Allied Country with Best Fighter Plane in WW2

[South African Military]

Allied Country with Best Fighter Plane in WW2. YOU MUST GIVE YOUR REASON AND SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHY YOU THINK IT WAS. Please do not vote without giving your reasons.

The reason whay I say Allied is because most of everybody would have to say Germany. They where the best in Airforce technology, just not very effective because of lack of numbers and inexperienced pilots.

If you think that there are more countries that are elegible for voting then please say.

I know we have already debated about this in the British forum, so you may as well copy and paste.

[Komissar Ombrok]

You forget about Russia... Siviet have an exellent examples of aircraft... And many pilots britan, french and even german prefer them... But when it come to choice between USA and Britan, I choose Britan "Spitfire'. Maybe not best flying abilities, but in the war, very important the next positions:
1) Cheap to produse
2) Easy to make big series
3) Easy in mastering (with war losses of pilots, this very important)
4) Battle ability is near to equal with germans planes, except turbo Me...

[South African Military]

My bad, ill will add russia. Yess I would have to go with Britain myself. The Spitfire is an excellant plane, especially the Griffon-engined Spitfire which acheived the fastest speed by the Allies.

[South African Military]

how can I change poll or can I?

[Komissar Ombrok]

I think you can't :) But, I already told my opinion, and I think none will be for Soviet planes ;) Btw, Kojedub won the Me-262 on the LaG-5 :roll:

[Gen. Sandworm]

how can I change poll or can I?

You should be able to change it but if not you can do it again with more countries.

I almost had to go with america........at the end of the war I think they had better fighter plans. But throughout the war Britian had much better fighter plans than America. So had to go for them

[Komissar Ombrok]

Hmmm.... I know very good american bombers... but fighters? Can you make example and argument it?

[Gen. Sandworm]

P-51 Mustang was a great plane. Good enough to chase down a destroy the buzz bombs (V1 rockets). It was a very versaitile plane as will. Great fighter, could be adapted to and escort fighter or a tactial bombers. Plus had enough range to fly from english bases to berlin and back.

[South African Military]

P-51 Mustang was a great plane. Good enough to chase down a destroy the buzz bombs (V1 rockets). It was a very versaitile plane as will. Great fighter, could be adapted to and escort fighter or a tactial bombers. Plus had enough range to fly from english bases to berlin and back.

Ya good for long range escort, but the I think the Spitfire claimed most V1s,

[FW-190 Pilot]

P-51 Mustang was a great plane. Good enough to chase down a destroy the buzz bombs (V1 rockets). It was a very versaitile plane as will. Great fighter, could be adapted to and escort fighter or a tactial bombers. Plus had enough range to fly from english bases to berlin and back.

Ya good for long range escort, but the I think the Spitfire claimed most V1s,
i do not think the V1 are very effective during the war, many of them are either shoot down or very very inaccurate
but i will go with american P-51D too, they are so good they even used them in korean war

[South African Military]

P-51 Mustang was a great plane. Good enough to chase down a destroy the buzz bombs (V1 rockets). It was a very versaitile plane as will. Great fighter, could be adapted to and escort fighter or a tactial bombers. Plus had enough range to fly from english bases to berlin and back.

Ya good for long range escort, but the I think the Spitfire claimed most V1s,
i do not think the V1 are very effective during the war, many of them are either shoot down or very very inaccurate
but i will go with american P-51D too, they are so good they even used them in korean war

Ya, they also used the Spitfire for quite along time after the war.

[Komissar Ombrok]

P-51? :? Not a bad one ofcourse. Good speed, good weapons. But not good to be main fighter for any army. Pilots of air-division "Normandia-Neman" (French pilots in the Soviet Army) have few this planes, but prefer "spitfire" and "lag-5" They told, that P-51 is very difficult to drive and mastering. More, this plane was very expensive... In the conditions of war and lack of resources, production of this plane is useless...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well the US didnt really have a lack of production problem. Also i think the first P-80's saw just a bit of action before the war ended. The American Jet plane

[South African Military]

Well the US didnt really have a lack of production problem. Also i think the first P-80's saw just a bit of action before the war ended. The American Jet plane

The British Jet plane came out mid- 1944. But I think I heard that that was the only Allied Jet plane that flew in WW2.

[Komissar Ombrok]

America havn't production problems, that's true. But all war factories in America was (and now too) private property. In difference of Britain (JSC with goverment in the main holder) or Soviet Union (full goverment property). That means, the price of planes was more high in America, and war production need more money. The problems was, but not technological or with lack of resources. Problems was economical.

More, I think the Russian plane "U-2" was a great plane (not best, of course) That was a simply wood plane named "night bomber". This plane was making in the interior factories. But that plane was really "head-ill" of German. The wood body is bad from many points, but have a some great - explosive ammo, when shot such plane go through it and don't explode. And the bullets easy go throw body without any damage. Only weak point - engine and pilot. But enemy must be sniper to shot such small target. Soviet has many excellent plans in ww2, but only for U-2 after war was made sculptures, and we have many songs about it...

About Jet planes. Only German using jet planes in ww2. But Russia and America made a good prototypes at the end of war. Soviet "Mig" series was ideal fighter to drop down alltypes of American planes in Korea...

[South African Military]

America havn't production problems, that's true. But all war factories in America was (and now too) private property. In difference of Britain (JSC with goverment in the main holder) or Soviet Union (full goverment property). That means, the price of planes was more high in America, and war production need more money. The problems was, but not technological or with lack of resources. Problems was economical.

More, I think the Russian plane "U-2" was a great plane (not best, of course) That was a simply wood plane named "night bomber". This plane was making in the interior factories. But that plane was really "head-ill" of German. The wood body is bad from many points, but have a some great - explosive ammo, when shot such plane go through it and don't explode. And the bullets easy go throw body without any damage. Only weak point - engine and pilot. But enemy must be sniper to shot such small target. Soviet has many excellent plans in ww2, but only for U-2 after war was made sculptures, and we have many songs about it...

About Jet planes. Only German using jet planes in ww2. But Russia and America made a good prototypes at the end of war. Soviet "Mig" series was ideal fighter to drop down alltypes of American planes in Korea...

No, Britain did make the first Allied Jet plane mid-1944, built to combat V1s and ME-262, however no ME-262 and the british jet plane (i forgot name) was ever recorded in combat.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well the US didnt really have a lack of production problem. Also i think the first P-80's saw just a bit of action before the war ended. The American Jet plane

The British Jet plane came out mid- 1944. But I think I heard that that was the only Allied Jet plane that flew in WW2.

I stand corrected the P-80 was finished before the end of WW2 and shipped to Europe but did not see any combat. By the time of the Korean War it was obsolete. The American then had the F-81 Sabre

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p80.htm

More on P-80's

[Komissar Ombrok]

From my information British, American and Soviet jet planes was only prototypes, not series planes. And I can't find any clue in German pilots books that his enemy was an jet planes...

[South African Military]

If you go on that same site listed above, click planes 1940-1950 and then click on UK Meteor, thats the plane I am talking about.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The P-80 didnt see combat but could have. Im pretty sure that the British Meteor did see a bit of combat at the end of the war. I dont know of any Me-262 vs Meteor battles.

[South African Military]

The P-80 didnt see combat but could have. Im pretty sure that the British Meteor did see a bit of combat at the end of the war. I dont know of any Me-262 vs Meteor battles.

Ya exactly, none have been rocorded. Im still not too sure about the P-80.

[WildBoar]

The meteor was operational before the end of the war but it's pilots were not allowed to go over enemy lines to engage the enemy.

Britain and Germany both had jet planes flying early in the war but the production models came later. The technology was basically handed to the americans and Russians in order to pacify them and even everything up. The meteor was used to intercept V1's as far as I know but that was it.

Have you seen the pics of the New build 262's in America they look nice :)

[IRONMAN]

I would say the Mustang was the best fighter of the war. Unfortunately, it was developed too late to be of much use in the war. It was the fastest, very durable, manuverable, and had good range. Overall score takes it to the top, largely because it was so fast. If you will remember, although the Corsair was not a nimble plane, it was very effective against the very nimble Zero - because it had so much horsepower and could run wide circles around the Japanese planes and swoop in fast for a kill. In WWII era planes, power and speed were more important than lightness and nimbleness. It is for this reason also that the Mustang was the best, IMO. Fastest, fairly nimble (much more than the Corsair for example), and durable.

[South African Military]

I would say the Mustang was the best fighter of the war. Unfortunately, it was developed too late to be of much use in the war. It was the fastest, very durable, manuverable, and had good range. Overall score takes it to the top, largely because it was so fast. If you will remember, although the Corsair was not a nimble plane, it was very effective against the very nimble Zero - because it had so much horsepower and could run wide circles around the Japanese planes and swoop in fast for a kill. In WWII era planes, power and speed were more important than lightness and nimbleness. It is for this reason also that the Mustang was the best, IMO. Fastest, fairly nimble (much more than the Corsair for example), and durable.

You are wrong about the Mustang being the fastest allied plane, the Griffon engined Spitfire was the fastest plane that the allies had, even faster than the jet meteor. Id say the main feat with the Mustang was its long range.

[IRONMAN]

You are correct about the speed. The Mustang's top speed was 439 mph, the Spitfire 450. An 11 mph difference. Nonetheless, the Mustang is my choice for best fighter of WWII. It was fast (2nd fastest by 11 mph), manuverable, durable, and had great range. Overall it was the best of the era.

