Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by ww2archiver, Dec 31, 2017.
Seems like it was visibly smaller to me?
If the "spotting" does not happen well before the pane is in range to open fire, then it does not matter. Once he is in range, only a miracle can save you.
What is wrong with the simple logic that more victories equals better and less victories equals worse?
If not that, then what criteria would you use?
Do not try to side step the question with it's all subjective, or some other BS. List the attributes and how to measure them that you would use to find the best fighter plane of WW-II!
"Best" is subjective genius. Best car, best beer, best aircraft, best ball player, best guitarist...It's all subjective.
Try it at 200-300 mph...Or what was the old pilot training in method for identifying aircraft...Flash a picture for 1/20th of a second.
Because it tells you nothing when comparing individual fighters...
You need to delve deeper into kills when determining the best. such as:
How many Bf-109s shot down how many P-51s as opposed to how many P-51s shot down how many Bf-109s.
The matter is further complicated if the opposing aircraft never fought one another...Say the Ki-100 and BF-109.
Then you would need to break it down by variant...Since the P-51D was a far better aircraft than the Bf-109 B-1.
Is any of this sinking in?
The NFL Cardinals franchise has more victories (553) than the Patriots (500), although they have played 40 more seasons than the Patriots. I guess that makes the Cardinals the better team.
The logic is so simple it's wrong. It ignores so many relevant factors, some of which others have mentioned, that it is meaningless. One not mentioned is the technological improvements over the course of the war.
Actually I tend to avoid these rather meaningless "best of" conversations other than to point out the fallacies inherent in some of the choices.
It is subjective that's hardly BS. If I were going to start such a discussion or try to make a case for a particular plane I'd first look at what role it was going to fulfill in more detail. A carrier fighter requires attributes a ground based interceptor doesn't. Like wise an air superiority fighter may have if not different required attributes compared to a plane that's primarily going to take on heavy bombers a significantly different weighting of the attributes. If you want to make the more general case then IMO the only reasonable way to do it is to take the various performance characteristics that are of any significance and using various weighting factors determine the volume over which each plane of interest comes out on top. The one with the largest volume wins. If you use such a scheme though you will almost assuredly be disappointed as I doubt the Me109 is in the top 10 and possibly not even in the top 20.
Why, not a damn thing. I am shocked, yes, truly shocked, that you would need to ask such a question. Oh, yes, indeed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your "simple logic."
In the only encounter between FM-2 Wildcats and Me 109s the results were not quite what you predict:
On 26 March 1945, along the coast near Trondheim, during Operation Prefix, Wildcat VI's from 882 Squadron (Acting Lieut Comdr RA Bird RN) off HMS SEARCHER, escorting a flight of 853 Squadron Avengers (Lieut Comdr JM Glaser, RN) off HMS QUEEN, were jumped by a flight of eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me 109Gs. The Wildcats pilots claimed three of the Me 109Gs shot down and two damaged at a cost of one Wildcat damaged. Bird was credited with one 109 shot down and one damaged; also credited individually for downing a 109 in this action was Sub-Lieut AF Womack. Sub-Lieut’s JAP Harrison and RF Moore split an additional credit for one more 109 plus and Harrison claimed an additional damaged. Credits appear to match losses in this action. As near as can be determined from available Luftwaffe loss lists, there were indeed three 109’s lost: #412398 (Fw Jaeger), #782139 (Uffz Rösch), and #782270 (Fw Dreisbach). Rösch and Dreisbach were rescued; Jaeger, who had survived an earlier crash on 16 February, was killed when his plane went down. One other 109 crashed, (pilot unknown) on landing, however the information available does not indicate if the crash was due to pilot error or from battle damage; damage to this plane was evaluated as 25%. Available Luftwaffe credits lists show no claims from this action. None of the escorted Avengers were lost.
So . . .
How many FM-2s were shot down by Me 109s?
How many Me 109s were shot down by FM-2s?
QED, by your own reasoning/logic (see your quoted statement and no weaseling allowed, or as you put it:
one cannot but conclude that the FM-2 was superior to the Me109.
Remember your own words?
Facts are a real bite, aren’t they.
The plan seems to be come back four months later, re-post all misinformation, and declare the argument done. Classic trolling.
Best can also be a absolute fact. In this case there can only be ONE best WW-II fighter plane! It's objective.
The idea that you can choose how to use a word's more obscure meaning when the entire thread has been using the other, more widely known and accepted meaning of that word. It's like cheating in Debate Club at high school by quoting fake statistics.
Use objective criteria, list what they are so that the rest of us can debate the merits of your plan?
My plan is simple. The prime mission of a WW-II fighter plane is to shoot down Enemy Aircraft. Therefore, the plane that shoots down the most is the best.
A simple statement of purpose and a declaration of result. Simple, easy and with out guile, no play on the meaning of some words that is strange to say the least?
