|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > What was the best fighter of World War 2?|
|Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 09:37 pm|
|My vote is for the Spitfire! hero of the Battle of Britian! always updated, fast, agile, tough, and beautiful!|
|Posted by: Hadrian September 22, 2009 10:28 pm|
|My vote goes for the Me-109, the ace maker. Best aces in the history flew it. It fought against almost all other fighters of WW2, and could always achieve a superior number of kills, from spanish civil war to the end of WW2.|
|Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 10:37 pm|
Great Choice, would be my second choice for best fighter of world war 2, more 30,000 built, more kills then then any fighter in history!
|Posted by: Dénes September 23, 2009 05:36 am|
| Every aircraft is as good as the pilot who flies it.
I did not vote.
|Posted by: dragos September 23, 2009 04:48 pm|
|Why Messerschmitt 262 is not in the poll?|
|Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 03:07 pm|
True, but of course some aircraft give the their pilots an adventage over another!
|Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 03:13 pm|
Good question; I guess that I was thinking prop fighters, and also trying to be diplomatic. But if I more room then both the Me-262 ans Gloster Meotor would have to be included! along with several other types of fighters. As it they fall simply under "other"
|Posted by: BALLY January 26, 2010 12:04 pm|
|My vote is going to Spitfire... due to it's loger operational career. Bf-109 is the second...|
|Posted by: BALLY January 26, 2010 12:04 pm|
|My vote is going to Spitfire... due to it's loger operational career. Bf-109 is the second...|
|Posted by: Hadrian January 26, 2010 11:04 pm|
|Spanish derivatives were used until late sixties, so service life of Bf-109 is longer than the one of the Spitfire. Interestingly, his career ended where it started, in Spain...|
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 27, 2010 09:31 pm|
|I vote for the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. It is true that many of the Luftwaffe's fighter aces flew the Fw 190, and obtained remarkable successes, but without the special qualities of this aircraft they wouldn't obtain so many victories. Just think of our excelent pilots in the 1944-1945 air battles and you agree...|
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu January 27, 2010 09:39 pm|
| It depends on era and theatre, it is unfair to compare IAR-80 with Ki87 for instance.. they were built in different periods for different purposes and flew in different theatres. You could ask what is one's favorite plane - that would be fair
In early war on the eastern front, my favorite is Bf109-E (4-7 series)
In mid war on the eastern front it is IAR-80C
In late war on the eastern front it is Bf109-G series
In early war on the western front it is Spitfire MkI (yeah.. I know)
In mid war on the western front it is the buther bird and the stang
In late war on the western front they are Me262 and Me163
Don't really have favorites in the the Pacific war although the barrel is ugly enough for me to like it
Should make one thread about bombers
|Posted by: BALLY February 02, 2010 04:19 pm|
In this case... Spit is No.1 because I like more Rolls Royce than Daimler Benz... Both planes were fantastic machines and they fought from the beginning to the end of WW2.
And after the war... I think some israelian Avia S-199 fought against british/egyptian Spitfires during 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
|Posted by: cnflyboy2000 March 12, 2010 10:57 pm|
Here's an Me-109 for sale, if you have a spare 150,000E.
(click on the mlitary vehicles catalogue, scroll down)
I didn't know they had wood seats (ouch) and man, that is one small cockpit!
|Posted by: R. Evans February 03, 2011 04:59 pm|
|Voted for the P-51 Mustang. Firepower and range are hard to top.|
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 14, 2011 04:45 pm|
|Ivote FW 190 , socond bf 109 , but in a unofficial classament the IAR 80 was fourth from the best ww2 fighters|
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 14, 2011 04:47 pm|
|Greate question and greate topic|
|Posted by: Dénes February 14, 2011 08:02 pm|
That myth should be put to bed as soon as possible.
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 15, 2011 04:16 pm|
here i defint that information
|Posted by: Radub February 15, 2011 05:02 pm|
As Denes said, this myth must end!
|Posted by: Dénes February 15, 2011 06:07 pm|
That lists starts badly:
>>1529. - Conrad Haas din Sibiu realizează prima rachetă în trepte.
What does Conrad Haas and Rumania have in common?
|Posted by: Radub February 15, 2011 06:25 pm|
Don't you start that! It will end up in cries of "treason"
|Posted by: dead-cat February 15, 2011 07:00 pm|
|i also a mystery to me what Hermann Oberth's activity at Peenemünde has to do with the Romanian Airforce.|
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 15, 2011 07:52 pm|
|yes now i see in 1529 i think that rocket was put on a bird|
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 15, 2011 07:55 pm|
|and to IAR 39 is a picture with IAR 80|
|Posted by: ANDREAS February 15, 2011 10:24 pm|
Sibiu - Hermannstadt!
|Posted by: Radub February 15, 2011 10:52 pm|
Cum te cheama pui de dac?
|Posted by: Agarici February 15, 2011 11:02 pm|
Come, on, what question is that (again)?
