If you were a real WW2 pilot and had a choice between a fragile but agile plane like the Bf-109F2 or a Zeke or a Yak and a heavily armored and protected plane like the Corsair, what would you choose?

A lightweight fighter may catch fire and injure you as soon as hit, but it has sweet handling with maneuverability that may protect you from taking hits in the first place. A Corsair or an FW-190 gives you confidence of heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but at a considerable price in handling qualities. It is stubborn and likes to take advantage of your mistakes. In a well-protected fighter you may have to limit yourself to unimaginative zoom attacks.

[This message has been edited by MonsterZero (edited 09-04-2002).]

I'd take the plane with armour, because in all liklihood you'd be bounced by a plane you never saw or only saw too late to evade.

I'd go for the armor too, if I dont want to get a medal posthumously.

AFAIK there was no P47-Ace that was killed. Err while flying in WWII I mean.



------------------
Purzel

Want to enable swastikas in ÜberDemons way?

Hehe, this is something I've been thinking about too. I doubt the sexy little plywood turnfigfhters would be so popular if we couldn't respawn, so to say. Probably the armoured pigs (ala P-47, Corsair, Fw-190) would gain a lot in popularity, as would hit and run/BnZ.

Zero is a bit different from Yaks though, since it is so deficicent in speed compared to its mid and late war opponents as well as being deficient in protection.

S!

Gentlemen, I would prefer a well armored, but also well ARMED fighter, so my choice would be something like the TBolt, Corsair or Hellcat;

these I would chose over a Yak anytime!

what sense does a really good turnfighter make, if it does not have the punch to knock down its oppononents?

the same is true for heavyweights though;

its very amusing to throw those Yaks around all over the sky, but I have to admit, in a Yak-3 I never score that many victories I do get when flying the Kobra or the German stuff a la 190s;
on the other hand, I never got shot down in a Yak yet during a dogfight, so maybe each type has its advantages and disadvantages;

but as said, gimme a few 0.50s and enough horsepower, and I ll be a happy camper, oh, and bring on the TBolt!

purzel, quite a few TBolt aces were shot down, either by AA or fighters, just look for Gabby Gabreski (he knocked himself down), Quince Brown, and oh, I forgot Neil Keerby, just to mention a few;

concerning the Zero, it may have been slow, but in the right hands, it still could put up a tremendous fight, as evidenced by Saburo Sakai over Saipan in 1944;
even the last kills of the IJN in the war were scored by Zero 52s against Hellcats of VF-88 on August 15th after a hellish dogfight where both sides lost a few planes;

BL

The Zero definitely belongs in the "deadly in the hands of an expert" category. What I meant by the Zero being different is that since it was so deficient in speed as well as in armour, the pilot was less able to dictate the terms of the engagement than e.g. a Yak driver who could at least try to run away if he didn't like the odds.

Well the Japanese were not very likely to try to run away in any case.
That said speed can be used for things better than "running away", it never hurts to be both agile and fast
By the way, the Yaks were nowhere near as fragile as the Zeros.

andrew

[This message has been edited by andrew (edited 09-05-2002).]

My fighter of choice would be the awesome Mitsubishi A7M "Reppu" / "SAM"

Good armament, good rate of climb, good armor, good manouverablity, good top speed, good flying characteristics.

Best Fighter of WW2, but IIRC only 2 or 3 were built

SH, be a little cautious with labelling the Sam the best fighter of WW2;

it was never fully tested, because an earthquake destroyed the flying prototype sometime in 1945;
its engine was not that good either from what I know, the Japs did lack the material to produce good superchargers, so the Sam would have to stay down low, or at least lower than the Mustangs, the N-TBolts or the Corsair and Hellcat;

it may have been on par with them performance wise, but had the war gone on for longer, the USN would have introduced the F8F, the F7F, the F4U-4B, and the USAF the P-51H and maybe the P-80As, so the old performance gap would have still been there;

maybe the Reppu was one of the best, the IJN could possibly have, but it surely was not the best fighter of WW2, this accolade belongs to planes like the TA-152, the Spit XIV, the P-47N, the P-51D or the F4U-1D/4;

BL

No doubt about it... a Hellcat, Corsair, or P-51. The Hellcats 18:1 kill ratio pretty much puts to rest the case Superior armor, guns, roll rate, dive, speed...etc ...
The 50 calibers were the most lethal guns overall, vs fighters especially, in WW2 ...