about the F-22? it's better than all of the others. I-16 for sure.

[Kyle Holgate]

If you look at their criteria for choosing the planes it sheds a little light on things, but not much. They picked maneuverability as a deciding factor which may be why the Zero and triplane made the list. Those were fairly innovative too which also was a factor they mention (new technology). The Harrier maybe deserves a spot, as it was very innovative and changed sea power in that even little navies could have carriers now. I'd give some slack for the Harrier.

The F-117, Super Hornet and DR.1 don't belong on the list at all though IMO. If you want innovative and new for WW1 maybe the Eindecker belongs there? The Hornet shouldn't be there if the F-15 isn't. The F-22 is too new and hasn't been tried in combat (that we know of) yet.

I'm generally OK with the ones they chose other than those above, but I do think they neglected a lot of aircraft that were not so well known. If they put the I-16 on the list they'd have a bunch of people going "huh?"

[Ed Rotondaro]

If they had to pick a Soviet aircraft they could have just as well have picked up the Yak-9, a truly multi-role aircraft.

Neither Harrier nor F-117 belong to that list, the F-4 does. If they are going to pick a WW1 plane the Spad 13 or the Bristol fighter will fit better. What's the Super bug claim to fame?

What about the F-22? it's better than all of the others. I-16 for sure.

JMS:

Probably they should have made lists for various generations of fighters. I would certainly pick a Hellcat or a Corsair over a Zero anyday of the week even with a new pilot.

While I appreciate the esthetics of a Spitfire and the historical signifigance of many of the planes listed, if my life's on the line I want the best performing plane. A P-38 may not be as attractive as a Zero, but it ate them for breakfast during combat.

[Kyle Holgate]

JMS:

Probably they should have made lists for various generations of fighters. I would certainly pick a Hellcat or a Corsair over a Zero anyday of the week even with a new pilot.

While I appreciate the esthetics of a Spitfire and the historical signifigance of many of the planes listed, if my life's on the line I want the best performing plane. A P-38 may not be as attractive as a Zero, but it ate them for breakfast during combat.

The criteria:
These are the planes that combine fire power, maneuverability, historical significance, sheer aesthetics and special design features. Our team puts their picks through the paces, testing out their claims of the Greatest Ever Fighter Planes.

Zero fits the above criteria probably better than the Hellcat, though I'm not sure that a lack of armor is a special design feature. The Hellcat and Corsair were great planes, but nothing ground breaking. The Zero was something special in some ways in that it was a carrier fighter that could best most land and sea based opponents - at least for a while.
Spitfire gets lots of points for looks!

To do our own "best" we'd have to decide on our criteria first - Firepower, Maneuverability, speed, climb rate, dive rate, range maybe... etc. Once that's done you could put "weights" on each. In other words for a fighter perhaps climb rate is generally more important than maneuvrability.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Here is what they actually picked...

1. P-51 Mustang (WW2)
2. Supermarine Spitfire (WW2)
3. Mig-21 Fishbed (Coldwar)
4. F-18 Super Hornet (Modern)
5. Messerchmitt Me-109 (WW2)
6. F-86 Sabre (Korean War)
7. Harrier Jump Jet (Modern)
8. Mitsubishi Zero (WW2)
9. Fokker Triplane (WW1)
10. F-117 Nighthawk (Modern

I was a bit dissapointed - they apparently decided to go with well known aircraft vs ones that actually met their requirements. Why the F-86 and not the Mig-15 for example? I stopped watching when they picked the Nighthawk as a fighter - that lost me right there. :rolleyes:

Hi Guys,

I would agree with the P-51, but the MIG 21? F-117 is not a fighter in the accepted sense as it has no air to air capability. All of those categories shrink in respect with the one that counts, combat effectiveness. I would add the USN Hellcat , the F-4, the F-16 and the F-15 to the list and possibly the Dassault Mirage III.

