P51D v 109K in BoP

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by irrelevant

+ infinity (it should be, considering it was used in the ETO.)

My grandpa fought in the pacific (engineers) and he always talked about how it was his favorite plane. Even though its not my favorite plane, it holds a special place in my heart. If it was in the game, I would give the 109 a rest more often.

I seriously hope they have more DLC eventually.

[Panzergranate]

The F-6F Hellcat was the highest scoring US Navy fighter with a 17:1 kill to loss ratio.

The F4U Corsair had a 10:1 kill to loss ratio and although it was faster than the Hellcat, the Corsair had the poorest turning circle and agility for any US Navy fighter, being secondarilily orientated towards ground attack and support

The Buffalo only performed well when NOT flown by inexperienced US Navy or US Marine personel, achieving a 2:1 kill to loss ratio with the Dutch and Commonwealth airforces in the far east and a 38:1 kill to loss ratio with the Finnish Air Force.

The only US aircraft carrier flying Buffaloes (B-339) was the escort and support carrier USS Long Island from 1941 until 1943. Despite numerous actions, the only losses were through accidents, usually involving landings.

Having flown the F-3A Corsair and Hellcat, in BSP, I'd go with the Hellcat everytime.

The P-51 also outclasses the Corsair on speed, agility, though not soaking up damage or odinance loadouts.

[Soviet Ace]

Can't well all just agree, that the Yak-3 would own any of these planes already mentioned. LOL

[Vulcan607]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

Can't well all just agree, that the Yak-3 would own any of these planes already mentioned. LOL

Before finding itself in the reflector sites of a Spitfire and going down in a nice big fireball?

[frame313]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

The F-6F Hellcat was the highest scoring US Navy fighter with a 17:1 kill to loss ratio.

The F4U Corsair had a 10:1 kill to loss ratio and although it was faster than the Hellcat, the Corsair had the poorest turning circle and agility for any US Navy fighter, being secondarilily orientated towards ground attack and support

I've seen claims the Hellcat kill ratio was as high as 19:1.

Does a kill ratio include all kills & losses or just air-to-air?

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by frame313

I've seen claims the Hellcat kill ratio was as high as 19:1.

Does a kill ratio include all kills & losses or just air-to-air?

This is a good point, because the Corsair could easily be death to an inexperienced pilot.

Kind of like how more BF-109's were lost in accidents than in actual combat.

[Panzergranate]

The kill to loss ratio reflects losses due to air to air combat.

Unfortunately, it includes losses due to defensive gunners on bombers, not just fighter on fighter action.

Also fighter on bomber successes are also included.

If a fighter operates mainly against poorly armed bombers, it'll have a good kill to loss ratio.

It is more of a "Batting Average" than a dogfight rating.

Opportunity for engaging enmy aircraft is also a factor. By the end of WW2 the Japanese struggled to field any aircraft in meaningful numbers. There just wasn't the pickings for the later fighter planes.

By comparison, the Finns enjoyed a target rich envioronment filled with large numbers of poorly designed, underpowered, unarmoured and undergunned aircraft flown by determined but inexperienced and poorly trained pilots.

Between April 1942 and April 1943, on Finnish squadron of 18 x B-239 Buffaloes managed to shoot down a confirmed 274 Soviet aircraft with the loss of only two aircraft (one through combat damage on landing).

Two thirds of these kills were fighters such as the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3, Mig-3, La-5 and Yak.

Corsairs did spend a majority of their missions on ground support than direct combat. The Hellcat was intended as an air superiority fighter.