[WildBoar]

Nah it was one of the best but the high number of kills is purely down to weight of numbers.
I have read from people who have flown all types that the Russian aircraft were probably the best but they aren't in the Poll so British it is.

Most important was the ability of the pilots and by the time the yanks got properly involved half way through the war the top german pilots had been in combat for nearly 3 years and were getting very Battle fatigued and the rest wer made up of new pilots who weren't getting the training necessary to live very long especially against the overwhelming odds.

[IRONMAN]

Nah it was one of the best but the high number of kills is purely down to weight of numbers.
I have read from people who have flown all types that the Russian aircraft were probably the best but they aren't in the Poll so British it is.

:shock:

Surely you jest. There has not been one machine that ever came from Russia prior to 1965-70 that could be considered anything less than crap with the exception of tanks.

By the way, the Mustang entered the war late. More kills were made in the Pacific Theater in Corsairs, Hellcats, and other planes than in the Mustang over Europe. I don't know why you're hung up on the number of kills in Mustangs, therefore.

The Spitfire was a very good plane, but it was not terribly reliable; one of the most important criteria for judging the worth of anything mechanical. In fact, it was the US that constantly supplied the Brits with American made parts for their planes. Not only because German bombing slowed production, or because the planes were used so heavily and stressed, but more because the plane was simply not terribly reliable. As many Spitfires sat on fields awaiting parts as were in the air. The reliability problem was so great that british pilots constantly cursed the plane they loved so much. The British are very industrious, hearty, and stalwort, and when one factory was bombed, another popped up almost over night. The engine of the Spitfire was powerful, but plagued by failures under stress. The Mustang was very reliable, and it was the equal of the Spitfire in manuverability, accelleration, etc., with the exception of being 11 mph slower than the Submarine models of the Spitfire which saw service just before the end of the war.

Since the Mustang was the Spitfire's equal in performance and more reliable, obviously, it the best plane of the war. Russian planes *chuckle* don't even figure in. If you ask any professional war historian, they will tell you that the Mustang is generally considered to be the finest fighter of WWII.

[IRONMAN]

...and by the time the yanks got properly involved half way through the war

*scratching head* Dude, the war started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The US declared war on Japan in December of 1941. Germany surrendered on may 7th 1945 and japan surrendered on August 14th 1945. It was a whole year before even half of Europe was involved in the war. The US was involved "properly(?) for most of the war.

Let's recap, shall we? The war started in 1939, US entered in 1941, it ended late 1945. What was that about the US getting "properly" involved half way through the war?

"properly involved half way through the war"???

It's very clear that your choice of words is designed to belittle the US and influence the minds of those who are ignorant enough to think after reading them, don't put a twist on historical facts to further your cause. If you don't like the US for some reason, this is not the place to air it. Look for a US bashing forum for that. I am sure you can find one.

I don't mean to blather about it, but it makes me such to hear so many Europeans carrying on about how the US is so bad and worthless after the US, with some help from Canada and other nations, saved every single country in Europe from the Germans (& Nazis) - twice in one century. My father faught in the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare trying to free people from oppression, and when we talk about it, he becomes humble. I can almost see the muzzle blast of 105mm guns and submachineguns and exploding grenades and flying body parts in his eyes as he looks out of the window. I'd like for once to enjoy posting in a forum without having some European sqeezing insults about America in between the words of thier posts.

[WildBoar]

Well Ironman I am 32 and serving in the RAF with a keen interest in this topic from an early age so You are sorely mistaken.

Spitfire with reliability problems? That's something new then they might have been sat on the ground due to lack of spare parts but that's just a lack of production ability and since our factories were being bombed it couldn't be helped.

As for Russian equipment I think you'll have to read up as I wasn't stating my views but those of people who have been lucky enough to fly planes from all sides including your beloved Mustang (which in any case wouldn't have been built without the Brits).

You are quite clearly another Brainwashed yank who just cannot accept that someone else may have built something better especially God forbid the Russians who were an unknown quantity so people assumed they were building crap and a lot of migs were doing a lot of shooting down of american planes over Korea (One of which was shot down by the fastest Piston engined fighter the Sea Fury).Same with the Japs, The americans got a shock when they first came up against the zero as they were under the belief that all the japanese had were some old knackered planes.

I was refering to the war in Europe as well which wasn't entered by the US until nearing the end of 42.

When you americans stop being so insular perhaps you'll understand.

[IRONMAN]

Well Ironman I am 32 and serving in the RAF with a keen interest in this topic from an early age so You are sorely mistaken.

Spitfire with reliability problems? That's something new then they might have been sat on the ground due to lack of spare parts but that's just a lack of production ability and since our factories were being bombed it couldn't be helped.

As for Russian equipment I think you'll have to read up as I wasn't stating my views but those of people who have been lucky enough to fly planes from all sides including your beloved Mustang (which in any case wouldn't have been built without the Brits).

You are quite clearly another Brainwashed yank who just cannot accept that someone else may have built something better especially God forbid the Russians who were an unknown quantity so people assumed they were building crap and a lot of migs were doing a lot of shooting down of american planes over Korea (One of which was shot down by the fastest Piston engined fighter the Sea Fury).Same with the Japs, The americans got a shock when they first came up against the zero as they were under the belief that all the japanese had were some old knackered planes.

I was refering to the war in Europe as well which wasn't entered by the US until nearing the end of 42. When you americans stop being so insular perhaps you'll understand.

Just 32? I missed it by 2 years. Damn. And yes, the Spitfire had reliablity problems. It was not the only the bombing that kept so many Spitfires on the ground, it was the parts breaking down, constantly.

The US could not have made the Spitfire without the Brits? LOL Dude, it was an American design manufactured in the US. The US did not need britain, a war ravaged and almost cripple nation, to help them design and built a thing. Could you really be so wacked out?

Um, no, the Koreans did not shoot down "so many" American planes in Korea. Korea was almost excusively a land war with artillery and small arms. Almost every plane used in Korea was an American one, and most of these used were Corairs, because they came from aircraft carriers and flew inland. Korea had no air forces to speak of. You are so far out into left field now. Sheesh. Just trying to bash America with that one too eh? lol

As for the Zero shocking Americans. yea, we were shocked at how FEW bullets it took to down one of those tin cans. The Zero was very very nimble and it was reliable. But it was very poorly armoured and was no match over the seas for faster, better armoured planes, like the Corsair and Helcat, which circled them like sharks and flew in for a kill at 400 mph from above. You need to learn a lot more about the air war in the Pacific. It took the US no time at all to realize that the slower zero was bait for a Corsair at higher altitude where the more powerful engines of the Corsair and lower air pressure combined to put the zero at a complete loss for competition. And that is what American pilots did. They coaxed the japanese to fly high to attack the Corsairs, where they were circled and shot down.

No, you said the US entered the war half way through it, which is a lie contrived with the intention of bashing Americans. The US launched the largest invasion force in history to save your Euro butt - one which included many tens of thousands of American men. It took a lot of preparation and time to do it, ya know? Do you think we should have simply asked the Germans not to shoot at us and wait until we went back to the US over and over for more men, vehicles, and equipment before blasting at us on the beaches? LMAO

First, get your war facts straight.

[WildBoar]

:lol: Quite clearly you are delusional

One point of the many you got wrong The Mustang was built to a British spec and required the British engine built under licence before it became as good as it was.I don't beleive you ever actually made spitfires either.No jealousy just an intense dislike of people who can't get history straight.

The Brits were fighting all over the world alongside the commonwealth countries and others who valued their freedom long before the americans got properly involved and only then because the japs attacked at Pearl Harbour. Once the amercians got involved they relearned all the lessons that everyone else had already learned and tried to tell them.

Here in Britain we accept any shortcomings our country has however in your country you blindly follow anything you are told without question which is a shame.

[South African Military]

Well Ironman I am 32 and serving in the RAF with a keen interest in this topic from an early age so You are sorely mistaken.

Spitfire with reliability problems? That's something new then they might have been sat on the ground due to lack of spare parts but that's just a lack of production ability and since our factories were being bombed it couldn't be helped.

As for Russian equipment I think you'll have to read up as I wasn't stating my views but those of people who have been lucky enough to fly planes from all sides including your beloved Mustang (which in any case wouldn't have been built without the Brits).

You are quite clearly another Brainwashed yank who just cannot accept that someone else may have built something better especially God forbid the Russians who were an unknown quantity so people assumed they were building crap and a lot of migs were doing a lot of shooting down of american planes over Korea (One of which was shot down by the fastest Piston engined fighter the Sea Fury).Same with the Japs, The americans got a shock when they first came up against the zero as they were under the belief that all the japanese had were some old knackered planes.

I was refering to the war in Europe as well which wasn't entered by the US until nearing the end of 42. When you americans stop being so insular perhaps you'll understand.

Just 32? I missed it by 2 years. Damn. And yes, the Spitfire had reliablity problems. It was not the only the bombing that kept so many Spitfires on the ground, it was the parts breaking down, constantly.

The US could not have made the Spitfire without the Brits? LOL Dude, it was an American design manufactured in the US. The US did not need britain, a war ravaged and almost cripple nation, to help them design and built a thing. Could you really be so wacked out?