I don't kniow much about WW I aircraft, but there was a French palne that was the first to carry a synchronized machine gun firing through the propeller arc, definitlely ahead of the curve in firepower.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Guys,

I would agree with the P-51, but the MIG 21? F-117 is not a fighter in the accepted sense as it has no air to air capability. All of those categories shrink in respect with the one that counts, combat effectiveness. I would add the USN Hellcat , the F-4, the F-16 and the F-15 to the list and possibly the Dassault Mirage III.

I don't kniow much about WW I aircraft, but there was a French palne that was the first to carry a synchronized machine gun firing through the propeller arc, definitlely ahead of the curve in firepower.

Combat effectiveness isn't so easy to judge IMO. Take the Hellcat and the Corsair for example - their competition wasn't top notch by any means. Put them in the air war over Europe against the Germans with 109's and FW's and good pilots (1943ish) and they may not have the following they currently have.
The F-15 too hasn't gone up against any top notch foes so do we know how good it really is? Some fighters, like the P-47 and even the Wildcat went up against very capable opponents and proved their worth in my mind. Fighters that went up against poorly trained opponents and won don't impress me as much.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Combat effectiveness isn't so easy to judge IMO. Take the Hellcat and the Corsair for example - their competition wasn't top notch by any means. Put them in the air war over Europe against the Germans with 109's and FW's and good pilots (1943ish) and they may not have the following they currently have.
The F-15 too hasn't gone up against any top notch foes so do we know how good it really is? Some fighters, like the P-47 and even the Wildcat went up against very capable opponents and proved their worth in my mind. Fighters that went up against poorly trained opponents and won don't impress me as much.

Hi Kyle,

I wouldn't disagree in principle except finding such even matches are difficult. The P-47 racked up an exceptional record in WW II, but it was the P-51s longer range that allowed the 8th AF to continue the bombing campaign in addition to shooting many German fighters down giving it in my opinion more combat impact on the outcome of the war. And while the Wildcat held it's own against the Zero, it's effectiveness against a relatively small number of Japanese bombers is what blunted Japanese air efforts at Guadalcanal. A number of German WW II aces that had scores in the hundreds flew against inferior Soviet opponents and planes, but had to be exceptional pilots to survive teheincredible number of sorties flown and sheer number of opponents.

Certainly opens a can of worms. :)

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm good at worm can opening! ;)

War certainly isn't about getting into fair fights, so yeah - they aren't too common. Some of the WW1 battles had pretty equivalent aircraft and pilots and there were a few in WW2. The BOB comes to mind as the "most fair fight" where neither the Spitfire or 109E really topped the other. Some of the battles over France in 1943 were similar, with good aircraft and good pilots facing off. The Soviets had some pretty good pilots but they were fairly few and far between. Soviet aces often got there by surprising Germans that weren't expecting an opponent that was any good. Same thing happened in the Pacific a few times when Hellcats had an unpleasant surprise with encounters with Japanese expert pilots.

[old_pop2000]

Combat effectiveness isn't so easy to judge IMO. Take the Hellcat and the Corsair for example - their competition wasn't top notch by any means. Put them in the air war over Europe against the Germans with 109's and FW's and good pilots (1943ish) and they may not have the following they currently have.


I believe that the Hellcat might have a reasonably good chance against FWs and MEs. In Navy tests, the F6F and F4U could follow every move that an Fw-190A-5 could perform, but the FW could out roll the F6F, out climb it and stay with it in a dive. In zoom climbs, all three were equal.

Best advice for the two US aircraft and their pilots would be to get in close, considering the FW could easily out climb both, use the US planes superior maneuverability. If jumped, simply loop the US planes and the FW would stall or pull a hard turn into the attack, the Fw probably could not stay in the turn.

As for the ME, it had similar problems and could not roll as well as the FW.

[paladin5]

Hi Kyle,

I wouldn't disagree in principle except finding such even matches are difficult. The P-47 racked up an exceptional record in WW II, but it was the P-51s longer range that allowed the 8th AF to continue the bombing campaign in addition to shooting many German fighters down giving it in my opinion more combat impact on the outcome of the war. And while the Wildcat held it's own against the Zero, it's effectiveness against a relatively small number of Japanese bombers is what blunted Japanese air efforts at Guadalcanal. A number of German WW II aces that had scores in the hundreds flew against inferior Soviet opponents and planes, but had to be exceptional pilots to survive teheincredible number of sorties flown and sheer number of opponents.

