Archive through April 26, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Military History:
Archive through April 26, 2026
I meant to say nips. I was referring to the nips that the percussion caps fit onto. :-)
And yes, of course I will take both to a gunsmith for examination first.
Anyone know much about these?
Just for fun, let’s talk Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theory!
This link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmthI-v7kZo&t=611s
Should get things rolling. There was one fingerprint in the book depository sniper’s nest that was never identified as someone who worked in the building. (Most were Oswald.) years later that fingerprint was conclusively identified as Mac Davis, a convicted murderer who was linked to a string of murders and other suspicious deaths in Texas in the 50s and 60s. I can remember those curious politically connected murders being part of casual conversation all during my childhood. Everyone I knew was very aware of who Mac Davis was, and who he was connected to.
Warning, this might make some people very very uncomfortable.
Unofficial announcement has been released indicating HMS Richmond a type 23 frigate is to be retired in 2026.
That leaves just 6 type 23 frigates still in service, with one, HMS Kent undergoing SLEP (ship life extension program) since 2024, and not expected to leave the shipyard until late 2026 or more likely sometime in 2027.
HMS Richmond had just completed a cruise deployment to the Pacific Ocean as an escort for one of the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. The ship had completed a SLEP refit and fully updated towed ASW array and equipped with the latest missiles foe AAW .
Commentary is being made that it is rare for a fully refitted and upgraded warship to be scrapped unless it has received some form of damage or unable to operate at full capacity.
Ship history to follow:
Quote:” Hms richmond hi-res stock photography and images - AlamyHMS Richmond (F239) is a Royal Navy Type 23 "Duke-class" frigate launched in 1993 and commissioned in 1995, notable as the last warship built by Swan Hunter. Based at Devonport, this versatile anti-submarine vessel has deployed globally for counter-narcotics, anti-piracy, and, in 2024, high-profile air defense operations in the Red Sea, leading to her recognition as a top performing ship.
Unit History and Capabilities
Construction: Launched on April 6, 1993, she was the final vessel built by the famed Swan Hunter yard on the Tyne.
Design: As a Type 23, she was originally designed for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) to protect against Soviet threats, featuring a towed array sonar and, typically, a Merlin helicopter.
Operational Roles: Beyond ASW, she has engaged in varied operations, including counter-narcotics, anti-piracy, and maritime security.
Key Operations: In 2024, HMS Richmond was recognized for active service in the Red Sea and High North, protecting shipping lanes and engaging in aerial combat against drones.
Upgrades: The vessel has undergone significant upgrades, including enhanced sensor and weapon systems, to maintain relevance in modern warfare.
Future: HMS Richmond is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2026.
Key Data
Pennant Number: F239
Class: Type 23 (Duke-class)
Builder: Swan Hunter Shipbuilders
Base: HMNB Devonport
Speed: Over 28 knots
Complement: Approximately 185 personnel
She is the seventh vessel to bear the name HMS Richmond, a tradition dating back to 1660. ”
This quotation is from google AI. Not all information here has been verified.
Y.M.M.V.
Dandy little retrospective on the U.S. F-111 and U.K. TSR2 programs. If you haven't watched this fellow, he's a hoot. That said, be aware that he's also (as he himself generally puts up as a disclaimer) prone to the occasional rude word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciTlr3KBdJA
He is quite good, he did a series on Burma-India during WWII that may be the best item on that theater on Youtube.
Sad day, today.
Google AI response:
The USS Nimitz (CVN 68) departed Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton in Washington for the final time on March 7, 2026, to change its homeport to Norfolk, Virginia, for decommissioning. This departure marks the end of its time in the Pacific Northwest, with the ship traveling around South America before arriving at its new homeport.
DVIDS - Defense Visual Information Distribution Service
DVIDS - Defense Visual Information Distribution Service
+3
Key Details:
Departure Date: March 7, 2026.
Final Destination: Norfolk, VA (via a Southern Seas 2026 deployment).
Purpose: The vessel is moving for decommissioning after over 50 years of service.
Context: The carrier has been based in Bremerton for approximately 25 years.
As always, AI may contain factual errors, Y.M.M.V.
