4 Most Important

indispensable defines important!


C-47
P-51
F6F
B-29

The B-17 was an important aircraft but if it were to disappear, the B-24 and Brit aircraft coulda patched most of the holes.

The C-47, P-51, F6F, B-29 were completely irreplaceable.

The P-51 and B-29 brought the fight to the enemy.
The C-47 made it all happen
but the F6F slammed the door on the Japs ( the F4F did a good job but didn't truly dominate and the corsair was deployed in small numbers and its potential wasnt understood by the brass until later)


Honorable mention to the Spit, Lanc and Mossie but if our English friends were knocked out of the war, Germany still would have lost. It may have taken to 1948, but the Axis would have lost even w/o Britain. Therefor, no English plane is indispensable.

F4U
B-29
C-47
P-51

In no particular order of course

But, I just dont see outta all the aircraft how I HAVE to have those too. ............Like I said I guess I am not paying attention.....

Good point on the Hellcat, Comiso.

Defienatly a good point on the Hellcat. I really think the B-17 was very important. Maybe not the most important but pretty darn close.
Defienatly in agreement about the C-47. Reminds me of a quote I once heard-
"Ameteur study tactics, experts study logistics"

Saying the Hurricane won the war is defienatly a stretch!

You know comiso, I almost went with the Hellcat. Tough to argue it's quantity of kills, even though the Corsair was better.

PB, you know, I almost changed my mind. I was thinking if the B-17 wasn't around, there were other planes that would fill the gap.....Lanc, Halifax, and later, the B-24. But then I thought you could make the same argument about the Spitfire. If it was gone, others could have filled the gap. But since we are dealing with history, we have to go with what actually happened. The B-17 made it possible for the RAF to only have to fight half of the bombing missions, and vise versa.

I also 100% agree with you that the Spit's role with the 8th airforce has been completely overlooked. Just like the B-24, which has better bombload, better range, was just as rugged, produced in higher numbers, and was just as well armed as the B-17, but the B-17 gets all the praise. And the hurricane was the plane that did most of the work in the BoB, yet the Spitfire gets the glory. I just convinced myself to change my mind.

B-29
B-17
Hurricane
C-47

I would change the B-17 for the B-24, but the B-24 came along well after the war was engaged.

That's what I'm saying about the B-17. We can always argue about what could have happened, but we need to look at the actual history.

on second thought, the Hurricane was pretty darn important, but I really hate leaving the P-51 out of the mix because it allowed us to conduct deep penetration bomber missions into Germany, which pretty much won the war.

Flyboy2 said:

That's what I'm saying about the B-17. We can always argue about what could have happened, but we need to look at the actual history.

on second thought, the Hurricane was pretty darn important, but I really hate leaving the P-51 out of the mix because it allowed us to conduct deep penetration bomber missions into Germany, which pretty much won the war.

Click to expand...

Glad the B17 won the war

I would add the Spitfire. In terms of the whole war, that plane did more to hold its own against the Axis with all Allied sides until machines like the P-51 could make their debut. From London to Cairo, in domestic service and foreign, the Spit kept getting and giving it. Beautiful machine, many advantages along with some bad points but kept the Allies in the fight. IMHO.

I agree Thor, the corsair was a better plane but that doesnt make it more important.

My criteria is how irreplaceable and contribution to the war effort with points for longevity.

If the F6F was never deployed, it would have been the F4F that had to bear the brunt of the work not the corsair. They didnt know how to use the Corsair properly.

Imagine if the Corsair was never developed... The Hellcat would have filled in the gaps just fine. Also... i'm sure the corsair was more expensive. Which would u rather have, 4 corsairs or 7 hellcats?

One more point, even though we agree that the Corsair was "better" did it need to be better? most of the kills were against kamikaze and bombers.

I'd take the Hellcat just cause it's good enough and cheaper...


I dont see the B-17... it's contribution to the war effort was massive but it could have been replaced by the B-24 or Lanc. It was a weapons system that had peers, therefor it was not "important"

The P-51 with it's long legs had no peer
The B-29 had no peer
The F6F may have had some peers put they could not have fullfilled the Hellcats role.