As for being "a brainwashed yank" we see now clearly your hatred for America. I know you could not keep it in for long. It simply had to come out in plain words. Didn't it? lol

Um, no, the Koreans did not shoot down "so many" American planes in Korea. Korea was almost excusively a land war with artillery and small arms. Almost every plane used in Korea was an American one, and most of these used were Corairs, because they came from aircraft carriers and flew inland. Korea had no air forces to speak of. You are so far out into left field now. Sheesh. Just trying to bash America with that one too eh? lol

As for the Zero shocking Americans. yea, we were shocked at how FEW bullets it took to down one of those tin cans. The Zero was very very nimble and it was reliable. But it was very poorly armoured and was no match over the seas for faster, better armoured planes, like the Corsair and Helcat, which circled them like sharks and flew in for a kill at 400 mph from above. You need to learn a lot more about the air war in the Pacific. It took the US no time at all to realize that the slower zero was bait for a Corsair at higher altitude where the more powerful engines of the Corsair and lower air pressure combined to put the zero at a complete loss for competition. And that is what American pilots did. They coaxed the japanese to fly high to attack the Corsairs, where they were circled and shot down.

No, you said the US entered the war half way through it, which is a lie contrived with the intention of bashing Americans. The US launched the largest invasion force in history to save your Euro butt - one which included many tens of thousands of American men. It took a lot of preparation and time to do it, ya know? Do you think we should have simply asked the Germans not to shoot at us and wait until we went back to the US over and over for more men, vehicles, and equipment before blasting at us on the beaches? LMAO

First, get your war facts straight. Then, come back without so much hatred for the US in your heart. Vent your insolence elsewhere. It might help you think straight enough to say at least one truly factual thing, which you have not yet done. You make it clear that you are bitter, jealous and hateful. I'm not smug about it. I just wish you'd post your alter history of WWII and your hated for the US somewhere it's more appropriate, like a neo-Nazi web site, or such. :arrow:

As I have read all the posts from my last visit, it seams like your bashing the U.K. and Europe considerably :D Spitfire had reliability problems? Well that the the first time I have heard that, it was a very reliable plane while fighting in the air. Of course alot came backe badly damaged and had to be reapaired. One thing for sure the Rolls-Royce engine did not fail at all while in the air. America launched the largest invasion force to save Europes butt? Why only America? You sound like one of those patriotic Americans who cant think in more than one view. BTW, the operation was not made up by America, it was planned by Montgomery, and yes it is true that the that the Americans had more soldiers on the beaches, but you are forgetting about all the speciall forces ops, and paras before the landings, not to forget the great bridge that crossed the English channel to save everyones asses in France. In the beggining of the war anyway in N Africa, the Americans were practically useless in that front. Not very experienced and had major problems. Britain and the commonwealth could take the Germans without your help.

But thanks for joining anyway, Im pretty sure you couldnt take on Germany with-out Britians help. (and no Im not British so dont say that crap about, "well you said this, so therefore you must be British")

[WildBoar]

At last what might be considered a neutral commentator although being South African you are probably a member of the Axis of evil allies THE Commonwealth :)

As I said before the P-51 was equipped with the same engine albeit made in the USA so if it was so unreliable how did the mustang cope ;)

[Gen. Sandworm]

Firstly IRONMAN your and idiot if you think the US won the war by itself. If you think so ..... please get out of my country. The Russians bore the brunt of the fighting in WW2 and did the most to win it. During WW2 America had a 16 million man army and only 1 million ever saw combat. More Russians died than the size of our army during the war.

Secondly, I get so tired of hearing that the Americans didnt join the war untill late. Go get bent already. We where just there 20 years before helping out in WW1. Now we didnt "win" that war but we sure as hell did help bring it to a conclusion. We cant be there every time one of your countries goes nuts. Also Herman Goering admited that the war probably would have come to a conclusion early on if France and Britian had attacked on Germany's West front early in the war. Since you where obligated to with your alliance with Poland. So piss off you guys could have probably stopped this before it got out of control. Furthermore, George Washington said when he left office to stay out of European affairs and especially alliances.

My brief overview of WW2 the Americans and Brits helped keep the Axis powers at bay untill Russia finally got their s**t back together.

So IRONMAN and WildBoar quit being silly and look at the real facts.

[IRONMAN]

The Mustang was indeed the best fighter of the war. The entire world knows it. The Germans thought so, and stated it. lol I'm not going to debate with you, and I didn't bother to read thrugh your posts, and won't read any others you post.

We are discussing thngs about WWII. America has been your ally for a long time, and your country has benefited very greatly because of it. When you do your bashing, you might as well be spitting on the graves of the many thousands of Americans, and British, that died in that war, and that is just sick. Keep your hatemongering to yourself.

You don't hear me slipping insults about britain or any other nation into my sentences, so try not to do that in the future please

[Sturmtruppen]

Please,don`t fight because of fighters,USA and England are brother country (They have the same blood)

I liked german aircrafts,but americans and british were bad,and don`t forget soviet!.

and yes,this isn`t a nazi/nacionalist forum or another thing.
you can have parents of the war,like the uniforms or something,but that doesn`t mean you have the same political opinion as the countries in fight.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The Mustang was indeed the best fighter of the war. The entire world knows it. The Germans thought so, and stated it. lol I'm not going to debate with you, and I didn't bother to read thrugh your posts, and won't read any others you post.

We are discussing thngs about WWII. America has been your ally for a long time, and your country has benefited very greatly because of it. When you do your bashing, you might as well be spitting on the graves of the many thousands of Americans, and British, that died in that war, and that is just sick. Keep your hatemongering to yourself.

You don't hear me slipping insults about britain or any other nation into my sentences, so try not to do that in the future please

I hope this wasnt aimed at me coz im an American and proud of it. I wasnt bashing nations I was bashing the both of you. :D

Anyhow enough with the fighting coz Gen. Sandworm said so. :lol:

[IRONMAN]

Firstly IRONMAN your and idiot if you think the US won the war by itself..

I think that? Show me where I stated anything like that. No, I don't think so. how did you come to such a misguided conclusion? What does that have to do with that sissiy's America bashing that I was not letting him get away with without a spanking?


Secondly, I get so tired of hearing that the Americans didnt join the war untill late. Go get bent already. We where just there 20 years before helping out in WW1. Now we didnt "win" that war but we sure as hell did help bring it to a conclusion. We cant be there every time one of your countries goes nuts.

Indeed. Salute. Then they come in here and try to bash America with insults slipped in-between their words. Sheesh.

Nobody is asking for thanks.

My brief overview of WW2 the Americans and Brits helped keep the Axis powers at bay untill Russia finally got their s**t back together.

The Allies on the western front faced a very large and well equiped force of Germans. It was nasty. And we didn't "hold them at bay". The US lost 450,000+ men, mostly in Europe fighting the Germans. We fought hard and forced the Germans all the way back to berlin itself as the Russians did the same thing on the eastern front. That's not quite the same as "holding them back".

Now let's keep this forum to the facts, not fabricate things and bash Americans because you are lusting to piss at them, shall we?

[WildBoar]

Well General Sandworm thx for your post,

I think however with ironman you might be wasting your breath as he seems to forget what he posted before.

I am sorry if I offended you but to have people like that who obviously haven't read a history book telling us what they believe to be facts does get annoying.

I was branded a neo nazi Lol I won't get upset because I realise that the person making this comment obviously doesn't understand the term anyway.

Back to the real point of this thread and we were asked for our opinions, most of us realise that that is what they are and don't claim them to be absolutely without question unlike some.

[IRONMAN]

I am sorry if I offended you but to have people like that who obviously haven't read a history book telling us what they believe to be facts does get annoying.

Apology accepted. However, I am college educated and I've been around a lot longer than you, so be careful who you claim has not read a history book, young man. Please, don't go off bash my country or insult my intelligence just because you have a tainted, libertarian, slanted understanding of WWII and the tools therof which is based on PC games and what other America haters spoon out as they sit around a in a pub passing around cigarrettes and saying things like, "Yea fxxk the yanks! We had better stuff than them anyway. We didn't need them to beat the germans!"

We Americans understand quite well what is going on in the world. We are well aware of the jealousy and hatred that is mindlessly passed around in other countries infecting the minds of the youth and which results in misguided people like you who try to inject insults about America into your seemingly benign comments. Just please, keep it outta here from now on. Ok? :wink:

I'm done with you.

[WildBoar]

I am sorry if I offended you but to have people like that who obviously haven't read a history book telling us what they believe to be facts does get annoying.

Apology accepted. However, I am college educated and I've been around a lot longer than you, so be careful who you claim has not read a history book, young man. Please, don't go off bash my country or insult my intelligence just because you have a tainted, libertarian, slanted understanding of WWII and the tools therof which is based on PC games and what other America haters spoon out as they sit around a in a pub passing around cigarrettes and saying things like, "Yea fxxk the yanks! We had better stuff than them anyway. We didn't need them to beat the germans!"

We Americans understand quite well what is going on in the world. We are well aware of the jealousy and hatred that is mindlessly passed around in other countries infecting the minds of the youth and which results in misguided people like you who try to inject insults about America into your seemingly benign comments. Just please, keep it outta here from now on. Ok? :wink:

I'm done with you.

I don't care how old you ar epal you obviously didn't learn from the real events in history and as for a college education well whoopee I think I passed that level at primary school.