Trivia question:
Many famous warships actually members of a class of ships, ships built to the same for very similar design.
If I were to ask about the U.S.S.Constitution, a Sail frigate built in 1797, you might respond with U.S.S. United States, or U.S.S. President.
Many People will easily remember the name of the Swedish warship lost in Stockholm harbor, the Vasa.
The real experts will be able to recall the name of the sister ship of the Vasa, built one year later than the Vasa, to a slightly modified design. (Four feet wider at the waterline to improve stability.)
That ship was found sunk near Stockholm 1n 2021, and confirmed as the lost sister ship of the Vasa in 2022.
(And no, it was not sunk accidentally, but was considered too expensive to repair after 30 years of service. Sunk to block access to an inlet of Stockholm harbor.)
The
Name
Of
Sister Ship
Was
The Apple.
What can I tell you. Swedish naming conventions are in a class all their own.
Update:
the status of the remains of PT-59, salvaged from the harlem river five years ago?The salvaged remains of the PT-59, a patrol torpedo boat once commanded by John F. Kennedy, are currently preserved and on display at Battleship Cove in Fall River, Massachusetts.Following their recovery from the Harlem River in June 2020 by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the artifacts underwent conservation and a dedicated exhibit was opened to the public in April 2021.Current Status and Exhibit DetailsLocation: The remains are housed in Newberry Hall at Battleship Cove, positioned near the museum's fully restored PT boats, the PT-617 and PT-796.Exhibition: A formal dedication for the “PT-59 at Battleship Cove” exhibit took place on April 16, 2021, featuring remarks from former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III.Condition: Because the boat had been used as a houseboat and later suffered a fire before sinking in the mid-1970s, only roughly the lower portion of the engine room and lazarette areas remained. Some of the recovered wood still shows visible burn marks from that fire.Recovered ArtifactsThe MTA and museum volunteers salvaged several key components of the vessel, including:Mechanical Parts: Propeller shafts, struts, rudders, a propeller, and a mini generator.Structural Elements: Sections of the original wooden hull (port and starboard shaft areas), hull penetrations, and a main hatch door frame.Supporting Materials: The exhibit also includes historical photos of the PT-59 to provide context for the salvaged fragments.Historical BackgroundThe PT-59 was the second command of Lieutenant John F. Kennedy during World War II, taken over after the sinking of the PT-109. While his time on the PT-109 is more famous, Kennedy's service on the PT-59 included the rescue of 10 stranded Marines under fire in the Solomon Islands. After the war, the boat served as a fishing charter and eventually a houseboat in New York before it was abandoned and sank in North Cove.
SS-249 Croaker and DD-573 The Sullivans are currently having what oil remains in their tanks and bilges pumped out at the Buffalo Naval Park in preparation for towing to Erie, PA, where they will drydocked for hull repairs.
This past weekend my family traveled down near Harrodsburg Ky, which does have the Ft. Harrod, but while crossing the Kentucky Rive in the mountains, there was an odd abandoned building at the side of the road built into the mountain. Looking it up, it was an old mine bought By Colonel George Chinn. It was a restaurant and gas station and also had a hidden gambling room. Chinn wrote an extensive book about the machine gun and designed the MK 19 Grenade launcher.
He was acquitted of the illegal gambling charges because his defense was that all the machines were rigged and no one could win, so it wasn't gambling. A very colorful personality and interesting story. Look up Chinn's Cave House for info on it.
Trivia question:
How many submarines can you name that used sails to actually move the boat while engaged on an assigned mission?
The answer in white.
The U.S.S. R-14 (SS-91) was an R-1-class coastal defense submarine commissioned by the United States Navy on December 24, 1919. While it served as a training and patrol vessel for over 25 years, it is most famous for a unique 1921 incident where it became a functional sailing vessel to survive a near-disaster at sea.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
The "Sailing Submarine" Incident (1921)
In May 1921, while searching for the missing tug USS Conestoga southeast of Hawaii, the R-14 ran out of usable fuel due to seawater contamination. With a dead radio and only five days of food remaining, the crew faced being lost at sea.
