Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	TIME TRAVEL ADVISOR	4		02/04 03:11am
	Archive through May 21, 2025	25		05/22 09:22am
	Archive through August 10, 2025	25		08/30 07:17pm
	Archive through October 14, 2025	25		10/18 07:23pm
	Archive through January 09, 2026	25		03/06 07:50pm
	Archive through April 26, 2026	38		04/26 03:10pm

Again, I'm not trying to denigrate the FW-190. I think it was one of the best propeller-driven fighters (to actually see significant combat)^* of all time. And it belongs in the conversation for consideration as the best. But I'm still dubious that it ultimately wins that title.


^*The TA-152 just barely saw combat and might be excluded from this argument on those grounds. I believe total production fell short of 100 aircraft and (according to Wikipedia) its combat record was "probably" 7 air-to-air kills versus 4 shot down. Wikipedia info isn't always the best, but based on what I have read elsewhere I believe this is correct or very close. A 7-4 kill ratio against the Allies' latest and greatest certainly supports the claim that it was a very formidable fighter. It's also a very small data set... And with that rather extreme wing, it would have had problems in the denser air at low altitude. Hence the need for a TA-152 C, which would have been a beast at low altitudes but more "ordinary" at high altitudes.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Wingspan of FW-190 A-8 (single most produced FW-190 model): 34 feet, 6 inches

Wingspan of TA-152 H: 47 feet, 5 inches.


That is not a minor modification to what is basically the same wing. It is a radically different wing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 01:12 pm: Edit

With these sorts of questions - you will always get lots of different answers, but perhaps the starting question is which fighter had the biggest effect on the War?

No ME109 - would there have been a War (or no Zero, would the Japanese have attacked the US)?

No Hurricane - Would the UK have lost the Battle of Britain?

No Yak 3 or Yak 9 - would the Russians have totally lost the Air war in the east?

All fighters after that point had a smaller effect on the War (P51 - possibly shortened it for example - but didn't change the outcome).

And Alan raises some really good points - what actually sort combat 'enough' to show it was the best of the best?

The TA152 is a good example.

Was the Do335 a better Fighter (OK Fighter/Bomber - but anything which can do 800 kmh is useable as a fighter) though for example?

It also raises other questions - do you want something which is the 'best in the world', but needs a absolutely flat Tarmac runway and several hours of precisiong engineering to maintain it (generally German and Western Aircraft) or a Plane which can take off an land anywhere and a 'hammer and wrench' can fix most problems - and so useability in the field comes into play.**

** - The Storch and Lysander for example - STOL and Bumpy fields.... what else could take off and land there?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Reversing gears a bit... there is this to be said in favor of the FW-190. Because of the allied air campaign against German-controlled POL production, it was forced to use a synthetic fuel derived from the liquification of coal. While an impressive technical achievement (which should be included in any discussion of German versus Allied technology), the "Ersatz" fuel was inferior in octane rating and energy density to the aviation fuel available to the British and Americans. So we could at least ask what the FW-190 would have been if^* the Germans had a reliable supply of "proper" aviation fuel, in sufficient quantities to support their efforts.


^*"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a starship." Or... something like that, anyway... It's an old Scottish saying, popular among engineers...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Alan, the H version had new wings but that was the exception to the rule demanded by the need for extreme high altitude performance. The Ta 152C and E would have had the standard wing as found on the D-9/11/13 and the A-6/7/8/9, and of course the F and G series.

By Joshua I. Penick (Tricericon) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 02:49 pm: Edit

"With these sorts of questions - you will always get lots of different answers, but perhaps the starting question is which fighter had the biggest effect on the War?"

JMO, I say the Me109.

My thinking:

(1) The critical theater in the air was the confrontation in the west between, at first, the RAF and the Luftwaffe, later joined by the USAAF. Battle of Britain, Combined Bomber Offensive, as so on. The PTO, East Front, CBI, Africa, etc, were secondary theaters (in the air).

(2) Impact should be evaluated relative to the airplanes that might have been built instead, since the alternative to, say, the Hurricane certainly wasn't nothing.