The same thing that, say, the the Neolithic culture from what is nowadays’
Romania, with its artifacts displayed last year in NY, has to do with the country. And at least as much as he has in common with today's Germany. Sibiu = Hermannstadt, Sibiu = Romania.
On the other hand, I agree about the IAR 80 myth. I wish it was the 4th best fighter in WW 2, but unfortunalelly it wasn't. But I think it was a great fighter, nevertheless.
|Posted by: Dénes February 16, 2011 06:38 am|
Even after participating in this forum from the very beginning, I didn't realise that such a simple and clear issue can actually still cause controversy among some forum members.
Conrad Haas has nothing to do with Rumania, or the Rumanian aviation. Listing him here is misleading, and incorrect.
It's just like, say, listing one of the outstanding Turkish fighters who was happened to be born in present-day Rumania as an occupier, among the great Rumanian warriors. Or, why not, Horthy could also be listed as of Rumanian origin, as he was originating from Nagybanya (in Rumanian Baia Mare), TRansylvania. See his official title: vitez nagybanyai Horthy Miklos. Which could also be said, with the same twisted logic: Nicolae Horti, viteazul de Baia Mare...
|Posted by: 21 inf February 16, 2011 07:39 am|
|Denes is right, Conrad Haas has nothing to do with Romania.|
|Posted by: Agarici February 16, 2011 09:16 pm|
| That’s appalling. I quit, my only chance - in terms of time and patience - to bring both (the three?) of you to the right path would be to talk it over in front of a couple/few/many beers.
PS: I am still surprised how some would consider the Saxon inhabitants of Sibiu/Hermannstadt as invaders/occupants, some good hundred years after their settlement, and after a history with not too many violent conflicts with the local population.
By that time they were not more of an “invading” strata then the Romans in Dacia by 200+ AD, or the Hungarians by, let’s say, 1800s. I also think that Conrad Haas does have more (or at least as much) in common with the Romanian history than with the history of nowadays Germany. Was William the Bastard the invader part of the English history, were the Varengians/Wikings from the Volga river part of the Russian past? I would rather call that a multicultural reality, and a multicultural past of these lands. Being multi-cultural, I don’t think one should consider it the exclusive property of one of the communities only.
Btw, Nicolae Horti din Baia Mare sounds interesting. Not to mention the idea of having an admiral at Baia Mare.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 16, 2011 10:20 pm|
| it is not whether Haas is part of romanian history. it is about whether Haas has anything to do with the history of romanian aeronautics, which he clearly has not.
a site, mentioning him in that context, just as Oberth, has been quoted as a reference for the IAR 80 being the 4th most "performant" fighter of ww2.
apart from the obvious mistakes which sort of shed some doubt over the authors authority as ww2 military aviation expert, the site claims that it occupied that disputed 4th place in 1940.
-that site has been misquoted
-apart from that misquotation that 4th place in 1940 is a myth
-that site is hardly a sound reference for ww2 military aviation
did i leave something out?
|Posted by: Agarici February 16, 2011 11:26 pm|
|Posted by: Radub February 17, 2011 09:44 am|
| Traiasca ai nostri! Huo ai lor!
That website is naive (to say the least) and contains too many errors to be taken seriously.
What if a German with a German name, living in a German town with a German name did not see himself as a "Romanian"? He was a German! He had no idea that two hundred years later, that town would be part of a country that would call itself "Romania" and he would have no logical reason to identify himself with that country.
Imagine this as a scenario: NOW we call ourselves Romanains. Maybe in two hundred years this land will be part of another larger nation with some other name. Irrespective of that, NOW we continue to call ourselves Romanians. Maybe that future nation will claim us as theirs long after we die and get to have a say in it. But NOW we are Romanians. Apply the same train of logic to Conrad Haas. He was German. And saying that does not make me less of a Romanian - I do not believe in using other people's achievements as crutches to prop up my self esteem.
|Posted by: Dénes February 17, 2011 10:04 am|
OK, Agarici, here is my last attempt to clarify this issue - which to me and many other people is obvious - and to point out your logical faux pas.
I will take another example, this time from aviation - the topic this whole controversy started from.
Aurel Vlaicu and Traian Vuia are well known names of pioneers of Rumanian aviation. Nobody really denies this, right?
However, both of them were born in Hungary, they were Hungarian citizens, they spoke Hungarian and they went to (also) Hungarian schools. Based on your logic, they must then be part of Hungarian aviation (much more than Conrad Haas has to do with Rumanian aviation!). Correct?