National Maritime Historical Society
National Maritime Historical Society
+3
Improvisation: Under Lieutenant Alexander Dean Douglas, the crew stitched together blankets, hammocks, and mattress covers to create makeshift sails.
Rigging: They fashioned a three-sail rig using the periscope, radio mast, and a torpedo-loading crane as masts.
Success: The submarine "sailed" for five days, covering approximately 100 nautical miles at about 1–2 knots. They reached Hilo, Hawaii, on May 15, 1921.
Aftermath: The crew received formal commendations from Commander Chester W. Nimitz for their ingenuity.
U.S. Naval Institute
U.S. Naval Institute
+5
Later Service and World War II
Interwar Period: After nine years in Hawaii assisting in submarine warfare development, she returned to the Atlantic in 1931. She spent the rest of the 1930s based in New London, Connecticut, as a training vessel for the Submarine School.
World War II: Based in Key West from 1941, the R-14 patrolled the Yucatán Channel and Florida Straits. In June 1943, she was briefly mistaken for a German U-boat and fired upon by U.S. Army coastal artillery, though she suffered no damage.
Decommissioning: The submarine arrived at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in May 1945 and was decommissioned on May 7, 1945. She was sold for scrap later that year and dismantled in 1946.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 28, 2026 - 10:58 am: Edit
Trivia question:
How many submarines can you name that used sails to actually move the boat while engaged on an assigned mission?
The answer in white.
The U.S.S. R-14 (SS-91) was an R-1-class coastal defense submarine commissioned by the United States Navy on December 24, 1919. While it served as a training and patrol vessel for over 25 years, it is most famous for a unique 1921 incident where it became a functional sailing vessel to survive a near-disaster at sea.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
The "Sailing Submarine" Incident (1921)
In May 1921, while searching for the missing tug USS Conestoga southeast of Hawaii, the R-14 ran out of usable fuel due to seawater contamination. With a dead radio and only five days of food remaining, the crew faced being lost at sea.
National Maritime Historical Society
National Maritime Historical Society
+3
Improvisation: Under Lieutenant Alexander Dean Douglas, the crew stitched together blankets, hammocks, and mattress covers to create makeshift sails.
Rigging: They fashioned a three-sail rig using the periscope, radio mast, and a torpedo-loading crane as masts.
Success: The submarine "sailed" for five days, covering approximately 100 nautical miles at about 1–2 knots. They reached Hilo, Hawaii, on May 15, 1921.
Aftermath: The crew received formal commendations from Commander Chester W. Nimitz for their ingenuity.
U.S. Naval Institute
U.S. Naval Institute
+5
Later Service and World War II
Interwar Period: After nine years in Hawaii assisting in submarine warfare development, she returned to the Atlantic in 1931. She spent the rest of the 1930s based in New London, Connecticut, as a training vessel for the Submarine School.
World War II: Based in Key West from 1941, the R-14 patrolled the Yucatán Channel and Florida Straits. In June 1943, she was briefly mistaken for a German U-boat and fired upon by U.S. Army coastal artillery, though she suffered no damage.
Decommissioning: The submarine arrived at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in May 1945 and was decommissioned on May 7, 1945. She was sold for scrap later that year and dismantled in 1946.
Site called: Modern War
has been putting out numerous
Chinook videos lately....
Mainly crew chief ones showing the
crew on the ramp while airborne....
This is an important see of facts everyone should see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxapaXrHr1Y&t=342s
The trail of tears is mostly a myth, the government paid cash for the “stolen land” , only a few hundred died, and those were victims of Native American corruption, not white crimes.
Don't know how old the music is....
Love the respect and time someone put into
it and the video....
https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1817979395828184
U.S.S.Lucid, (MSO-458) a all wood/non ferrous metal minesweeper from the 1950’s, has been restored and is now been moved to a permanent location in Sacramento, CA.
CBS affiliate did a story on the ship and museum and posted it on you tuble.
The Battleship New Jersey YouTube channel has a couple good videos about the restoration of USS Lucid.
Today a fallen American Hero is returning home to his family. Captain Willibald C. Bianchi served in the Philippines during the beginning of the War. He was wounded three times during the Battle of Battaan. His action on 3 Feburary 1942 earned him the Medal of Honor.