The Me109 was dominant at the beginning of the war - only the Spitfire was on par mano-a-mano on the Allied side - and remained competitive to the dawn of the jet age. There were better performing fighters by the end of the war but the P-51 and the Fw190 had no impact on Poland, France, the Battle of Britain, or the Spanish Civil War (if you want to count that). The Me109 also added a lot more impact in Russia than the late war competitors did in secondary theaters. That adds up to a lot of extra opportunity for the Me109 to add "effect on the war".

I'd give the P-51 the runner-up. While it appeared very late, it had a unique package of capabilities that allowed the bomber war to really be driven home to Germany - the decisive weapon for the decisive battle. Even though the ultimate outcome was not in doubt by 1943, the Mustang shortened the war.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 06:45 pm: Edit

I like that take, Tricericon.

By the same standards, wouldn't it be justified to refer to the Wildcat as the greatest fighter of the Pacific War? It was the mount that took out the bulk of the cream-of-the-crop of Japanese fighter pilots early on in the war.

For that matter, the effect of the Zero and Oscar during the early parts of the war. Might they be considered for most impactful?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 06:53 pm: Edit

No mention so far of the Mitsubishi A6M "Zero", which dominated the first year of the war in the Pacific. That dominance started away once the Lighting, Hellcat, and Corsair were deployed to the theater in operational numbers, as they all had the firepower to take advantage of the Zero's lack of armor, but even through 1943 parity was partly maintained by experience Japanese pilots.

Edit: Jeff posted as I was typing.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, April 26, 2026 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Jessica, don't forget the Ki-43 "Oscar", the army's "zero". Did all the work, got no recognition for it :D

By Joshua I. Penick (Tricericon) on Monday, April 27, 2026 - 10:16 am: Edit

"For that matter, the effect of the Zero and Oscar during the early parts of the war. Might they be considered for most impactful?"

I think the Zero scores very well in *capability* for the era, but its *impact* was limited due to other factors.

- The IJN did not have an effective system for vectoring CAP onto targets and were not able to turn their superior fighters into superior survivability for their carriers. Consider Midway where the Zeroes were wasted on the TBDs while the SBDs were not intercepted and destroyed four carriers.

- In the decisive air-attrition campaign over Guadalcanal the Zero lost to the inferior Wildcat, as you noted, because the Japanese were employing their Zeroes at extreme range over Allied airbases. Perversely, had their main fighter been less capable (shorter ranged) than the Zero they might have been forced onto the wiser course of withdrawing from Guadalcanal.

I'd still rate the Zero number two in "effect on the war" for the Pacific theater especially due to contributions in China, the Philippines, the Singapore campaign, the Indian Ocean, etc.

"By the same standards, wouldn't it be justified to refer to the Wildcat as the greatest fighter of the Pacific War?"

I consider the Hellcat the most impactful fighter of the Pacific war. It broke the Zero-Wildcat stalemate and wiped the IJNAS out of the sky.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 06:24 pm: Edit

I came across a link for identifying 100 military ,international aircraft.

I scored 90 correct out of 100 photographs.

Most were international cargo carriers.

Good luck!

https://militarymachine.com/quizzes/ace-of-the-skies-quiz

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 06, 2026 - 11:51 pm: Edit

It has been announced that filming for the sequel to “Greyhound”, a film version of the book “The good shepherd” that was originally released in 2020.

under the working title “Greyhound2”, it continues the story of the U.S. Navy destroyer at Normandy, June 1944, and then transferred to the Pacific theater.

Presumably the U.S.S. kidd, DD-661, will again be used for primary filming.

Tom Hanks will again portray Commander Krause in command of the Destroyer.

No release date has been released.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 05:10 am: Edit

Greyhound was great, even if a little too generous with kill scores. I look forward to Greyhound 2.

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 07:32 am: Edit

Hopefully they'll not do the "whale" sound every time the U-Boat came on screen to help people know it was the bad guy. My wife and I began muting the movie because of this.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 07:51 am: Edit

My (step) Grandfather RADM Groverman served in DDs in WW2.

https://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient/recipient-55052/

http://ussdehaven.org/grovermn.htm

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 08:48 am: Edit

News report concerning Tom Hanks and Amazon-MGM studios.

The “Saving Private Ryan-reunion movie” project has been cancelled.

Jean Sexton would blow out ALL of her gaskets if I post the reasons, beyond “its political”.