I am getting personal now because you did , You rubbish the truth then say we are wrong. You are the only person in the world to ever mention reliability problems in the same sentence as the Spitfire, The Hawker Typhoon had engine troubles later in the war and structural faults as well maybe you are confused?

As for apologising well only to any inteligent Americans out ther such as General Sandworm because their country is blighted by small minded muppets like yourself.

There I feel better :)

from your post earlier which you declined to acknowledge you state that realism is important for you, I ask again what combat experience do you have?

I also noticed that you edited your earlier thread :wink: did youralise that you had made yourself look daft?

As for Libertarian Well I don't think so and As for America they have never won a war on their own except the civil war because no one else was involved. Britain has fought and won wars since before your country was overrun by the white man from Europe.Imperialistic you can call us but at least we didn't march into every tin pot contry that mentioned communism.

[IRONMAN]

I don't care how old you ar epal you obviously didn't learn from the real events in history...

You will learn in time that all of your smooth-as-paste view of things in WWII were not so smooth. Give yourself time. BTW, I think you are confusing the Hurricane with the Spitfire.

BTW, the .303 of the Spitfire made it undergunned and it had a harder time penetrating than the .50 of other planes. Another reason it was not as good a plane as the Mustang. LOL *SIGH*

I am getting personal now because you did , You rubbish the truth then say we are wrong. You are the only person in the world to ever mention reliability problems in the same sentence as the Spitfire, The Hawker Typhoon had engine troubles later in the war and structural faults as well maybe you are confused?

No I didn't get personal. I simply told you to leave your America bashing out of the conversation.

All this hatred from you simply because I said: "You are correct about the speed. The Mustang's top speed was 439 mph, the Spitfire 450. An 11 mph difference. Nonetheless, the Mustang is my choice for best fighter of WWII. It was fast (2nd fastest by 11 mph), manuverable, durable, and had great range. Overall it was the best of the era."

... so you troll my posts constantly posting something negative to say about my choice? Then you come at me with your little smart mout blathering... "Naaa... it was bla bla bla..."

ago. Get over it already. I know it burns you that the best fighter of WWII was not british, since the Spitfire had certain reliability problems and was under-gunned. But stick to the facts.

from your post earlier which you declined to acknowledge you state that realism is important for you, I ask again what combat experience do you have?

About as much as you did in WWII. LMAO! :lol: But then that doen't have a thing to do with your trolling, antagonizing, and America bashing, does it?

As for Libertarian Well I don't think so and As for America they have never won a war on their own except the civil war because no one else was involved. Britain has fought and won wars since before your country was overrun by the white man from Europe. Imperialistic you can call us but at least we didn't march into every tin pot contry that mentioned communism.

Dude, in case you don't know it, (get ready for an astonishing enlightenment now) YOUR WHOLE COUNTRY IS LIBERTARIAN. Do you not know what the term means? You understanding of politics is as afluent as your understanding of WWII, it seems.

LOL So now America has never won a war on their own eh. Yes we have my misguided lurch. Against Spain and Mexico seperately a hundred years ago and twice in Iraq. and before you strt in, no, insurgents don't qualify as an army. LOL Again, you blather without understanding. Wipe your drooling mouth now, ok? And stop discussing politics and history with drunks over dark beer in the pubs. You will learn nothing there. And kiddo, with the help of a few thousand Canadians, we saver your country and the rest of Europe twice from the Germans. I know that burns you up, as you so make it so plain, but we Americans don't expect gratitude, but we don't deserve snot-nosed little punks to bash America at every opportunity either. So put a plug in it and get back to posting sensibly now, alright?

So now you say our country was overrun by Europeans? Wait a minute. Your're British, so you are European. Gosh. That's right. A lot of you guys immigrated to our counrty. LMAO Still trying anything you can to bash America eh? Silly boy. Let's not forget that Britain was "overrun" by Celts about 2-3,000 years ago. Every part of this earth has had one tribe or another overrun by another. Sheesh. Get a life.

Let me try posting my prefernce once more without you jumping in with antagonistic blathering and America bashing, shall we? Here goes:

"You are correct about the speed. The Mustang's top speed was 439 mph, the Spitfire 450. An 11 mph difference. Nonetheless, the Mustang is my choice for best fighter of WWII. It was fast (2nd fastest by 11 mph), manuverable, durable, and had great range. Overall it was the best of the era."

*listening, waiting for the flying bits of saliva and the near-comatose attack of opinion bashing and anti-American blather*

[WildBoar]

Well what a moron you have proven yourself to be :roll: I did and have never confused the Hurricane with the Spitfire you clown as they were completely different.As for it being outgunned yes the .303 was poor but still managed to knock plenty of german aircraft out of the sky whilst we were fighting over France and Britain. And by the time the Mustang came around they were being fitted with Cannon armament so your argument fails again.


As for winning a war in Iraq on your own FFS the British made the main Decoy for the Iraqi's and British troops werer some of the first over the Border in the First Gulf War so even modern history escapes your notice

And before you ask for evidence I have worked with some of the people and met others who went into Iraq first and have spoken to them about it so I know what I'm talking about.Come back to me you senile idiot when you have read a real history book not a movie plot along the lines of U-571.

[South African Military]

Right, first things first. Yes South Africa was in the Commonwealth during WW2, but not anymore. I dont think we have very good relations with the U.S. or the U.K., we have better relations with Fidel Castrol (lol) but that is true.

2nd, this forum was very nice and quite, and ppl were debating about things with FACTS, but since you (IRONMAN) came along it has somehow got personal both ways. And yes IRONMAN you are bashing the U.K. and Europe so dont say u dont. Both sides seem to do some bashing here and there.

Now I will argue this topic using REAL facts from a REAL history book, not a crappy made up website.

-Right, the Griffon engined Spitfire the best off the Spirtfires, came out around the same time as the Mustang.

-Its max speed was 448m.p.h. It had a 2,035hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 engine, and loaded weight was 10,280lb.

-Its arnament was four 20mm (0.78in.) Hispano cannons, and up to 1,000lbs in bombs or rocket projectiles.

-It claimed over 300 V-1 flying bombs and also shot down the first ME-262. This is an example of its great manuvuability, and going against the ME-262 which I would say was the best fighter plane in WW2-it had 4 30mm (1.2in.) Mk cannons,- would make the Spitfire very tough.

Now the Mustang:

-The First Mustangs with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine which is when it got its fame entered service in december 1943 (which is about 1944)

-Its max speed was 437m.p.h. It had a 1,510hp. Merlin V-1650, and its loaded weight was 11,600lb.

-Its armament was six 0.5 in. Browning maching guns, max bomb load of 2,000lb or you could have six 5in. rocket projectiles.

Now to clarify some posts: Yes the P-51 Mustang was designed to meet RAF requirement, I dont see if it matters much, but you guys seem to argue allot about it.

Also IRONMAN, the post you said about "you guys are bashing... and so I wont even read your posts." Well if you say that, then you may as well leave now, because you dont seem to take in more than one view, and I practically hate ppl like that. I like to hear everyone out, and get all the views about a topic so I can better decide. I dont get all patriotic and personall, that deffinetely does not control my ideas. And I hope it doesnt with you.

So my conclusion: I find that the Spitfire was very agile, and was also heavily armed, more so than the Mustang. I find that if the two would meet together, I would think that the Spitfire would come out strong.

I do not underestimate the Mustangs role during WW2, but I find that it was more of a Long Range escort Fighter (that was its role) than a interceptor fighter (and that was the Spitfires role).

The Mustang was very valuable during WW2, becaues it enabled daylight bombing, becasue of its large fuel tank, and the Spitfire could not reach such distances.

And Im not making this up from my ass, and I hope more people will give more information to back your opinions.

My Sources:

Book: David Lee. World War 2 Airplanes. 1998.

[Komissar Ombrok]

I specially don't interrupt the discussion of two americans. That was intresting... :?

to Gen. Sandworm

That I was talked about in another topic. You learned history and know a lot. But so many people from USA and not only USA don't know much about WW2.

to IRONMAN

You an idiot. You don't know not only world history, but even don't know history of own country. The Korea was small country? Yes. But losses of chinesse and americans was great, huge, enormous. I think you put a shame on Korean veterans with that position. Best aces of Korean war(russians pilots) have a 10-40 air wins each. And was many of them. Human losses was also great. America lost in Korea more troops than in the ww2. THAT was real ww2 for America. The americans soldiers was faced with 10-millions chinese army, armed by Soviet Union and best Soviet pilots.

about fighters
There is a point, that all members of forum is always miss :). When we speak about last-war planes, the differense in some mph isn't mean so much. In gunpower also. Can you find differense between "shoot down" and "chop to pieces"? Plane is out of battle, and only this matter. In that case, main points is manurability and easy in mastering. The latest soviet planes was designed for very fast studying. And was VERY simply in control. The pilots told about that planes was like continue of theirs own bodies. That was a reason, than pilots choose soviet planes. For pride of Britain, the Spifire also was good plane to control, but King Cobra was suxx in that point. The soviet pilots often specialy damaged Land-Lease Cobras to change them for more good plane. With that Soviet HQ made an order to kill pilots who specially damaged engines or landing without shassy...

