82 replies to this topic

[Alias]

And you do realise if Britain fell, then America would indefinitely fall aswell, you struggled against the Japanese alone, if the Nazi's came for you aswell, you would've been goners.

[Eddy01741]

No, not reall, it's obvious that USA has the most vast natural resources in the world. Honestly, lets see, the Spitfire is good, the Mustang is better, and they were both in the same time period. So that ends it, period. THere is no category for rating planes (in this "matrix") for most important single affect on one battle. Anyways, there is no absolute proof that Britain would have fell, I mean, at least Hurricanes would put up a fight, and there is radar early warning systems for Britain.

[Dauth]

Britian would have fallen without the Spitfire, if we fell chances are the US would have settled for Peace.

Hitler didnt want to fight the UK or the US, If he had control of Europe he could have traded well with our (still vast) empire and had a trading foothole in the US so he wouldn't have had to invade.

our Hurricanes were better planes in many ways, given they were cheaper and easier to fly and less of a bitch when night fell. However the public loved the Spit, in the UK we still love the Spit. Imagine seeing London getting bombed to the stone age and looking up to spot a squadron of oval wing Spitfires heading into battle, the sound of a merlin engine throbbing in the sky, the 8 browning guns emptying out all nine yards into a meschersmit (sp?) or a fokker. And you bloody well think we can win.

You have to remember we were fighting on two fronts, population of 40-50 million people and we sent a chunk of our army and navy and the RAF to the other side of the world to protect our overseas territories. Now its understandable for the US to have two fronts but they have 2 damn great big sea borders. If we fell the US were alone on 2 fronts against an enemy who had 2 armies dedicated to dealing with them. Im not certain the US would have settled but im damn sure the chances would have rocketed without the UK still in the fray.

And that is why the Spit is and always will be great.

[AllStarZ]

Flying Tigers, on 23 Dec 2006, 07:03, said:

well I just watch the top ten fighters
they are rated based on
1. Kill Ratio
2. Fear factor
3. Innovation
4. Production rating
5. Service length

Here's the list
10. F/A-22 Raptor (today)
9. Sea Harrier FA2 (today)
8. Sopwith Camel (WW I)
7. ME 262 (WW II)
6. Supermarine Spitfire (WW II)
5. none because there are 2 balanced fighters in number 4
4. Mig 15 / F86 Sabre (Korean war)
3. F4 Phantom (Vietnam)
2. F15 C Eagle (today)
1. P15 D Mustang (WW II)
Is this list logical? I think yes based on history and 5 factor. Based on technology, no way.

Not at all.

[Eddy01741]

Dauth, on 25 Feb 2007, 05:52, said:

Britian would have fallen without the Spitfire, if we fell chances are the US would have settled for Peace.

Hitler didnt want to fight the UK or the US, If he had control of Europe he could have traded well with our (still vast) empire and had a trading foothole in the US so he wouldn't have had to invade.

our Hurricanes were better planes in many ways, given they were cheaper and easier to fly and less of a bitch when night fell. However the public loved the Spit, in the UK we still love the Spit. Imagine seeing London getting bombed to the stone age and looking up to spot a squadron of oval wing Spitfires heading into battle, the sound of a merlin engine throbbing in the sky, the 8 browning guns emptying out all nine yards into a meschersmit (sp?) or a fokker. And you bloody well think we can win.

You have to remember we were fighting on two fronts, population of 40-50 million people and we sent a chunk of our army and navy and the RAF to the other side of the world to protect our overseas territories. Now its understandable for the US to have two fronts but they have 2 damn great big sea borders. If we fell the US were alone on 2 fronts against an enemy who had 2 armies dedicated to dealing with them. Im not certain the US would have settled but im damn sure the chances would have rocketed without the UK still in the fray.

And that is why the Spit is and always will be great.