Quote:"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy on 3 February 1942, near Bagac, Province of Bataan, Philippine Islands. When the rifle platoon of another company was ordered to wipe out 2 strong enemy machinegun nests, 1st Lt. Bianchi voluntarily and of his own initiative, advanced with the platoon leading part of the men. When wounded early in the action by 2 bullets through the left hand, he did not stop for first aid but discarded his rifle and began firing a pistol. He located a machinegun nest and personally silenced it with grenades. When wounded the second time by 2 machinegun bullets through the chest muscles, 1st Lt. Bianchi climbed to the top of an American tank, manned its antiaircraft machinegun, and fired into strongly held enemy position until knocked completely off the tank by a third severe wound."
He recovered from his would and survived the Bataan Death March. While a prisoner of war he assisted many of his wounded and injured prisoners. He survived the sinking of one prison ship and died when his second one was bombed by US warplanes in Formasa. His remains along with 430 other unidentifed Americans were buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Hawaii. I August 2025 his remains were positively identified through DNA analysis. He is being returned to his hometown of New Ulm, Minnesota today for burial.
Quote:Sure, but the Bomb was developed by the side that was winning the tech race anyway.
Note that initially Germany had the tech advantage. Their tanks, planes, rockets, and other equipment were simply better than the Allies comparable equipment.
We never did exceed the Panzer in tank tech or their planes (they did have the first jets) until after the war. Of course - the atomic weapon made the difference in Japan. However, bear in mind that a lot of the Manhattan Project scientists came from Axis countries. Initially, the Axis had the lead in nuclear research - but it was Axis stupid social policies that caused those scientist to flee to America where they went to work for us. Which is why we had the Bomb to drop on Japan.
Personally, I think what really did in Germany was not the tech - it was Hitler himself. Dude went crazy and paranoid from the syphilis infecting his brain. He made terrible decisions on D-Day, Stalingrad and with respect to Rommel - and others. Plus Allies' spy work was simply better, and that made a big difference.
I guess I'm saying that war is complicated and doesn't necessarily boil down to tech.
As for Ukraine, they have more than just a tech advantage. Putin is struggling with Russian morale and a piss-poor economy, whereas Ukraine still gets Western support (y'all can argue about the degree of the support, but it's still there). Putin is also getting unstable and isolated as he worries about assassination in his own house, and it is Putin himself that is driving the Ukraine war. Ukraine doesn't have the same kind of cult of personality driving their defense. If Zelenskyy was killed, someone would take his place. If Putin was killed, the war likely would end (but not guaranteed of course).
My money is on Ukraine winning. The real question in my mind is how long that is going to take and how much people will suffer until they do.
But, SVC has a point too. War is unpredictable. Putin could win, theoretically, but some kind of game changing event would have to take place for that to happen.
Quote:Their tanks, planes, rockets, and other equipment were simply better than the Allies comparable equipment.
Ted, I'm afraid I have to disagree rather strenuously here. In late 1940 and pretty much all of 1941, there were three fighters (deployed in operationally significant numbers) which could reasonably compete for the title "best fighter in the world"; the Messerschmidt Bf-109, the Supermarine Spitfire, and the Mitsubishi A6M (better known in the US as the "Zeke" or the "Zero"). All had their advantages and disadvantages relative to the others, and victory in an aerial engagement would depend more on the specific situation, the skill of the individual pilots, and (as all pilots know but many are loathe to admit) good old fashioned luck. But if I absolutely had to pick a "best in the world" in late 1940 / early 1941, I think I would have to go with the Spitfire.
The Germans had the first operational jet fighter but the British had the Gloucester Meteor operational before the end of the war and the Americans had started deploying P-80s to Europe, though it was not considered fully operational yet (but more for crew training reasons than inherent characteristics) and was only used for a few reconnaissance flights before the war in Europe ended. "Winkle" Brown (Royal Navy test pilot - flew more different types of combat aircraft than anyone else in history, and the margin isn't close) had the opportunity to test fly both the Me-262 and the Gloucester Meteor and said the Me-262 was faster and a superior gun platform, but the Meteor was much more reliable. In war, reliability counts for a lot.