[South African Military]

I specially don't interrupt the discussion of two americans. That was intresting... :?

to Gen. Sandworm

That I was talked about in another topic. You learned history and know a lot. But so many people from USA and not only USA don't know much about WW2.

to IRONMAN

You an idiot. You don't know not only world history, but even don't know history of own country. The Korea was small country? Yes. But losses of chinesse and americans was great, huge, enormous. I think you put a shame on Korean veterans with that position. Best aces of Korean war(russians pilots) have a 10-40 air wins each. And was many of them. Human losses was also great. America lost in Korea more troops than in the ww2. THAT was real ww2 for America. The americans soldiers was faced with 10-millions chinese army, armed by Soviet Union and best Soviet pilots.

about fighters
There is a point, that all members of forum is always miss :). When we speak about last-war planes, the differense in some mph isn't mean so much. In gunpower also. Can you find differense between "shoot down" and "chop to pieces"? Plane is out of battle, and only this matter. In that case, main points is manurability and easy in mastering. The latest soviet planes was designed for very fast studying. And was VERY simply in control. The pilots told about that planes was like continue of theirs own bodies. That was a reason, than pilots choose soviet planes. For pride of Britain, the Spifire also was good plane to control, but King Cobra was suxx in that point. The soviet pilots often specialy damaged Land-Lease Cobras to change them for more good plane. With that Soviet HQ made an order to kill pilots who specially damaged engines or landing without shassy...

It is true, that a good plane must be easy to master. But with good engineers and mechanics, you can easily repair any damaged plane, just make sure that the plane isnt destroyed. In the case with Russia, it benefited Russia more when they had easy to control and to master planes, becuase they had many pilots and loss of life was not that big of a deal. In the case of Britain and other countries, a pilot was more valuable than the plane, because it would of taken longer to train and to become an advanced pilot. You can look it in many ways, a good plane might be an easy to manufacture, easy to control. Or a good plane could be high tech, harder to control, but with better advantages.

[Komissar Ombrok]

It is true, that a good plane must be easy to master. But with good engineers and mechanics, you can easily repair any damaged plane, just make sure that the plane isnt destroyed. In the case with Russia, it benefited Russia more when they had easy to control and to master planes, becuase they had many pilots and loss of life was not that big of a deal. In the case of Britain and other countries, a pilot was more valuable than the plane, because it would of taken longer to train and to become an advanced pilot. You can look it in many ways, a good plane might be an easy to manufacture, easy to control. Or a good plane could be high tech, harder to control, but with better advantages.

Hmm.. I said easy in mastering means have poor advantages? Not that. For example, find the information about lag-5. Specially want to do it by yourself. Is this a bad plane? Me-262 was shooted down with it. I told about combination of advantages with mastering. Balance between them. As I think, from allies planes only Spitfire have such balance. Soviet have more types of it. Of course, SU also have a big number of "flying graves", unuseable in real battle, but production of it was closed very fast after war was begin.

[IRONMAN]

America lost in Korea more troops than in the ww2.

Sorry, but that's very incorrect. In fact, it's way, way off the mark. The United States lost 405,000+ men in WWII, and 53,000+ in Korea. Look it up, because apprearently, you haven't. BTW, my father was there in Korea, he went all the way up to Chosin and fought there in a foxhole. : )

What the heck are you thinking?

And you called me an idiot. Sheesh. :roll:

As for it being outgunned yes the .303 was poor

Indeed. That alone made it inferior to the Mustang. It's gun was too weak and had penetration problems. :cry:


As for winning a war in Iraq on your own the British made the main Decoy for the Iraqi's and British troops werer some of the first over the Border.

Oh by the way, another war the US won was against Britain when they came at us in 1812. As my American History classes serve me, I don't think anyone fought with the US either. maybe a few native Americans shot arrows though. Just the US vrs Britain. Those Brits are stubborned eh? Twice in less than 40 years they tried.

I have not been doing anything but defending against your attacks on my country, but if you'd like me to give you some facts and boast just a little, as you have been doing about Britain while insulting my country, here goes:

On Iraq: Incorrect. You mean the French. The French were the 1st over the border on the left flank. THE FRENCH were the diversion, not the small force of British that were with the Americans on the right flank. Naturally, he kept the Brits and the French sperate from each other. LOL The operation was planned by US General Shwartzkauf, and he sent in the French on the left as a diversion. He called it the "long bomb fake", like in a football (American football) game. On the right flank was a batallion of US and a small force of British soldiers. As it were, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the US army, as has been the case with every war the US has been involved in. So your insults about the US can't win a war without help is just more of your insulting crap. The war had already been won from the air by US air forces before a single soldier stepped into Iraq. LOL

We didn't need anyone to help us in Iraq as you suggest. We won the war by devestating the enemy on the ground from the air in 6 weeks before we sent a single man in. All the soldiers and tanks did was finish them off and secure the land. When the soldiers did roll in, they fought a few skirmishes with tanks and small arms and looked around at all of the devestation caused by the American air forces. Roads were littered, yes littered with destroyed Iraqi - tens of thousands of them. The US only got other nations involved so it would be a coalition thing and we could get the UN to take some respoinsibility for the war. Other nations joined in with small numbers of troops as a political thing. Let's see, I think about 5-6,000 soldiers went to Iraq this last time and served as police forces. : ) None went into regular combat. The US lost less than 140 men in Iraq, and destroyed tens of thousands of Iraqi. Talk about a kill ratio. There's never been one like that in history.

Even at Chosin (the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare) in Korea most of the 27,000 (20,000 UN, 7.000 US) remained in the rear firing artillery while the 7th US Marines Division - 7,000 men is all, were at the front lines and fought most of the 240,000 Chinese who attacked... by themselfves, and achieved a 10-1 kill ration in -40 F weather. They used oil-based hair tonic to lubricate the action of thier M1 Carbines and keep them firing in the extreme cold.

Britain has fought few wars without allies too, as have most nations. So what is your stupid point? None. You just want to gripe. All of this because you want to insult my country and gripe.

For that matter, the US didn't even come close to throwing all it had into WWII. We used what we had on hand and what we could manufacture in a year. Had the US thrown all it had into the war, we would have drafted an army of 10,000,000+ men and sent hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes. Afterall, the US population was 120,000,000+ back then. It simply did not take all of that to do the job. We re-tooled existing factories and hired companies to make things for the war. There were no government built factories. but there could have been hundreds of them. We just didn't need all of that to push the Germans back on the west. When the Japanese destroyed half of our navy at once, we built it again, but larger, in less than 1 year.

The point I am making, is that your insults about the US having needed help to win wars does not hold water. They are simply empty insults.

The only problem I have with you, is that you keep insulting my country by inserting little insults between the words of your sentences. You can be incorrect about what was the best fighter in WWII all you like. I could care less what you think of it. But I have asked you several times to keep your nationalistic bashing out of it. You are the only one here doing that, and it should stop.

This is not the appropiate place for insulting other nations, making nationalistic snide remarks, and name calling. If it bugs you that Britain no longer has an empire, that's one thing, but you really need to stop insulting my country and refering to it as the "commonwealth" and other such childish things. That era ended hundreds of years ago. So far you have trolled every other post I have made on other threads in this forum to try to start an argument, because that's how childish you are. You even made up some fake reference about some imaginary person stating that they happened to know that memebers of the Russian army dislike a movie I suggested in a movie thread, simply to be inciteful and start a childish argument. My God boy. You are desperate aren't you?

Your kind is not uncommon in forums - those few who troll threads to incite others, bash other people's countries, insult them with name calling, seek to start arguments instead of calmly discuss, and actively try to incite others - those who simply cannot accept than anything that comes from their country is not and has not always been the best of it's kind in the world. That world is long, long gone my friend. Insulting other people's countries and trolling them to start childish arguments does does not earn you respect.

Grow up and act like a member of the world society why don't you. Just please keep your insolent counry bashing and name calling to yourself and out of the forum. Then you can discuss things without calling people names and insulting their country, and you can be respectable.

[South African Military]

America lost in Korea more troops than in the ww2.

Sorry, but that's very incorrect. In fact, it's way, way off the mark. The United States lost 405,000+ men in WWII, and 53,000+ in Korea. Look it up, because apprearently, you haven't. BTW, my father was there in Korea, he went all the way up to Chosin and fought there in a foxhole. : )

What the heck are you thinking?

And you called me an idiot. Sheesh. :roll:

As for it being outgunned yes the .303 was poor

Indeed. That alone made it inferior to the Mustang. It's gun was too weak and had penetration problems. :cry:


As for winning a war in Iraq on your own the British made the main Decoy for the Iraqi's and British troops werer some of the first over the Border.

Oh by the way, another war the US won was against Britain when they came at us in 1812. As my American History classes serve me, I don't think anyone fought with the US either. maybe a few native Americans shot arrows though. Just the US vrs Britain. Those Brits are stubborned eh? Twice in less than 40 years they tried.