Very True, that was Hitler's idea about Britain when he attacked Russia, he thought that Britain would rather be under Hitler's rule than Communist rule, and so did US, or so he thought. And AlstarZ are you saying that the list is not at all logical, or not at all based on technology? (BTW, if it was based on technology, the whole list would be like F-22A, F-35, Eurofighter, Gripen, and planes like that).

[Mr. Mylo]

eurofighter typhoon... its the best of all... its a hightech multirole fighter which is fast on one hand and on the other hand fucking manoeuvrable...

but i think the fighter is too new and too bad in point 4 and 5 to be in this list

Edited by hellfurt, 25 February 2007 - 18:26.

[Cattman2236]

Eddy01741, on 24 Feb 2007, 23:24, said:

but i'm American, not British

Thank god for that

Eddy01741, on 24 Feb 2007, 23:24, said:

so I wouldn't become Nazi

Ohh yeah you would be a little japanese boy would`nt you

Eddy01741, on 24 Feb 2007, 23:24, said:

Mustang is the number one fighter ever

No it`s not, is it because it`s yank that it`s the best?

Eddy01741, on 24 Feb 2007, 23:24, said:

They arn't going against underdogs that are very poorly trained with poor equipment like in Vietnam and kind of Korea.

They still beat the shit out of you though did`nt they?

Eddy01741, on 24 Feb 2007, 23:24, said:

At least Spitfire had the best plane engine

Now were getting somewhere

hellfurt, on 25 Feb 2007, 18:25, said:

eurofighter typhoon... its the best of all... its a hightech multirole fighter which is fast on one hand and on the other hand fucking manoeuvrable...

but i think the fighter is too new and too bad in point 4 and 5 to be in this list

Thank you and goodnight, You took the words out of my mouth.

Edited by Cattman2236, 25 February 2007 - 19:47.

[Overdose]

Eddy01741, on 25 Feb 2007, 02:16, said:

No, not reall, it's obvious that USA has the most vast natural resources in the world.

Nope, that's Brazil and Russia.

[Eddy01741]

One word.... Alaska, although we won't use it. Anyways, Cattman, thanks for being overly anti American, I could go into page of why the Mustang was th ebest in it's time, faster, more manuverable, and a ton more range than any other fighter plane, and it wasn't incrediby expensive or hard to make like the ME-262. And, lets see, Eurofighter vs. Raptor, Raptor sneaks up from behind with stealth, and shoots the Eurofighter down before it can even see the Raptor. BTW, Japan never even had a chance against us, they lacked oil, because we stopped giving it to them, they just awoke a "sleeping giant" at Pearl Harbor, and since we would only dedicate troops to one front (I doubt Hitler was anywhere near ready to cross the atlantic and try to land on the shores of US Soil.) The only thing Japan had was a damn good navy, and adecent naval airforce, otherwise, they were destined to defeat.

EDIT: Oh, and am I a Yank? Really, or am I just stating the facts. Lemme say something loud and clear, the fricking FW190 was better than the Spitfire in almost all areas, and that's unarguable, am I being a neo-nazi now? Eh? BTW, If your wondering, I'm anywhere near a yank on nowadays tech. Lets see, American guns, yeah, our machineguns are POS like the M-60E3 (The E4 is OKAY, but not great) where do our good mgs come from? Lets see, belgium, belgium, and.... belgium, theres the M-240 (MAG) and the M-249 (minimi), good assault rifles, yeah right, the M-16 that jams so often. Tanks, yeah, lets see, Abrams armor is from the British (Chobham) and Abrams gun is from the Germans, that is 2 of the three essential parts of Tanks (mobility, firepower, and protection are the three), the Leopard 2 is better IMO. Planes, USA has raptors, ow this is where facts go against my opinion, it's obviously the best fighter in the world, stealth, manuverability, advanced electronics, the works basically. My favorite is the Su-37, it's Russian, and it's not my favorite because I think it's the best (although I still sometimes do like to think that it is) but because it looks damn good, and it's damn manuverable and has cool features.