The Germans never had a decent heavy bomber. The Ju-87, Ju-88, and He-111 were... adequate as light or medium "tactical" bombers, by early-war standards. But late-war American and British (and some Japanese) tactical bombers outclassed them.
Taking a global view of the war as a whole, U.S./British radars (a huge amount of information sharing and common design principles even when the final results differed somewhat) clearly outclassed their German counterparts. You could look at specific instances and "snapshots" in which the Germans held the edge. But overall, U.S./British radars were simply superior.
That's not to say that German aviation-related technology was terrible. But the advantages were decidedly "mixed". And I think it as a common myth - but a myth all the same - that Germany held any overall tech advantage. Really, they were better in some ways, not as good in others.
One issue the germans had was the insistence that close air support of ground units must be able to complete a dive bombing missions.
A Google inquiry resulted in:
Quote:”
AI Overview
Germany attempted to develop multi-engined dive bombers during World War II, most notably with the Heinkel He 177 Greif, which was designed to combine long-range bombing with dive-bombing capabilities. However, this and other similar projects struggled, largely failing to achieve the reliability or widespread operational success of single-engine counterparts like the Ju 87 Stuka.
Quora
Quora
+4
Key Efforts in Multi-Engined Dive Bombers:
Heinkel He 177: This was the primary German attempt at a heavy, multi-engine dive bomber, featuring four engines coupled in pairs to drive two propellers. It was intended for a 60-degree dive but suffered severely from engine overheating and fires, often preventing it from performing its intended dive-bombing role, according to discussions on WW2Aircraft.net.
Ju 88: While often used as a horizontal bomber, the Junkers Ju 88 was a twin-engine aircraft that was capable of, and used for, medium-angle dive bombing.
Development Philosophy: While Germany focused heavily on single-engine dive bombers early in the war (e.g., Ju 87), the need for longer range led to efforts to incorporate dive-bombing requirements into larger, multi-engine platforms, though they struggled with structural limitations.
Reddit
Reddit
+5
Overall, the Luftwaffe favored tactical, close-support aviation over heavy strategic bombers, and attempts to force multi-engine planes into the specialized dive-bomber role were largely unsuccessful.”
Alan, it's GLOSTER Meteor. It was Gloucestershire Aircraft Company Limited until 1926, but then they change name to make it easier for foreigners to pronounce*. I can see that would have been a problem...:D
*Wikipedia
You're correct. I just assumed the "standard" spelling for Gloucester, without checking. Carelessness on my part...
To add to what Ted and Alan said on 'Tech' - at the start of the War, I think the French had the best tanks - the Somua S35 for example.
If a tank has four critical aspects - the S35 was 'good' on Speed, Amrour and Gun - but weak on 'Crew'.
i.e. the Tank Commander had to do often multiple things - and the Small Turret often didn't help.
And you don't need a Radio in each tank..... not!
Early German Tanks 'won' on Crew - but lost on pretty much evething else (the 'best' German tank at the Start of the War was probably the Czech built Pz 38T for example).
Early Panzer III and IV's had thin armour when compaired to their peers.
Somehow the Germans did learn to build better tanks than your enemy - but the Allies really struggled and when you get to the Panzer IV F1 or F2 marks (for tanks at that time) - they started to do well/OK in all four categories.
(Outside the 17 pdr armed Western Tanks (the Firefly and Challenger) - I don't think the Western Allies ever got a Tank which can claim to be Good in all 4 areas - Churchill was too slow, Pershing as a Heavy Tank didn't have enough armour... - Yes, the 17 pdr and 90 mm Tank Destroyers had a good gun - but you have to compare those to JagdPanthers to be 'fair' - so much weaker armouur and depending on Gun research and Ammo available - from what i have read, the 88 probably wasn't as good - but it was good enough) - but who needs the best when you have numbers (which from some of the other recent posts appears to be an issue for NATO forces - small number of very good aircraft..... when a large number of OK aircraft mighr be better??)
On Aircraft - Alan is spot on - I think Aircarft Tech was generally even - at time one side had the edge and at other times, the other side.