I have not been doing anything but defending against your attacks on my country, but if you'd like me to give you some facts and boast just a little, as you have been doing about Britain while insulting my country, here goes:

On Iraq: Incorrect. You mean the French. The French were the 1st over the border on the left flank. THE FRENCH were the diversion, not the small force of British that were with the Americans on the right flank. Naturally, he kept the Brits and the French sperate from each other. LOL The operation was planned by US General Shwartzkauf, and he sent in the French on the left as a diversion. He called it the "long bomb fake", like in a football (American football) game. On the right flank was a batallion of US and a small force of British soldiers. As it were, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the US army, as has been the case with every war the US has been involved in. So your insults about the US can't win a war without help is just more of your insulting crap. The war had already been won from the air by US air forces before a single soldier stepped into Iraq. LOL

We didn't need anyone to help us in Iraq as you suggest. We won the war by devestating the enemy on the ground from the air in 6 weeks before we sent a single man in. All the soldiers and tanks did was finish them off and secure the land. When the soldiers did roll in, they fought a few skirmishes with tanks and small arms and looked around at all of the devestation caused by the American air forces. Roads were littered, yes littered with destroyed Iraqi - tens of thousands of them. The US only got other nations involved so it would be a coalition thing and we could get the UN to take some respoinsibility for the war. Other nations joined in with small numbers of troops as a political thing. Let's see, I think about 5-6,000 soldiers went to Iraq this last time and served as police forces. : ) None went into regular combat. The US lost less than 140 men in Iraq, and destroyed tens of thousands of Iraqi. Talk about a kill ratio. There's never been one like that in history.

Even at Chosin (the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare) in Korea most of the 27,000 (20,000 UN, 7.000 US) remained in the rear firing artillery while the 7th US Marines Division - 7,000 men is all, were at the front lines and fought most of the 240,000 Chinese who attacked... by themselfves, and achieved a 10-1 kill ration in -40 F weather. They used oil-based hair tonic to lubricate the action of thier M1 Carbines and keep them firing in the extreme cold.

Britain has fought few wars without allies too, as have most nations. So what is your stupid point? None. You just want to gripe. All of this because you want to insult my country and gripe.

For that matter, the US didn't even come close to throwing all it had into WWII. We used what we had on hand and what we could manufacture in a year. Had the US thrown all it had into the war, we would have drafted an army of 10,000,000+ men and sent hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes. Afterall, the US population was 120,000,000+ back then. It simply did not take all of that to do the job. We re-tooled existing factories and hired companies to make things for the war. There were no government built factories. but there could have been hundreds of them. We just didn't need all of that to push the Germans back on the west. When the Japanese destroyed half of our navy at once, we built it again, but larger, in less than 1 year.

The point I am making, is that your insults about the US having needed help to win wars does not hold water. They are simply empty insults.

The only problem I have with you, is that you keep insulting my country by inserting little insults between the words of your sentences. You can be incorrect about what was the best fighter in WWII all you like. I could care less what you think of it. But I have asked you several times to keep your nationalistic bashing out of it. You are the only one here doing that, and it should stop.

This is not the appropiate place for insulting other nations, making nationalistic snide remarks, and name calling. If it bugs you that Britain no longer has an empire, that's one thing, but you really need to stop insulting my country and refering to it as the "commonwealth" and other such childish things. That era ended hundreds of years ago. So far you have trolled every other post I have made on other threads in this forum to try to start an argument, because that's how childish you are. You even made up some fake reference about some imaginary person stating that they happened to know that memebers of the Russian army dislike a movie I suggested in a movie thread, simply to be inciteful and start a childish argument. My God boy. You are desperate aren't you?

Your kind is not uncommon in forums - those few who troll threads to incite others, bash other people's countries, insult them with name calling, seek to start arguments instead of calmly discuss, and actively try to incite others - those who simply cannot accept than anything that comes from their country is not and has not always been the best of it's kind in the world. That world is long, long gone my friend. Insulting other people's countries and trolling them to start childish arguments does does not earn you respect.

Grow up and act like a member of the world society why don't you. Just please keep your insolent counry bashing and name calling to yourself and out of the forum. Then you can discuss things without calling people names and insulting their country, and you can be respectable.

Dude, just cut the crap out o.k.? WTF was this post? 90% wasnt related to WW2, so maybe u should bug off. And I agree with Komissar you are an idiot, maybe you should read my post eh? Spitfire being outgunned is not true. Let me explain something to you IRONMAN cause you dont seem to know much about WW2 planes. The Spitfire was built in many versions that had different speeds and armament. Yes at one time the Spitfire did have 0.303 gun. But I think we are all talking about the Griffon engined Spitfire This verson of the Spitfire came out at around the same time as the P-51 (the merlin engined one, the one that actually got its fame from).

The Spitfire was armed with four 20mm(0.78in.)Hispano cannons, and up to 1,000lbs in bombs or rocket projectiles.

The P-51 was armed with six 0.5in. Browning machine guns, max bomb load of 2,000lb or you could have six 5in. rocket projectiles

I dont know if you can read, but the Spitfire was not outgunned. But anyway please read my post on page 3, as I have related the two planes using facts.

[IRONMAN]

Even a search in Google for "best fighter of WWII" supports the widely known fact that the Mustang was the best fighter of the WWII era - most of the resulting pages chose the P-51.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22best+fighter+of+WWII%22

As for my post, it was in response to each of the ridiculous untruths meant to insult that you claimed about my country, which I corrected individually ...like the British were the 1st into Iraq, and such and such and such and such.

What I do care about, it your name calling and country bashing. It seems you are improving. You didn't do any country bashing that time and only called me an idiot once. Well done young man!

[South African Military]

Even a search in Google for "best fighter of WWII" supports the widely known fact that the Mustang was the best fighter of the WWII era - most of the resulting pages chose the P-51.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22best+fighter+of+WWII%22

As for my post, it was in response to each of the ridiculous untruths meant to insult that you claimed about my country, which I corrected individually ...like the British were the 1st into Iraq, and such and such and such and such.

What I do care about, it your name calling and country bashing. It seems you are improving. You didn't do any country bashing that time and only called me an idiot once. Well done young man!

Alas! We have found where IRONMAN gets his information from! From small and crappy websites! Come on, all those websites are saying the the P-51 and other American aircrafts where the best during WW2. Surely IRONMAN, you have enough brains to figure out that the Germans had the best aircraft. Me-262 and the Komet can take down almost any plane, and yes many allied planes did shoot them down, but that was just because it was late in the war, and the pilots were kids.

That is the main reason why I didnt add Germany to the poll.

[IRONMAN]

Alas! We have found where IRONMAN gets his information from!

No, just from 40+ years of living. But the sheer number of sites that chose the Mustang are a nice indicator of what others are thinking. : ) Some of those sites are .uk. LOL

Surely IRONMAN, you have enough brains to figure out that the Germans had the best aircraft. Me-262 and the Komet can take down almost any plane, and yes many allied planes did shoot them down, but that was just because it was late in the war, and the pilots were kids.

Oh, so now you say that the only reason America pilots shot down any German planes is because the German pilots were "kids"? I suppose all the Japanes pilots the US downed between 1941 and 1945 were kids too. LMAO :roll: Where are your "brains"?

The only German plane that compared to Allied planes was the Stuka as an attack bomber. Other than that, all the German planes were ecliped by those of other nations, largely because they were less manuverable.

You've spent a lot of time saying the Spitfire was the best... now you say the me-262 was the best. You really don't know what to think I see. You just want to gripe and try to bash America, and here you are trying to do it once more.

Pitiful.

You said in these forums that you are in the RAF. How could that be if you are a citizen of South Africa, as you have also stated? And you expect others to believe the garbage you spew. :wink:

[South African Military]

Alas! We have found where IRONMAN gets his information from!

No, just from 40+ years of living. But the sheer number of sites that chose the Mustang are a nice indicator of what others are thinking. : ) Some of those sites are .uk. LOL

Surely IRONMAN, you have enough brains to figure out that the Germans had the best aircraft. Me-262 and the Komet can take down almost any plane, and yes many allied planes did shoot them down, but that was just because it was late in the war, and the pilots were kids.

Oh, so now you say that the only reason America pilots shot down any German planes is because the German pilots were "kids"? I suppose all the Japanes pilots the US downed between 1941 and 1945 were kids too. LMAO :roll: Where are your "brains"?

The only German plane that compared to Allied planes was the Stuka as an attack bomber. Other than that, all the German planes were ecliped by those of other nations, largely because they were less manuverable.

You've spent a lot of time saying the Spitfire was the best... now you say the me-262 was the best. You really don't know what to think I see. You just want to gripe and try to bash America, and here you are trying to do it once more.

Pitiful.

You said in these forums that you are in the RAF. How could that be if you are a citizen of South Africa, as you have also stated? And you expect others to believe the garbage you spew. :wink:

HAHA! Wildboar said that he was in the RAF. Ive never been to Europe before. LOL.

No Im not saying that the only reason that they got shot down was because they are kids, and I did not say that all japanese pilots are kids, you are twisting what I am saying. What I really mean is, during the latter years the German pilots did not have experience and were not trained well, and yes alot of them came from the youth movement or som like that.

No I did not say that the Spitfire was the best plane in WW2, I hope you know that in this discussion, we are comparing only Brtish planes to American planes. Also I think alot of people in this forum think that Germany had the best WW2 aircraft.

I do hope you give discuss your opinions using information rather than saying stupid remarks about another guys post.

[IRONMAN]

I didn't twist anything you've said. Not at all.

I'm all for people expressing thier opinions. But when they inject insults about my country into their opinions, that is when it becomes offensive, and you have been doing plenty of that under your breath. I came to this forum to discuss things with people. Not to defend my country against insolent remarks snuck in between the words of their sentences.

Let's start over shall we?

The Spitfire was a great plane. So was the Mustang. I don't know much about Russian planes, but I don't think the German planes were manuverable enough. The Japanese planes were very manuverable, but a bit too slow, had poor armour, and were under-powered.