Certainly opens a can of worms. :)

Keep in mind the Germans (and maybe the Japanese) almost never rotated their top pilots off the front lines unless they were wounded or dead. This combined with their facing inferior Soviet planes early in the war is what led to their insanely high kill numbers. If I remember right (and given that it is 2:00 am that is a little iffy) we often rotated our best pilots back to the states to have them train new pilots. We did this so that the combats veterans could pass some of their hard won combat experience down to the green pilots.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe that the Hellcat might have a reasonably good chance against FWs and MEs. In Navy tests, the F6F and F4U could follow every move that an Fw-190A-5 could perform, but the FW could out roll the F6F, out climb it and stay with it in a dive. In zoom climbs, all three were equal.

Best advice for the two US aircraft and their pilots would be to get in close, considering the FW could easily out climb both, use the US planes superior maneuverability. If jumped, simply loop the US planes and the FW would stall or pull a hard turn into the attack, the Fw probably could not stay in the turn.

As for the ME, it had similar problems and could not roll as well as the FW.

Dennis:

Solid analysis. None of the US planes mentioned would be fighting at a severe disadvantage against any Germna plane save an ME-262.

[JMS]

JMS:

Probably they should have made lists for various generations of fighters. I would certainly pick a Hellcat or a Corsair over a Zero anyday of the week even with a new pilot.

While I appreciate the esthetics of a Spitfire and the historical signifigance of many of the planes listed, if my life's on the line I want the best performing plane. A P-38 may not be as attractive as a Zero, but it ate them for breakfast during combat.

The Zero does have one claim to fame and that is that it was the first naval fighter that outperformed land based contemporary aircraft, even if its reign was brief.

Corsair I would agree as the first carrier based fighter-bomber.

[john964]

Keep in mind the Germans (and maybe the Japanese) almost never rotated their top pilots off the front lines unless the were wounded or dead. This combined with their facing inferior Soviet planes early in the war is what led to their insanely high kill numbers. If I remember right (and given that it is 2:00 am that is a little iffy) we often rotated our best pilots back to the states to have them train new pilots. We did this so that the combats veterans could pass some of their hard won combat experience down to the green pilots.
Also the confermation of victories was much less stringent for Germany and Japan than for the US and UK. IIRC the US and UK used guncamera footage and if they didn't have that or the footage was inconclusive it had to be obseved by at least one other pilot or gunner. They had to observe large chunks of aircraft breaking off or a fire or the plane crashing into the ground. In the IJN/IJA if the pilot made a claim that he shot down a plane it was belived. I don't know what standards Germany had but it was not as rigerous as the US/UK was.

[Mike Malanaphy]

The Zero does have one claim to fame and that is that it was the first naval fighter that outperformed land based contemporary aircraft, even if its reign was brief.

Corsair I would agree as the first carrier based fighter-bomber.

Hi JMS,

Good point. I was also thinking you could argue that the Zero's range also made it the first successful strategic fighter. The BF110 was developed to provide a long range fighter for the Luftwaffe, but it's siae and twin engines put it at a disadvantage against single engine. The Zero's great range allowed the IJN to support air attacks against the Phillipines from Formosa allowing the Shokaku and Zuikaku to be added to the Pearl harbor attack force.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Also the confermation of victories was much less stringent for Germany and Japan than for the US and UK. IIRC the US and UK used guncamera footage and if they didn't have that or the footage was inconclusive it had to be obseved by at least one other pilot or gunner. They had to observe large chunks of aircraft breaking off or a fire or the plane crashing into the ground. In the IJN/IJA if the pilot made a claim that he shot down a plane it was belived. I don't know what standards Germany had but it was not as rigerous as the US/UK was.