At the start of the War, the ME110 was probably the best 'multi role' Aircraft - but nothing then came close to the Mosquito as a Multi role plane - and nothing really came that close to the P51 for long range fighters - but nothing got close during the entire war I think, for Land Based Dive bombing with the JU87?
Other Tech
Rockets - Yep German
Submarine Tech (Snorkel) - Yep German
Radar - UK all the way
Small Portable Radio's - US
So as a nations priority changes, they might steal a lead in some tech areas and fall further behind in other areas.
The Ukraine for example probably has overtaken Israel or Turkey in building the best drones (for value for money)?
Could Iran steal that crown? Probably not, but you never know.
The best tank was probably the T34. Especially the 85mm gun version. Too bad the Commiees didn't believe in radios.
Rifle was probably the M1 Garand, STG 44 or FG42.
LMG & MMG is the MG42 hands down. .50 cal wins HMG, and you can argue forever about Squad Automatic Rifle: Bren vs BAR.
SMG has the magnificent MP40 & Thompson costing too much and not being super reliable vs the cheap and disposable STEN and "Grease guns." PPsH is kinda jamfed in here with the Suomi and fully auto versions of the M1 carbine. Special shout out to the Australian Owen..
The T34 could definitely make a case for best tank, but the Sherman was better if you counted the overall logistics system. Do remember that most of the data we use today was based on the much higher quality post war T34/85 as the wartime production was awful.
The FG42 has enough interesting features to exclude it from any claim to be best. The wartime SG44s had such awful quality control that it’s really two rifles, the design and the reality.
I for one think the MG34 has a lot to say for itself and the whiz bang MG42 was not better in tactical effect.
"
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, April 25, 2026 - 01:06 am: Edit
You're correct. I just assumed the "standard" spelling for Gloucester, without checking. "
To be fair - alot of people (not just foreigners) can have a hard time 'speaking' the words of
Gloucestershire
or even harder Worcestershire
or even harder Worcestershire Sauce
but the hardest is Leciester/Leicestershire (alot of people pronouce it Lychester/shire???
So hardly surprising they chaged the name of the compamy Glosters 
I am sure several nations have 'fun location names'!
Cholmondeley - pronounced... "Chumley"
By the way, I am going to disagree with your claim from your 8:17 AM post:
Quote:Radar - UK all the way
As I tried to indicate in my previous post, there was so much information sharing, going both ways, on Radar that I think it makes more sense to consider "US/UK Radar" as a single category.
One of the top Soviet Guards Tank Corps was equipped with Shermans. When told they could exchange them for T-34/85s they chose to keep the Shermans.
Take that for the difference between the two.
I believe that was an issue with reliability and ease of maintenance. As I mentioned in a previous post about Eric "Winkle" Brown's observations concerning the Meteor versus the Me-262; In war, reliability counts for a lot.
I would also note that the Soviets didn't much care for the P-51 Mustang but very much liked the P-40 Warhawk, both supplied by the U.S. The P-51, for which a pretty good case can be made that, over all, it was the best propeller-driven fighter to ever see combat in large numbers, was "finicky" and more difficult to maintain. The Soviets found the P-40 to be more "rugged" and much easier to keep in service. And the P-40 had decent performance at low/medium altitude, which was what mattered on the Soviet front. At high altitude the P-51 completely outclassed it. But without the high altitude, massed heavy bomber raids characteristic of the USAAF/RAF war effort, high altitude performance was comparatively a lot less important.
I probably should also have included the P-39 Airacobra, another plane the Soviets liked a lot, in the previous post; and clarified that the primary (certainly not the only) use the Soviets made of the P-40 was ground support, for which high altitude performance is irrelevant.
Alan - From what I have read - UK early on was far ahead of everyone else - and it was through sharing the US and UK both improved. I think by 1944 - the US and UK was similar in performance - but up to 1942/1943, I think the UK had the edge.
However, the key aspect was the Allied Radar at pretty much most points in WW2 had the edge (although at times the Germans had more accurate Naval Fire Control Radar - but in other areas the Allies had the edge)?