That's just my opinion. I'm through with this subject, unless I am called an "idiot" again or my country is insulted again. Let's hope that is overwith.

[South African Military]

I didn't twist anything you've said. Not at all.

I'm all for people expressing thier opinions. But when they inject insults about my country into their opinions, that is when it becomes offensive, and you have been doing plenty of that under your breath. I came to this forum to discuss things with people. Not to defend my country against insolent remarks snuck in between the words of their sentences.

Let's start over shall we?

The Spitfire was a great plane. So was the Mustang. I don't know much about Russian planes, but I don't think the German planes were manuverable enough. The Japanese planes were very manuverable, but a bit too slow, had poor armour, and were under-powered.

That's just my opinion. I'm through with this subject, unless I am called an "idiot" again or my country is insulted again. Let's hope that is overwith.

here you go with your bashing things again, I have never insulted you or your country, and I have many american friends by the way.

I agree and disagree with you for the following reasons:

-Both the Spitfire and the Mustang where great planes.

-I still think Germany had the best planes during WW2, but the British Meteor was a fair competitor, however it was built late in the war.

-And I would say that the Japanese planes where pretty sad during the war. They where quite heavily armed, but were EXTREMELY slow, and that was their major downfall.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Sorry, but that's very incorrect. In fact, it's way, way off the mark. The United States lost 405,000+ men in WWII, and 53,000+ in Korea. Look it up...........

K, so i did. The total lost in WW2 is probably a bit closer to 450,000. But your Korean War total is off.

From "An Encyclopedia of Battles" by David Eggenberger. Page 222. ISBN-0-486-24913-1

Korean War
US dead - 29,550
US wounded & missing - 106,978
U.N. dead - 447,967
U.N. wounded & missing - 547,904

Losses for N. Korea and China would be roughly 1.42 million.

[IRONMAN]

I told you that 53,000+ US lost their lives in Korea. I was off by about 1,000, which is far from your 29,000+ number. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation, but here are the numbers from the United States Governemt:

-----------------------------------------------------

The United States Department of Defense:

"Of the 88,000 Americans missing from all conflicts since the beginning of World War II, more than 8,100 are from the Korean War."

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050420-2722.html

-----------------------------------------------------

United States House of Representatives:

"The American casualties were high. More than 54,000 paid the ultimate price in the defense of freedom, another 92,000 suffered casualties, and 8,176 soldiers never returned home and are listed as missing in action."

http://www.house.gov/young/press/fs0308001.htm

------------------------------------------------------

United States Department of Veterans Affairs:

Battle Deaths 33,686
Other Deaths (In Theater) 2,830
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) 17,730
Total: 54,246

http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

WWII:

The numbers are precicely what I told you that they were: 405,000

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs:

Battle Deaths 291,557
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) 113,842
Total: 405,339

http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Those are the numbers from agencies of the US Government itself. Shouldn't you spend more time listening to me than trying to disprove everything that I say?

[South African Military]

I told you that 53,000+ US lost their lives in Korea. I was off by about 1,000, which is far from your 29,000+ number. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation, but here are the numbers from the United States Governemt:

-----------------------------------------------------

The United States Department of Defense:

"Of the 88,000 Americans missing from all conflicts since the beginning of World War II, more than 8,100 are from the Korean War."

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050420-2722.html

-----------------------------------------------------

United States House of Representatives:

"The American casualties were high. More than 54,000 paid the ultimate price in the defense of freedom, another 92,000 suffered casualties, and 8,176 soldiers never returned home and are listed as missing in action."

http://www.house.gov/young/press/fs0308001.htm

------------------------------------------------------

United States Department of Veterans Affairs:

Battle Deaths 33,686
Other Deaths (In Theater) 2,830
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) 17,730
Total: 54,246

http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

WWII:

The numbers are precicely what I told you that they were: 405,000

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs:

Battle Deaths 291,557
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) 113,842
Total: 405,339

http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Those are the numbers from agencies of the US Government itself. Shouldn't you spend more time listening to me than trying to disprove everything that I say?

Im a bit confused at the moment, what does this have to do with best allied fighter plane of WW2?

[Gen. Sandworm]

S.A.M. your right and it does not need to be here.......... we need to stay back on Topic. Thanks for pointing it out. From now on Keep on topic or start a new one. I didnt really want to go back and delete a bunch of posts of please disregard those. Please stay on topic in all forums.

[IRONMAN]

There is something that I hope you will all read here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2026#2026

[FW-190 Pilot]

The meteor was operational before the end of the war but it's pilots were not allowed to go over enemy lines to engage the enemy.

Britain and Germany both had jet planes flying early in the war but the production models came later. The technology was basically handed to the americans and Russians in order to pacify them and even everything up. The meteor was used to intercept V1's as far as I know but that was it.

Have you seen the pics of the New build 262's in America they look nice :)
really? why wouldnt they let them go over enmey lines to engage enemy?
and yeah i did see the new Me-262 being build in america, i think i post the link a long time ago

[South African Military]

The meteor was operational before the end of the war but it's pilots were not allowed to go over enemy lines to engage the enemy.

Britain and Germany both had jet planes flying early in the war but the production models came later. The technology was basically handed to the americans and Russians in order to pacify them and even everything up. The meteor was used to intercept V1's as far as I know but that was it.

Have you seen the pics of the New build 262's in America they look nice :)
really? why wouldnt they let them go over enmey lines to engage enemy?
and yeah i did see the new Me-262 being build in america, i think i post the link a long time ago

I dont know about the Meteor not being able to cross enemy lines, it will be interesting to know. The Meteor built to combat the Me-262, however they never met in combat. Too bad they didnt meet, it will be an interesting battle.

[WildBoar]

You said in these forums that you are in the RAF. How could that be if you are a citizen of South Africa,

As a member of a commonwealth Country it is fairly common to serve in The UK armed forces. Where I work I am on shift with 2 South African Guys and we have Canadians,Australians etc.

You may not like the Commonwealth Country stuff but it is not Britain attempting to start it's Empire again but a plain fact,And is more a group of countries who look after each others interests.

Some information about the Meteor can be found here

http://www.redtwo.demon.co.uk/616/jets.htm

A site by a guy on one of the other forums I frequent.

WWW.airattack.co.uk

Is a site I mentioned before but it has a fair number of Enthusiasts who know their stuff.If you do visit you may see my post about recent events ;)

[IRONMAN]

You are correct about the speed. The Mustang's top speed was 439 mph, the Spitfire 450. An 11 mph difference. Nonetheless, the Mustang is my choice for best fighter of WWII. It was fast (2nd fastest by 11 mph), manuverable, durable, and had great range. Overall it was the best of the era.

Nah it was one of the best but the high number of kills is purely down to weight of numbers. I have read from people who have flown all types that the Russian aircraft were probably the best but they aren't in the Poll[/b] so British it is.

This was the source of all of the arguing in this thread. Because I was a new member, you attacked my opinion and posted an argumentative one immediately after I voiced my opinion. You did not do this behind any of the other people's opinions, only mine. Just so you know.

[South African Military]

You are correct about the speed. The Mustang's top speed was 439 mph, the Spitfire 450. An 11 mph difference. Nonetheless, the Mustang is my choice for best fighter of WWII. It was fast (2nd fastest by 11 mph), manuverable, durable, and had great range. Overall it was the best of the era.

Nah it was one of the best but the high number of kills is purely down to weight of numbers. I have read from people who have flown all types that the Russian aircraft were probably the best but they aren't in the Poll[/b] so British it is.

This was the source of all of the arguing in this thread. Because I was a new member, you attacked my opinion and posted an argumentative one immediately after I voiced my opinion. You did not do this behind any of the other people's opinions, only mine. Just so you know.

Not true, I voice my opinion whenever I feel that something is not historically correct, or what I think that the person is arguing is not entirely true, usually I back my opinions with info.

After all it is like a debate, so dont take it personal.

[BDL]

Gone for Britain, Spitfire was a better fighter than the Mustang (just), Lightning and Thunderbolt (IMO)

[South African Military]

For any new comers who havent seen this topic yet, please vote and state why. I will like to continue the debate.

[Bluffcove]

The mustang because it was the fastest plane and won the airwalt.

Sorry no I would go with the Hawker Hurricane for all round robust duty and the ability to destroy german bombers by fling into them! and a huge armament.
Maybe the Mosquito night fighter.
hmmmmm or the tweaked mustang that we made when we gave it a decent engine that could actually fly at altitude and made it into an escort fighter as opposed to a ground attack like the yanks wanted to use it for, with an underpowered normally aspirated engine.

(hang fire on normally aspirated)

[2nd of foot]

IRONMAN wrote:


You said in these forums that you are in the RAF. How could that be if you are a citizen of South Africa,


wildboar wrote

As a member of a commonwealth Country it is fairly common to serve in The UK armed forces. Where I work I am on shift with 2 South African Guys and we have Canadians,Australians etc.

You may not like the Commonwealth Country stuff but it is not Britain attempting to start it's Empire again but a plain fact,And is more a group of countries who look after each others interests.


Wasn’t one of the crew to the Tornado that the patriot shot down a Kiwi. I also remember something about taking on a lot of the RAAF pilots who were being made redundant.