John:

Since this is one of the favorite recurring topics (best planes, best pilots) we had discussed this awhile back. Dennis mentioned that Germany's standards for claiming victories were very strict, perhaps more so than even the US or Britain. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Old-Pop). Japan I can believe may have been more lenient. I know that in the book "Samurai", the noted Japanese ace Saburo Sakai mentions that he bought a good 35mm camera to take photos of any plane he wanted to claim.

One thing about aerial victories and planes destroyed is the very heat of combat can confuse even the most experienced pilots. Reading what they claim they shot down and what historians after the war could verify is quite a difference. Usually you could cut the totals in half and be more accurate. The numbers of planes that the IJN supposedly shot down on the opening day of the Guadalcanal campaign makes for amusing reading. Of course the USN pilots exaggerated their totals as well. Not from deliberate deceit, but from the confusion of battle.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi JMS,

Good point. I was also thinking you could argue that the Zero's range also made it the first successful strategic fighter. The BF110 was developed to provide a long range fighter for the Luftwaffe, but it's siae and twin engines put it at a disadvantage against single engine. The Zero's great range allowed the IJN to support air attacks against the Phillipines from Formosa allowing the Shokaku and Zuikaku to be added to the Pearl harbor attack force.

Mike:

In the book "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral", John Lundstrom makes the point that the USN was very cognizant of the superior range of IJN aircraft in general and this influenced Admiral Fletcher's decision as to how long he could linger near Guadalcanal while risking attack from planes based at Buna and Rabaul.

[old_pop2000]

John:

Since this is one of the favorite recurring topics (best planes, best pilots) we had discussed this awhile back. Dennis mentioned that Germany's standards for claiming victories were very strict, perhaps more so than even the US or Britain. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Old-Pop). Japan I can believe may have been more lenient. I know that in the book "Samurai", the noted Japanese ace Saburo Sakai mentions that he bought a good 35mm camera to take photos of any plane he wanted to claim.

One thing about aerial victories and planes destroyed is the very heat of combat can confuse even the most experienced pilots. Reading what they claim they shot down and what historians after the war could verify is quite a difference. Usually you could cut the totals in half and be more accurate. The numbers of planes that the IJN supposedly shot down on the opening day of the Guadalcanal campaign makes for amusing reading. Of course the USN pilots exaggerated their totals as well. Not from deliberate deceit, but from the confusion of battle.

If we examine the sortie rates of the German pilots, we can see that getting to 200-300 victories on the Easterc Front should not have been difficult. Hartmann started flying in 1942, and flew about 4 sorties per day. He racked up 1400 sorties and shotdown 352 aircraft. That means he shot down an aircraft, once every four sorties. On the Eastern Front, that would be possible.

Barkhorn flew 1104 missions and got 301 victories. Again, about one in four. Otto Kittel flew 575 and got 267, Rudorffer 1000 + and 222 victories. Hermann Graf flew 800+ and scored 211.

Now if we use the figure one out of four and use the US limit of 50 missions, then we get about 12.5 kills. Robert S. Johnson attained 28 kills in 91 sorties. that's about one in three. If we double the missions to 100 then we should see a number of around 25. Johnson's scoring was about average for the US aces.

The German's were strict about their kills and how they were attained. However, they were not supermen. The Allied aces were just as skilled as the Germans. Same with the Japanese.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If we examine the sortie rates of the German pilots, we can see that getting to 200-300 victories on the Easterc Front should not have been difficult. Hartmann started flying in 1942, and flew about 4 sorties per day. He racked up 1400 sorties and shotdown 352 aircraft. That means he shot down an aircraft, once every four sorties. On the Eastern Front, that would be possible.

Barkhorn flew 1104 missions and got 301 victories. Again, about one in four. Otto Kittel flew 575 and got 267, Rudorffer 1000 + and 222 victories. Hermann Graf flew 800+ and scored 211.