However, I have seen no reference at all in any Hungarian aviation books on these two pioneers as they being Hungarian, or having anything to do with Hungarian aviation. Right or wrong?
Please set up the standard for yourself, and use it thoroughly to all similar historical situations. If you want to sound credible, of course.
|Posted by: Agarici February 17, 2011 01:51 pm|
OMG! I would surely need many beers (for you all to drink), in order to get me right.
Seriously now, why should it be either/or? What is wrong with you people, why being so reductionists? Why thing it as a zero sum, what he should be ours or theirs? I did not imply at any point that Haas was Romanian - being a still sane person. So Radu is right on that. I didn't even address the aviation history part, only (in what became a prolonged off-topic discussion), Denes question/assertion underlined in my previous post.
Of course Haas was Saxon, living in a Saxon town etc , but that community, while being German, was a part of what is today's Romania. Of course his contribution was a part of the cultural past of both German (culture) and Romanian (lands).
As for Denes example, I entirely agree that Vlaicu and Vuia traces in the Hungarian culture are a fact, and they should be mentioned/considered/acknowledged accordingly. Their existence and contribution was part of BOTH cultures, and if it is not mentioned in the Hungarian aviation history books it should perhaps be. That is what the multiculturalism means. Damn, fellows, do a google search for this word sometime...
|Posted by: Radub February 17, 2011 02:51 pm|
Multiculturalism? This is not multiculturalism. It "history a'la carte", whereby you choose to pick what you perceive as "nice things" and ascribe them "Romanian traits", but conveniently forget/ignore what you perceive as "bad things". You constantly seem to refute the known fact that there was no such thing as ROMANIA until Carol acceded to the throne and that what we now call "Romania" was for many, many hundreds of years part of other empires. Conrad Haas has less to do with Romania than anyone else you can think of for the simple reason that he was a German living in what was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at a time when Romania did not exist.
Romania was not always here and "Mastodontul de la Racosul de Sus" did not sing Nicolaie Furdui Iancu songs.
|Posted by: dead-cat February 17, 2011 03:57 pm|
| actually, at the time of his living, Haas was a subject of the crown of Hungary. nothing else.
but it's like Einstein said, "if it turns out i'm right, then the germans will say i'm german and the french that i'm a citizen of the world. however if i'm wrong the french will say i'm german and the germans that i'm a jew."
|Posted by: cainele_franctiror February 17, 2011 04:54 pm|
| The history of Romania is not (only) the history of Romanians, is also the history of all the people that ever lived in today Romanian territory. So, Conrad Haas is part of the Romanian history as the celts from ancient Transilvania are part of our history. More over, the history of the Hungarian people is part of Romanian History, as Vuia and Vlaicu is part of Austro/Hungary history. And, if you ask me, the today Romanians should learn more about Germans, Hungarians, Jewish, Greeks etc that lived and live in Romania. Is more easy (and the only way) to understand the history of Romania.
Is Conrad Haas part of Romanian Aeronautics? I don't know... but is ok to open the display with him at the Aviation Museum in Bucharest.
|Posted by: Alex30cag February 17, 2011 07:04 pm|
| ASA!!! HAI AI NOSTRII! huo pe altii ....
do not take me seriously .....
|Posted by: dragos February 18, 2011 07:52 am|
|Alex30cag, please refrain from posting useless chat style messages. This is a serious forum and I expect an appropriate attitude.|
|Posted by: Agarici February 18, 2011 02:45 pm|
I agree 100% with that, thumbs up!
Some of the most interesting/exotic/worth to be seen places in Romania, but not only here, are those with a multicultural "touch". An already given example is Transylvania, another one would be Sulina... Constanta and Mangalia could qualify too.
As a side note, the multiculturalism presupposes a certain maturation and interpenetration of the different cultures, too. If, for example a large percentage of a population with a different religion than the locals would settle (temporary or indefinitely) into "their" territory, perhaps not speaking their language, and starts building their own church (like in the case of the Muslim immigrants in many European countries), I wouldn't automatically (yet) consider that a case of multiculturalism.
|Posted by: Agarici February 18, 2011 02:56 pm|
Actually is NOSTRI, with one i.
Just joking myself.
But, seriously now, it doesn't need anything additional for a plural form, being already a plural.
|Posted by: Radub February 18, 2011 05:42 pm|
So, re-labelling a German as a "Romanian" is "multicultiralism"? How?
"Multi" in multiculturalism implies a "multitude". Just reducing all the people, irrespective of their ethnic background, into just one label is anything bult "multicultural".
|Posted by: Agarici February 19, 2011 01:03 am|
An A-H empire in XVI century? No way! I guess it is another +1 beer and several posts to convince you of that.