On reliability - that is perhaps the one aspect of Tank design the Germans was behind the Allies on - although that might have been wanting to use newer tanks too early (Panther and Elefant specifically for Kursk- although I haven't read the Tiger I suffered reliability issues - so it might be due to trying to squeenze 'too much armour' on a chassis/engine which could only handle 80% of what they should have put on?)
A classic case of wanting better design outcomes rather than practial outcomes?
Jet Engines was another good example!
The best prop fighter was the FW190. It introduced automatic engine control (the Kommandogerät), HOTAS (hands-on-throttle and stick) ergonomic cockpit, making it easy to fly. Built to be easy to maintain. Wide and very sturdy landing gear. With no modifications other than increase pressure in the shock absorbers, the fighter bomber versions could carry a 1800kg bomb on the centre line rack. Best roll rate of any fighter and a heavy armament. 22000 were built.
I would say that there were 4 choices for best massed produced piston fighter produced in any numbers.
German, FW190, radial or water cooled.
UK, Hawker Tempest.
USA, P51, Corsair.
Each of them have areas where they are the best, depending on what you need.
Top 5 in no particular order:
FW190
BF109
Spitfire
Mustang
Zero
What time period during the war and the circumstances would determine who would be the "best" one.
--Mike
Carl,
I think the FW-190 was a very good fighter, and may well have been the "best in the world" in late 1941. But I don't think I can agree that it was the best of all time.
The initial "A" models had terrific performance for their time at low and medium altitude. But they weren't that great at high altitude. In late 1941 that didn't matter so much. But once the allied bomber offensive really got rolling, and once the allies started deploying significant numbers of fighters with quite good high altitude performance, such as the P-51D and the the P-47s (especially when they got the new propellers), earlier Focke-Wulfs found themselves increasingly disadvantaged in high-altitude fights brought about by the heavy bomber raids.
The "Dora" FW-190s (the "D" model, better optimized for high altitude work) were more competitive at high altitude but still probably disadvantaged until you got to the very late models.
The "ultimate" high-altitude FW-190 was the TA-152 ("TA" for Kurt Tank, test pilot and chief design engineer for Focke-Wulf). In 1945, shortly before the war ended, the TA-152H (essentially a heavily modified FW-190 D-9) may have been superior to anything in the sky (that wasn't a jet) at high altitude, partly due to the engine design but even more due to its wing, optimized for best performance in very thin air. But that same very long, very thin wing (relative to the fuselage) hampered its performance at low altitude. Focke-Wulf was working on a "C" model with a different wing, for low and medium altitude work. I don't think the TA-152C was ever operational.
So... yes, a very good propeller-driven fighter. But "best"? I'm not convinced. There were versions that may have been best in a specific flight regime. But I don't believe FW ever developed a fighter as well balanced as the later P-51s, with the same model being so good at all altitudes.
Also, there were some so-called "super-prop" fighters that outperformed every propeller fighter of WW2. Almost universally they had either very short service lives, or were never operational at all, for the simple reason that they came along as it was becoming increasingly clear that, at least for air-to-air work the jet dominated.
Alan, high performance is only to be expected from fighters, and they all had their 15 minutes of fame due to that. Not easy to say which one was best with that metric.
A good fighter in WWII must above all be easy to produce in large quantities and be easy to maintain. There the Italians is lacking.
Second is probably user friendliness. A pilot cannot fight well, if he is distracted. Auto propeller pitch control, automatic cooling flaps, automatic fuel mixture etc, was NOT universal at the start of the war.
Development potential was also important. The Hs 129 could not be adapted to take stronger engines, a real flaw. The Bf109 could be adapted to carry bombs but ground handling suffered because of the narrow landing gear. The Fw190 would become the Ta 152 with much of the original A model still there; The fuselage, wings landing gear, cockpit...
Quote:The Fw190 would become the Ta 152 with much of the original A model still there; The fuselage, wings landing gear, cockpit...
No. The single greatest difference between any FW-190 and the TA-152 was the wing. The TA-152 also had different fuselage, especially a very noticeably longer nose to accommodate the engine. It's true that the fuselage of the FW-190 D-9 was pretty close to the TA-152. You have to look pretty closely to spot the difference. But the difference between an A-model nose and the TA-152 nose is obvious at a glance.