Now if we use the figure one out of four and use the US limit of 50 missions, then we get about 12.5 kills. Robert S. Johnson attained 28 kills in 91 sorties. that's about one in three. If we double the missions to 100 then we should see a number of around 25. Johnson's scoring was about average for the US aces.

The German's were strict about their kills and how they were attained. However, they were not supermen. The Allied aces were just as skilled as the Germans. Same with the Japanese.

Dennis:

Reminds me of a statistic I read in a handgun publication. It was found that the most lethal handgun in terms of homicides was the lowly .22 cal. Not because it was a deadly gun, merely that it was used more often. Or as Comrade Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all its own".

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Reminds me of a statistic I read in a handgun publication. It was found that the most lethal handgun in terms of homicides was the lowly .22 cal. Not because it was a deadly gun, merely that it was used more often. Or as Comrade Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all its own".


Yup, you can kill someone just as easy with a .22 cal, if you hit them in the right spot.

Note: the quote was by V.I. Lenin. Sorry, don't mean to be a PIB.

[JMS]

.

The German's were strict about their kills and how they were attained. However, they were not supermen. The Allied aces were just as skilled as the Germans. Same with the Japanese.

Only up to 1942/43, then they "relaxed" and claims started to be recognised with less and less verification. There is/was a site that listed all claims submitted to the LW HQ for recognition and their place in the Bundesarechiv (roll of film). Hartmann amounted to around 270 when I counted them (impressive nonetheless), but the fly in the ointment comes from North Africa.

When claims vs actual losses were checked (and the information is pretty much in the open in such limited theater) the Germans were as guilty as overclaiming as everyone else (roughly, a ratio of 2 claims per actual loss, IIRC).

In the sense of kills per sortie, there was an smaller German ace (in the East, can't remember the name right now) that got something like a kill and a half in his 70 sorties.

[old_pop2000]

Only up to 1942/43, then they "relaxed" and claims started to be recognised with less and less verification. There is/was a site that listed all claims submitted to the LW HQ for recognition and their place in the Bundesarechiv (roll of film). Hartmann amounted to around 270 when I counted them (impressive nonetheless), but the fly in the ointment comes from North Africa.

When claims vs actual losses were checked (and the information is pretty much in the open in such limited theater) the Germans were as guilty as overclaiming as everyone else (roughly, a ratio of 2 claims per actual loss, IIRC).

In the sense of kills per sortie, there was an smaller German ace (in the East, can't remember the name right now) that got something like a kill and a half in his 70 sorties.

Here is the site that might help you. They are not finished compiling their lists.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

Here is another interesting site on Jagdgeschwader 26- good maps with airfields etc.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm

As to the statement that the Germans "relaxed", here is a brief snippet from the last site-
Research into Luftwaffe victory claims is hampered by a lack of official documentation. At the end of the war, the Luftwaffe destroyed (or hid) its master list of victory confirmations. However, "confirmed claims" would be an unsatisfactory statistic in any case. It frequently took more than a year for confirmations to be awarded by Berlin, and it appears that no claim filed after November, 1944, was ever confirmed

Sounds to me the German's were every bit as difficult at the end, as they were at the beginning.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yup, you can kill someone just as easy with a .22 cal, if you hit them in the right spot.

Note: the quote was by V.I. Lenin. Sorry, don't mean to be a PIB.

Dennis:

Now that you mention it, I think Stalin was merely quoting his mentor when the remark was atrributed to him.

[JMS]

Sounds to me the German's were every bit as difficult at the end, as they were at the beginning.

But then, when comparing claims (approved by Berlin) vs actual verifiable losses there's overclaiming. I suspect that while the system remained in place, it became more and more a formality. Even Hartmann's 352 kills are only substantiated by his flying logs.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is the site that might help you. They are not finished compiling their lists.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

Here is another interesting site on Jagdgeschwader 26- good maps with airfields etc.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm

As to the statement that the Germans "relaxed", here is a brief snippet from the last site-

Sounds to me the German's were every bit as difficult at the end, as they were at the beginning.

Dennis:

The Galland interview on the second site was quite interesting. Thanks.