Oh, and yeah, How did vietnam and Korea beat teh shit out of us, our own POLITICIANS beat the shit out of us, always telling us that Vietnam and Korea were pointless, so we drew out of Vietnam and that was taken over by the commies. If your going to enter a war, you might as well fight to the end.

The point is, USA was one of the greatest arms producers back in the day, with the Garand, Mustang, Hellfire, Corsair, Wasp Class Carriers, Fletcher Class Destroyers, etc. But now, we just use other nations stuff to make up a ton of our military systems (in the case of guns, we basically are using belgian guns period), but back in the day the Mustang was great. It doesn't matter if the Spitfire was great, the Mustang was better, and it's in the same time period. That's like saying that the MP-38 was great, because the MP-40 was better, period. Look at it this way, had the British had mustangs during the Batle of Britain, then they would have won an even more decisive victory, and that's enough to put the Mustang AT LEAST on top of the Spitfire, and of course above the F-15 because the F-15 has not fought against a worthy opponent pretty much ever.

Edited by Eddy01741, 26 February 2007 - 03:33.

[Overdose]

One word. Amazon. But we'll never use that either. You guys rely pretty much on us from even ethanol, all food products, iron, copper, bronze, silver, gold, steel, uranium and even petrol. Soy is the only resource the US has in abundance and it's the only resource we lose at other than petrol. The US is pretty much as resourceless as Japan.

Edit: Forgot to put leather there.

Edited by Overdose, 26 February 2007 - 04:28.

[DerKrieger]

The US has a great deal of oil, it's just that the NIMBY morons and so-called "environmentalists" won't let anyone drill for it.

[Alias]

You do realise, without Australia, most of your nuclear weapons wouldn't be produced.

[TehKiller]

Eddy01741, on 26 Feb 2007, 04:20, said:

One word.... Alaska, although we won't use it. Anyways, Cattman, thanks for being overly anti American, I could go into page of why the Mustang was th ebest in it's time, faster, more manuverable, and a ton more range than any other fighter plane

If the Mustang was so damn great then how on earth did it got pwned by Japanese Zeroes

[Dauth]

Which version of the Spit was the Mustang better than? we made about 15

[Mr. Mylo]

Eurofighter vs. Raptor, Raptor sneaks up from behind with stealth, and shoots the Eurofighter down before it can even see the Raptor.

dont think so... the eurofighter is more than double so maneuvrable as rocket with heat seeker... correct me if im wrong... I heard it in documentation on a reliable tv channel...

and then the eurofighter use it fucking kickass maneuverability and shoot down the f-22 raptor

Edited by hellfurt, 26 February 2007 - 18:17.

[Eddy01741]

This is literally like talking to bricks. Mustang got pwned by Zeroes? eh? Lets see, they were on the war in EUROPE, NOT IN PACIFIC THEATER. Lets see, Eurofighter? Manuverable, your kidding me, okay, it has a fricking canard, so what. does it have thrust vectoring, no, and missiles can sustain 11gs, that's more than a fighter, and to think of it, even if a fighter could sustain it, the pilot would die. You people are so ignorant. Your so locked onto that you can simply outmanuver a missile, wel, maybe a Pheonix or something that is meant to hit an AWACS from 100 miles away, but a sidewinder or an aphid, dream on, just dream on. This is so stupid. You all saay that UK has the best planes, but have NO proof, stop pulling shit out of your butt about he eurofighter, the only advantage over the raptor is cost, it's not great paying 289mil per fighter.

oh, and HWERE THE HELL IS ALLSTARZ WHEN YOU NEED HIM? This is fucking pissing me off, i'm talking to ignorant bricks, and nobody takes my word at all, acting like they're so knowledgable, and I disprove all your arguements, and you still go on.

[Alias]

Face it man. There is serious proof that Spitfire is a far more efficient and effective fighter.