Pity, as I thought well of the original “Saving Private Ryan”.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 09:03 am: Edit

Good idea to stay away from the swamp. The gators are not on vacation like Jean is...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 08:02 pm: Edit

In other news…

Google inquiry:
Quote:” Yes, as of April/May 2026, the "Maverick Act" (S.4161) has been introduced and passed by the U.S. Senate to transfer three retired F-14D Tomcat fighters to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Alabama. The bill specifically authorizes the transfer of spare parts to potentially restore at least one aircraft to flying condition for airshows and educational purposes.Key Details of the Maverick Act (S.4161/HR8331):Purpose: To preserve the legacy of the F-14 Tomcat by transferring three specific F-14D aircraft (Bureau Numbers 164341, 164602, and 159437) from Navy storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.Flight Restoration: The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to provide excess spare parts from existing inventory to make at least one of the aircraft airworthy, while others may be used for static display.Conditions: The aircraft must be demilitarized, meaning they cannot be used for combat. They are intended solely for display, airshows, and commemorative events.Status: Introduced in April 2026 by Representative Abe Hamadeh and Senator Sheehy, the Senate unanimously passed the bill on April 28, 2026.While the bill aims for a "flyable" status, it is a complex, long-term project to restore these aircraft after being in storage since 2006, with all restoration costs to be handled by the receiving commission.”

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Aircraft on a stick is a lot cheaper than flyable.

There's an SR-71 on a stick outside the Space and Rocket Center (and a Saturn-5 on display inside the Davidson center). There are lots of helicopters on sticks inside Redstone Arsenal at various places.

I don't know that the Space and Rocket center needs more than one F-14 on a stick.

I don't really believe they'll make one flyable just for display, people watching fighter overflights don't really care what kind of jet fighter it is.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 07, 2026 - 11:58 pm: Edit

I could be wrong , but I suspect that the reason the Senators voted to authorize the restoration of three F-14 aircraft has more to do with the motion pictures that featured F-14 fighters than the idea of “just another” aircraft on a stick.

The movies that featured F-14 fighters were:

Major Movies Featuring F-14 Fighter AircraftTop Gun (1986):
The primary film responsible for the F-14's pop-culture stardom, featuring real F-14A Tomcats from Navy squadrons.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022): Features a nostalgic, pivotal role for the F-14 as the "enemy" aircraft operated by Maverick.

The Final Countdown (1980): Featured VF-84 "Jolly Rogers" F-14s operating from the USS Nimitz.

Executive Decision (1996): Includes F-14s in the hijacking thriller plot

Given that some of these movies date back to the 1980’s when a lot of those senators were younger and likely saw the movies in college or possibly high school.

Nostalgia.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 12:14 am: Edit

Back in January, I posted an article on the U.K. Royal navy cutting back on the number of type 23 frigates in service.

Was six, now with the unexpected retirement of H.M.S. Iron Duke, the type 23 frigates in service is now five.

The odd thing, is the ship just finished an midlife overhaul, and was supposed to remain active through 2029.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 09:43 am: Edit

I don't follow the UK military issues,
though have to wonder if some of them are related
to retention and recruitment....

Basically, a manpower issue....


A meme popped up the other day...
Drone operator (corner of pic) frowning about to cry, "After being told to go and destroy the remaining F-14s in Iran"....
F-14 center of pic, in a bluish camo pattern....

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 10:08 am: Edit

I don’t know if its true, but there are several defense analysts who have video clips posted saying that the Labor government is cutting funding for the Royal Navy to transfer funding for social spending.

The decline in readiness and ships in service would seem to support such a claim.

It does appear that the dire condition of the Royal navy seems worse now than before Labor took control of the government.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 02:32 pm: Edit

UK defence appropriations by year:

2025/26: £62.2 billion
2024/25: £60.2 billion
2023/24: £56.8 billion
2022/23: £55.6 billion
2021/22: £48.7 billion
2020/21: £44.6 billion
2019/20: £42.2 billion

Source: Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2025, HM Treasury

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 03:54 pm: Edit

And a significant chunk of that money goes into maintaining the UK nuclear deterrence. So the conventional piece of the pie is even smaller.

--Mike

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 05:07 pm: Edit

It is, yes. That said, it does not align with claims of reduced UK defense spending.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 08, 2026 - 05:10 pm: Edit

There are line items in the defense budget that are questionable. US or UK.