Except the Luftwaffe lost far too many 109s for it to be considered the "best."
Kills to losses...their fighters were defeated by June 6, 1944.
But what does the Micro have to do with the Macro? What logic allows you to cherry pick a single battle with a ~dozen combatants and then conclude that single instance is more important than the hundreds of thousands of combats that prove something else?
In some ways, the Fm2 was superior to the 109! In some ways not. I do not know the initial conditions, or morphology of that battle, thus it would be very hard, if not impossible to draw VALLID conclusions this far removed from it.
I would suspect, but in no way claim these ideas to be true, but only offer them as a POSSIBLE insight as to why it turned out as it did. First; who spotted who? Second; what was the geometry of the initial Positions? Third; who shot first? (Indicating either ease of completing the initial maneuver, giving advantage at the "Merge", or better aspect angle and range.) Forth; exactly what type of 109 were they and which weapons did they have? ( The early 109 with it's pair of very short range, low MV, 20 mm guns would have been at a huge, almost insurmountable disadvantage Vs the very long range, high MV, .50s in the wild cats!) Lastly; which planes were flown by the better pilots? The number of hits would seem to indicate this was a case of multiple Hawks among a gaggle of "Turkey-Pigeons"?
Not all of the possible reasons, but just a few to think on, if this battle seems important to you. Again, I have no clue why or how the battle ended as it did, but have supplied at least a few reasons why it MIGHT have turned out as it did?
So you are stating that because America turned out 100,000 quality fighter planes, each with some very real advantages over either/any German fighter plane, and the Germans made about half that many with several factors that drastically reduced their effectiveness in the last year, or so of the war, that the outcome of the war could have been a factor in which plane was best?
I would postulate that these things determined the outcome in spite of the individual quality of the planes?
Reply part "B"? How about we limit the list of "GREAT" planes to only those planes with a positive W/L Ratio for the entire War?
Dodging, weaving, squirming, and weaseling, just like I thought you would. Read a little more closely and your situational questions are answered. What part of your own bald claim "more is better, less is worse" do you not understand.
Run along now.
Wrong, I did read everything you posted and it does not list any details at all! The "Report" does not say anything about any of the questions I asked. And you are the one who weaseled out by not answering that single question. Does the Micro become more important than the Macro?
Wrong??? Let's see...
Hmmm...The Wildcats were jumped by Me-109s.
This would imply that the 109s saw the Wildcats first, and had the better initial position, and that the Germans shot first.
It also clearly states that the German aircraft were 109Gs.
EDIT - To put a finer point on it the 109s shot down were one Me-109G-6 and two Me-109G-14s.
According to your previous posts this is immaterial. The 109 was the best, and turned mediocre pilots into great pilots.
Now, you are confronted with evidence proving the opposite and are pitching a hissy fit.
All your questions were answered...You just do not like the answers.
We're discussing the "best" fighter plane...This involves comparing one aircraft too many others. Hence, the micro is more important to the macro. Unless, you are just speaking in general terms, and are not prepared to have a much deeper discussion on which fighter plane was actually the "best."
If the American fighters had real advantages over the 109...Then, the 109 isn't the"best" fighter...Is it.
The 109 didn't achieve air superiority over Britain, it didn't defeat the RAF, It didn't defeat the USAAF, it didn't defeat the VVS, it didn't prevent Allied bombers from turning German cities into rubble. Sure it shot down a lot of planes, but it did not achieve the goals required of it.
Factors of it's own making.
The 109 didn't keep it's pilot alive - the "best" fighter should not lose that many battles to opposing fighters. It didn't prevent bombings of German cities, factories, oil fields, etc.
quantity is quality...
The 109 was one of the great fighter planes, but it was not the "best."
No that's an opinion or perhaps an assumption. The case in which there is no one best WW2 fighter plane is clearly possible. Then as we have stated what defines "best" is quite subjective. Your definition appears to the rest of us to be sadly lacing in merit.
???? not at all sure what you are talking about here.
That would make sense if your objective was reasonable in the first place. I note however that I've stated a mechanism for doing so and you have not even acknowledged it.
Again you illustrate the maxum that for every complex question there is a simple answer that is wrong. Your basic assumption for instance is questionable. WW2 fighters arguably had the mission of defending various objectives as their primary mission rather than simply shooting down opposing fighters. The objectives might be locals, ships, or bombers. Shooting down opposing fighters or bombers was one way to accomplish said defense but over concentration on that aspect could and sometimes clearly was counter productive. Performance and physical criteria are also somewhat more amenable to accurate measurements.
Almost totally lacking in merit and utility as well. Not so sure about the "without guile" part either.
Looked at another way how can you consider a plane that had very little chance against other fighters of the time as the "best" fighter? By the end of the war that was pretty clearly the case.