[Cattman2236]

Eddy01741, on 27 Feb 2007, 01:39, said:

oh, and HWERE THE HELL IS ALLSTARZ WHEN YOU NEED HIM? This is fucking pissing me off, i'm talking to ignorant bricks, and nobody takes my word at all, acting like they're so knowledgable, and I disprove all your arguements, and you still go on.

Should`nt you be at school or something? You call us ignorant bricks.....wtf? All i can say is your an immature little fuck.

Most of us are arguing which plane is better and your off on some crusade to make the mustang look like god himself owns one. Chill out man, remember were having a topical discussion, were not bashing you or your google knowledge, were not anti-american as you think we are.

[Rayburn]

At this point, I'd like to advise you guys to calm down a bit.
Don't get insolent please, I don't want to warn anyone.
Thanks for understanding.

On Topic: Personally, I prefer the EF2000 as well, but guys, this whole discussion is a TAD silly: A multi-million-dollar-plane isn't worth the missile that kills it when there is no pilot to fly the damn thing wether it's a Eurofighter, a Raptor, Spitfire, Mustang or anything. Seriously, the expertise of the chap who flies the thing plays a certain part too and CAN turn the tide.
On a side-note. Basing off all those comparisons on stats is nonsense as there is no one to guarantee that they're actually true. REAL combat-performance is what makes the winner and I don't remember having seen Spitfires Vs. Mustangs or EF2k's Vs. Raptors. Simulated combat is one thing, but it'S still nothing compared to the real deal which should be the ONLY point one should use as a basis to compare.

Edited by MDW, 27 February 2007 - 15:20.

[Eddy01741]

This is so stupid, if ther is proof that the Mustang is better, it's better. And honestly, an ace pilot in a fokker triplane won't beat a normal pilot in a F-22, technology trumps skill now, if your an average pilot in a F-22A, and your not absolutely stupid, you sneak up from behind a guy, and get a lock, and fire, a missile is so much more manuverable than a fighter plane it's not even funny. And how is the Spitfire efficient, can it fly from Britain all the way to Dresden and Berlin and back, no, it can't. And i'm not Anti-british, I'm just saying that the Mustang is better, that's like me saying that the Raptor>Eurofighter, it's not much of an opinion, i personally hate the F-22A, because it takes out my favorite American fighter (the F-15C Eagle), and i don't really support spending money that my family pays for taxes on a redundant fighter. Imean, we're not going against the Russians or Chinese, we're going against third world countries with poorly trained and just plain out poor airforces, where the F-15C is more than enough to take htem down with no losses. Mustang is not perfect, but neither is teh Spitfire, i'm just saying the Mustang is better, more range, much better high altitude performance (which is key for escorting B-17s), and more. Anyways, for military discussions, I don't go on my opinions, I go on what I know, and what is fact. It is a fact that no fighter could outmanuver a sidewinder, or a aphid or whatever equivelent for a short range missile, and if it could, the pilot would be blacking out big time. It is fact that the Mustang had much better range nad high alititude performance than the spitfire. It is proved that the Raptor can take down Eagles on a 5 on 1 without any difficulty (although requiring a AWACs but w/e). And Alias, give me some serious proof now, I don't see any. Spitfire and the Mustang are things of the past, it is combat proven that the Spitfire is outshined by even the Fw-190, and the Mustang on the other hand, is superior to teh Fw-190. The Mustang has a better K: D ratio, and I dunno if that's German terrible trianing (which I doubt) or superior American Training, or maybe, the Mustang is just better in dogfighting than the Spitfire, but that's what has happened in WWII, and you can't argue with history. you can argue with the Raptor and EF, because there has only been simulated combat, but most tests are pointing to the Raptor as the better fighter (I'm still waiting for Russias PAK-FA as a response to teh Raptor, but I'm not sure if they could fund it).

EDIT: Oh, and I don't google stuff (well, I did once to find the top speed of the Raptor, which is still not exactly known), I do this out of my personal interest, not just to add into a flame war. I had all this info with me before this happened. I am a military fanatic (if you just noticed...), so I buy numerous books on the subject, and use compiled information to present my arguements. Instead of just saying "Face it man. There is serious proof that Spitfire is a far more efficient and effective fighter." And your arguement is like saying the Panzer IV is better than the T-34.

