Stardate 20020204.1901

(On Screen): Continuing with History of War day here at USS Clueless we find Perry de Havilland taking exception to my characterization of the Mustang as the "best fighter the Allies had in Europe." Perry's British sensibilities do not need to be defensive about that, because the British contributed nearly as much to the success of the Mustang as did the Americans. It was a British stroke of genius to recommend replacing the rather lackluster engine originally in the Mustang with the Rolls-Royce Merlin. It was, as they say, a match made in heaven or, from the point of view of German pilots, in hell.

As a Brit, it was inevitable that Perry should be nostalgic about the Spitfire. In 1940 there was no better air defense fighter in existence, and the UK damned well needed it. Twice as many Hurricanes fought in the Battle of Britain than Spitfires, but it was the Spitfires which made the difference because the Hurricanes were not really able to stand up to the 109's. That said, it has to be recognized that as an all-around fighter, the Spitfire had major weaknesses, especially compared to later designs. Its airframe wasn't as rugged as those the Americans built, and for most of the war it was undergunned (because it relied on .30 caliber machine guns). And its biggest weakness all through the war was short legs; it simply could not carry enough fuel for anything except defense.

When most aficionados of WWII aircraft speak of "the best", it mainly becomes a question of sending 8 of each into the air to duke it out and see how many of each come back. On that basis, the Spitfire would not have rated against the Mustang because of the Spit's final drawback: it wasn't as fast. In combat, speed is life. Which doesn't take anything away from the Spitfire's designers; North American designed the Mustang six years later and had learned much.

Perry brings up night-fighters. They were important (especially to the RAF, which did most of its bombing at night) but most people don't consider them to be the same kind of thing. Night fighters had to be larger because they had to carry radar. There was much less emphasis on maneuver because night fighters didn't tangle with each other, so most of the emphasis was on simple ability to carry weight. The Mosquito made a decent night fighter, but it could never have competed during the day. (It is noteworthy that the ME-110 was meat on the table during the day but ended up being a pretty decent night fighter.)

There was, however, one plane which actually was both a good night fighter and a good day fighter, and that was the P-38 Lightning. It was the only two-engine fighter of the war that actually was capable of holding its own against anything short of the 262. It may well also be the most ugly fighter of the war; it surely was never accused of being beautiful.

If one really wants to open up all the stops and say what the best fighter of the war, anyplace, anytime was on the basis of "send 8 up and see how many come back" then there is no question of the choice: it would be the pure fighter version of the ME-262. With a hundred mph edge in speed and a decent weapons load, it was deadly. It is fortunate for us that Hitler had his head wedged and ordered the majority of ME-262's to be equipped as fighter-bombers.

But I specified "Allies" and "the European Theater". I did that for a reason; my own belief is that the actual best Allied fighter of the war was the F4U Corsair. Not only was it as fast as the Mustang and capable of dogfighting equally with it, but the "hose nose" was capable of operating off carriers. The only advantage it gives away to the Mustang was range.

Perry is right, nonetheless, that "best" is a multi-dimensional quantity and there will never be any consensus as to which one really was the best the Allies used.