That's not the point. And I have news, if there was no such thing like Romania until 1860s (which I obviously agree, and I said nowhere anything contrary to that), there was no such thing as Italy until then either, even if Machiavelli wrote about it as early as 1500. Also there was no country called Austria, with its capital in Vienna, until the end of the XVIII century, because its official name was "The Holy Roman Empire". But then, in your oppinion, Galibardi (that's for the connaisseurs only - I hope you're familiar with "Nenea Iancu"), Galibardi himself, the Italian national hero, was he Italian or not? Or was he not when he was born, only when he died?
ME, a couple of posts before:
I think I've put it as clear as it's possible, for anyone who can read. I will stop here with that, there's no fun in repeating myself anymore. But if Radu prefers to continue on his own, I cannot stop him.
Nevertheless, I'd like to drink that beer sometine, so we can sing together "Noi suntem romani". If only Denes could join too...
|Posted by: Radub February 19, 2011 10:26 am|
Yes, that was a slip. Apologies. Dead-cat already pointed that out before you, but if you feel the need to "slap" me, go ahead.
I am sure that if we took the time to look in the long past, we could find long lists of Saxon, Hungarian, Turkish, Tatar, Bulgarian, Polish, whatever, people that committed crimes and were punished in what we call today "Romania". Would you be so generous as to call them "part of Romania" as well? Or shall we pick only the people that we can "admire" for something?
Never mind Garibaldi... Denes asked you a very direct question that you conveniently skirted around. Miklos Horty MUST be Romanian based on your "logic". He was born in Baia Mare in "Romania". Why don't you open an exhibition about the great achievements of this great "Romanian" and his great contributions to the nation?
Trust me, it is safer to avoid using others to prop your own self-esteem simply because for every "good guy" there are thousands of "bad guys".
I am out of this off-topic discussion and I will return only when we are talking about aircraft.
|Posted by: Agarici February 19, 2011 12:27 pm|
I could have bet you would like to have the final word on that. Please consider it done.
A final specification: you forget that the history itself is making a selection, separating the “rascals” from the “heroes”, since it is not (nor could it be) a strict natural science like, say, the physics or the geology. And the culture (as in multi-cultural) is rather concerned with the bright minds then with the unknown illiterates. The visibility and notoriety are, fortunately or not, concepts central to the history and the culture.
As for the term “multiculturalism” in itself, please do not answer me, but do a search for its meanings, which seem to (obstinately) escape you. It was not invented nor defined by me, please take my word for it. Nor is it the product of my "poor" logic only, since it's the main focus of some academic disciplines taught in several universities - it would be a pity to ignore that. Perhaps then you would understand why we cannot/should not consider M. Horthy as an "internal" part of the Romanian culture/history/past. Because the fact that he had an impact (and not a negligible one) on the Romanian history is, I think, obvious.
My best wishes, see you around here
|Posted by: Radub February 19, 2011 03:48 pm|
| Yeah... Right!
Miklos Horthy...Romanian or not?
|Posted by: Fulcrum89 August 14, 2011 04:25 am|
|I voted for the Supermarine Spitfire, I have loved Spitfire sense I was a kid! In my opinion the Spitfire is the greatest fighter of "All time"! Being beautiful, fast, agile, and packing a heavy punch!|
|Posted by: Ferdinand August 14, 2011 10:30 am|
| BF-109 pilots had top numbers victories.
|Posted by: Florin August 14, 2011 04:23 pm|
The life or the airplane pilot is within the limits set by the design approach of the engineering team, and sometimes by the limitations of the economic power of his country.
If his country could not afford to install six machine guns per plane, but only two or four, that left the pilot fighting one handed.
If the designer did not provide a big fuel tank, the pilot had no choice but to turn his plane and to land - or to drop out.
If the fuel tank was not provided with a self sealing rubber layer, the pilot was in a flying bomb.
If the plane was armored and sturdy, it could take more than 250 direct hits and still not going down.
If the engine was air-cooled, it could sustain more hits and still function, compared with a water cooled engine.
I think the pilot really mattered when an inferior plane had to face a better one. Or when lesser numbers had to face more opponents. And most important, when facing unpredictable unique situations. Like Saburo Sakai, who needed to fly five hours back to Rabaul, after an airplane bullet scratched his head and the blood spill left him half-blinded.
I do not remember to vote, either.
|Posted by: leemadison11 November 28, 2011 01:02 pm|
|I was watching Discovery about Hell Cat and i realized that much of its power was not revealed. It is tactically one of best fighter plane according to me. I would go with Hell Cat.|