If you go to the RAF memorial overlooking Runningmead you will see the name of all the air crew who died in WW2. they are listed in date order. They also have a section for commonwealth squadrons. If a commonwealth citizen was serving with a RAF squadron he is shown under day of death if serving in a commonwealth squadron he will appear in that countries list by date order.

If you ever get the chance go see it, it is very moving. Try for a cold clear day, as the views over London and Windsor are remarkable.


Runnymede Memorial
The Runnymede Memorial is situated at Englefield Green, near Egham, Surrey, 32 kilometres west of London. Its design is original and striking. On the crest of Cooper's Hill, overlooking the Thames, a square tower dominates a cloister, in the centre of which rests the Stone of Remembrance. The cloistered walks terminate in two lookouts, one facing towards Windsor, and the other towards London. The names of the dead are inscribed on the stone reveals of the narrow windows in the cloisters and the lookouts.

Above the three-arched entrance to the cloister is a great stone eagle with the Royal Air Force motto, "Per Ardua ad Astra". On each side is the inscription:

IN THIS CLOISTER ARE RECORDED THE NAMES OF TWENTY THOUSAND AIRMEN WHO HAVE NO KNOWN GRAVE. THEY DIED FOR FREEDOM IN RAID AND SORTIE OVER THE BRITISH ISLES AND THE LANDS AND SEAS OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPE.

In the tower a vaulted shrine, which provides a quiet place for contemplation, contains illuminated verses by Paul H. Scott, from whom the following extract has been taken:

"Here, at the heart of England, half-way between Royal Windsor and lordly London: looking down, Here, where the trees troop down to Runnymede, Meadow of Magna Carta, field of freedom, Never saw you so fitting a memorial, Proof that the principles established here Are still dear to the hearts of men."

[BDL]

Saw the Runnymede memorial a few times when I was posted to Windsor - very moving and beautiful views.

Think one of the aircrew on the SF Herc that came down was a Kiwi - no idea about the Tornado that the Patriot got though.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I always thought that it was funny that the Spitfire is the most remember plane of the RAF. But the Hurricane was the real savior of Britain. I believe it was 4/7th or 5/7th of enemy planes were shot down by Hurricanes during the Battle of Britian. Or the BoB as some like to call it. :D

[BDL]

Hurricane got into production first and was easier to make GS, that's why we had more of them. There were a lot of problems setting up a "shadow production line" in Castle Bromwich for the Spitfire, which meant that it was in use in smaller numbers in early 1940 - they managed to turn out 20,000 odd of them by the time they were retired well after the end of the war.

The Hurricane was the mainstay of the BofB, but if we could have built the Spitfire quicker we would have equipped more squadrons with it and it would have been the major player in the Battle - it was a far superior plane to the Hurri (and the Bf-109E) and would have made the Battle far less of a closely run affair (IMO).

edit - Stella induced spelling

[Gen. Sandworm]

The best plane of the war IMO was probably the Mosquito. Although used alot as a bomber it was very effective in dogfights as well. I just think this was the best all around plane of the war. Although I have to say that the Americans had much better bombers in the end than the British. Not saying yours were bad but the American bombers were more forerunner for the modern heavy bombers. Today most planes are considered tactical so therefore the mosquito would be a good example of that do to its all around effectivness. This is about fighter so I wont get to off topic about bombers.

[South African Military]

Debate about bombers, MADE

[King_Nothing]

IIRC it was 70% of all enemy shot down in the Battle Of Britain was done so by Hawker Hurricanes.

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

I think the British Spitfires and Hurricanes were the best planes of WWII on the Allied side. They had more visibility from around the cockpit then that of a German Messerschmitt. They had, I believe 2, .50 Browning Automatic guns mounted on the wings. Though the .50 cals were no match for the amazing firepower that the Messerschmitt could put out. Overall though, I think that the British had the most inovative fighter design and that their Spitfires and Hurricanes played a large role in leading the Allies to victory.

[Man of Stoat]

I think the British Spitfires and Hurricanes were the best planes of WWII on the Allied side. They had more visibility from around the cockpit then that of a German Messerschmitt. They had, I believe 2, .50 Browning Automatic guns mounted on the wings. Though the .50 cals were no match for the amazing firepower that the Messerschmitt could put out. Overall though, I think that the British had the most inovative fighter design and that their Spitfires and Hurricanes played a large role in leading the Allies to victory.

OK, where do we start...

1. The hurricane was very obsolete by mid-war, and was a dead-end of development, since its construction was a bit old-school (the fuselage was fabric over a tube skeleton). Even at the time of the Battle of Britain, its performance could not match the Bf109. The Spitfire continued to be developped until the end of the war.

2. Armament at the start of the war was 8 .303" Browning aircraft guns, with a rate of fire of 1100rpm each. One version of the Hurricane mounted 12 .303" machine guns. Later in the war, the armament was 2 20mm cannon & 4 .303" machine guns, along with other configurations.

3. The firepower of the Messerschmitt was not that great - the cannon had a rather low rate of fire & curved trajectory, so were not so good against fast-moving fighters, and 2x7.92mm MGs (as per early in the war) was not as good as 8 Brownings for this. When used in combination, the difference in ballistics between the MGs & the cannon dispersed the shot pattern both vertically & horizontally at anything other than optimum range, whilst the British 8-gun pattern remained more concentrated, since it was only dispersed horizontally at anything other than convergence range.

[Walther]

But the skeleton construction of the Hurricane meant that she could absorb a lot of punishment and could easily be repaired on the frontline bases, compared to the stressed semi monocoque design of the Spitfire, which required more advanced repairs. As a result the Hurricanes were
a) easier to manufacture and
b) faster back in combat after repairs.
As a result more German planes got shot down by Hurricanes than Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

But the skeleton construction of the Hurricane meant that she could absorb a lot of punishment and could easily be repaired on the frontline bases, compared to the stressed semi monocoque design of the Spitfire, which required more advanced repairs. As a result the Hurricanes were
a) easier to manufacture and
b) faster back in combat after repairs.
As a result more German planes got shot down by Hurricanes than Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.

Jan

That is true - there were also significantly more hurricanes than spitfires in the RAF at the time, but it was a dead-end design for weight & thus performance reasons - there's only so far you can push an airframe of that construction.

[Walther]

That's true. I think the biggest obstacle was the fabric covering. It limits Vne, because beyond a certain speed no matter how good your rib stitching is, the low pressure area above the wing will rip the fabric off the wings. If you want to go faster, you´ll need a semimonocoque design, out of metal, or composites, even plywood, as on the Mossie.

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

They did replace the fabric wings with aluminium ones & introduced them in 1939, but the rest of the plane was still fabric-over-tubes.

[festamus]

Don't forget, the Hurricane did fantastic service after the Battle of Britain, in the North African Desert and the Far East, in ground attack roles to which it seemed to take to quite nicely. When there's some AK tanks to shoot up, bombs, rockets or twin 40mm cannon can't be all that bad! :)

Despite being very much a late 1930's-tech aircraft, the Hurricane found good trade right up to the end of the war - although obviously even their "near-retirement" role of ground attack would be taken up by Typhoon's and so on as time progressed. While in the European theatre it was very much outdated quickly, in the Desert or Far East perhaps there are sound reasons why it soldiered on as long as it did. Having seen photos of how aircraft were maintained in North Africa, I imagine the somewhat "basic" Hurricane probably had advantages over even it's more glamarous contemporary, the Spitfire. Sometimes, dare I say it, primitive construction can lend an aircraft a longer lease of life than it otherwise may have enjoyed.

[Walther]

During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricanes would take care of the lower flying German bombers, while the Spitfires would attack the higher flying and faster fighter escort.

Jan

[Caliber]

romania :D

i think the iar was a damn good fighter.

[South African Military]

I always thought that it was funny that the Spitfire is the most remember plane of the RAF. But the Hurricane was the real savior of Britain. I believe it was 4/7th or 5/7th of enemy planes were shot down by Hurricanes during the Battle of Britian. Or the BoB as some like to call it. :D

Yes it is true that the Hurricane shot down more planes, but the Spitfire was more effective. The Spitfire was the fastest plane in the sky during the BoB, reaching a speed of 362mph at 19,000ft. It climbed better and had better visibility than the ME Bf109.

The Hurricane was easier and less costly to mass produce. The Hurricanes designer Sidney Camm, took the Fury biplane and bassically removed the top wing. Thus it became cheaper to produce since Britain was used to producing biplanes. The Spitfire was allot more complicated. And in the early stages it caused a few production problems.

Hurricanes took about 2/3 of all the kills during BoB but the Me Bf109 was a much better fighter than the Hurricane, and so the Hurricane concentrated on slower moving bombers. The Spitfire went directly against the fighters.

German fighter ace during the BoB was asked by Goering what was needed for Germany to win the battle. He replied "Spitfires"

[StalingradK]

Great Britain hands down... GO MKII SPITFIRES, the plane its self was among the best but the man behind the plane is what counts, the British RAF was among the best trained for their specialized planes :o

[Hosenfield]

Well the US didnt really have a lack of production problem. Also i think the first P-80's saw just a bit of action before the war ended. The American Jet plane

do you have the source? I've never heard of that

[South African Military]

Well the US didnt really have a lack of production problem. Also i think the first P-80's saw just a bit of action before the war ended. The American Jet plane

do you have the source? I've never heard of that

Neither had I. I believe the only allied jet that saw combat before the end of the war was the British Meteor.