Edited by Eddy01741, 27 February 2007 - 15:55.

[Rayburn]

``And honestly, an ace pilot in a fokker triplane won't beat a normal pilot in a F-22, technology trumps skill now´´

Forgive me for not explicitly saying that the planes compared have to be from the same bloody epoch, I thought it was actually self-evident that one doesn't compare a modern jet fighter to some ancient cardboard-plane.
If you restrict yourself to a certain time, you'll see that the pilot's skill DOES matter. Not as much today where electronics do most of the dirty work but back in the day, like in WW2, being a flying ace or just a normal pilot meant a lot of a difference.

``Imean, we're not going against the Russians or Chinese, we're going against third world countries with poorly trained and just plain out poor airforces´´

No offence, but in the future, you might go against actual superpowers. Nobody can predict the course of world-politics, so you better be glad that you have your Raptors IF it ever happens. In return, we're glad that we have our EF2000s.

``...and use compiled information to present my arguements. Instead of just saying "Face it man. There is serious proof that Spitfire is a far more efficient and effective fighter´´

Again, no offence but your points, contrary to the ones you mentioned go like "Mustang has better X, more Z, superior Y". Sorry, but as long as you don'T come with numbers or real proof, your arguments are just claims which makes them no different from the ones saying "There is proof that the XYZ is overall better". You just divide "better" into categories.

Edited by MDW, 27 February 2007 - 17:38.

[DerKrieger]

The initial Mustangs were no good at high altitude (admittedly a big problem for a fighter)... which was why the RAF did not go with them. It was not until they mated the (British-designed)Rolls Royce Merlin engine with the North American air frame that they had the great aeroplane we all know and love. The P-51 had good all round performance, very good cockpit visibility and most importantly had the range to carry out the strategic escort mission that other even higher performance piston engined fighters did not have. But as all combat aerocraft do, it also had its weak points and like all USAAF fighters of the time was certainly under-armed by 1943-1945 standards and had GC issues at some weights.
The Spitfire vs Mustang argument is really an apples vs oranges situation. The Spitfire was a better defensive fighter - while the Mustange was a better offensive one. We were lucky we had both.

[LCPL Carrow]

Cattman2236, on 27 Feb 2007, 07:42, said:

. . . were not anti-american as you think we are.

Coulda fooled me.

At any rate, Razgriz is right.

[Eddy01741]

Razgriz 1, on 28 Feb 2007, 16:53, said:

The initial Mustangs were no good at high altitude (admittedly a big problem for a fighter)... which was why the RAF did not go with them. It was not until they mated the (British-designed)Rolls Royce Merlin engine with the North American air frame that they had the great aeroplane we all know and love. The P-51 had good all round performance, very good cockpit visibility and most importantly had the range to carry out the strategic escort mission that other even higher performance piston engined fighters did not have. But as all combat aerocraft do, it also had its weak points and like all USAAF fighters of the time was certainly under-armed by 1943-1945 standards and had GC issues at some weights.
The Spitfire vs Mustang argument is really an apples vs oranges situation. The Spitfire was a better defensive fighter - while the Mustange was a better offensive one. We were lucky we had both.

QFT. Except for the part on under armed, I don't see how 6 M2 .50 cals are under armed, if you want more, use P-47s, the P-47N +drop tanks was able to go to Berlin and Dresden also (first fighter to hold fuel in wings). THe P-47s have 8 M2 .50 cals, and have a monster of an engine (they basically designed the whole thing around it). But then agin, the P-47 was ground attack mainly, it was amazing at diving, strafing and stuff like that, and had amazing durability (one came back with a man sized hole in it's wing), but it's not manuverable, and i'm getting off topic.

[LCPL Carrow]

Ha yeah, P47 Thunderbolts FTW!