The force that kept Hitler from invading Britain and the reason Nazi Germany never seriously considered the invasion was the Royal Navy. To say that the Hurricane kept the invasion from happening is an overstatement.

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?
The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Both the P-47D with wing plumbing and the P-38 had the range to compete with the P-51 for escort. The P-38 had much longer max range too (albeit a lower normal cruise speed) and both the P-47 and P-38 were better armmed, had better survivabillity, and better ordinance capacity. (especially the P-38)
But the P-38 was about 2x as expensive as the P-51 and the P-47 ~1.5x as expensive, and the P-38 took more training to fly. Both planes would consume much more fuel per plane per sortie than the P_51 as well. But from a pilot's point of veiw the P-47 and P-38 were more likely to make it home, and you also have to considder the value of the pilot.

It's not a USAAF a/c but I'd bet that with full external fuel the F4U could compete with the P-51 in range as well and altitude performance would be almost as good as with the P-51 and good enough to do the job.

The thing about the P-47 though was that wing tanks were not being fitted standard until the P-51 was already begining to replace it. With 2x 150 gal wing tanks and a 75 gal belly tank the early P-47D's (with wing racks but w/out increased internal fuel or Bubble canopy) could range the same as a P-51B/C/D with 2x 75 gal wing tanks and a fuse tank. But if 150 gal tanks were used on the P-51 it could range farther than the late P-47D with max fuel and almost as far as the P-47N and P-38L.


And there was no real replacement for the Hurricane: a plane with adequately decent performance that was easy to fly and could be built in the numbers necessary to defent Britain. The only other plane in the time period that could have been enough with the spit and it alone and could be built in the numbers needed would have been the Gloster F.5/34 and even then only if it had been converted to a decent engine. (Pegasus, or Taurus)

The P-38 was heavy and not a good dogfighter, especially in Europe. Although Richard Bong flew it, it was never as good an aircraft at dogfighting as the P-51.
The P-47 was a great aircraft but had nowhere near the manuveurbility of the P-51. It may have had the legs, but not the dogfighting ability. Without the P-47 on escort duty, the Mustang could have picked up the slack.
Both are great aircraft, but they are outclassed by the P-51.

The P-47 rulled slightly better, could out dive the P-51, was as fast and climbed well enough to fight axis planes. The P-38 could out turn and out climb the p-51 and was as fast in level flight. (the p-38 with boosted ailerons still rolled more poorly below 340 mph) All 3 a/c could do ~440 mph with max boost at critical altitude in clean configuration an wing racks.

The F4U could out-roll, out-turn, and climb and dive with the P-51.

Here's another thing to considder: ~70% of pilots shot down didn't see their opponent. If a P-51 was bounce it was almost certainly going down. A P-38 would likely be crippled but may escape on 1 engine. (and likely be scrapped) the P-47 could likely take the damage long enough for the pilot to get away and continue to fight. (except aganst 30mm hits, or a 190 with 4x 20mm or a 3x 20mm 109 firing all guns)

I forgot to mention the P-63, it too could compete with the P-51 in range. Although it was slower above 20,000 ft it still performed well and was more agile as well. Critical altitude for WEP was similar to that of the Fw 190A series. Plus the P-63 could hve used the Merlin as well. And for the 37mm cannon, this was retained for the close support role but a 20mm cannon could easily be fitted as well, and with more ammo than the P-38's.


The Main advantage of the P-51 is that it did alot of things well but not the best. It was long legged (but less than the P-38 ), as fast as contemporary US fighters, was fuel efficient with its low drag frame, tougher than the Spit, 109, but not the P-38, P-47, or Fw 190A, it was realatively easy to fly, was reasonably agile, was cheaper to build than the P-47 or P-38, had good dive characteristic (less than the P-47, but better than the 38, and equal to the Fw 190 an with better control), it had a decent armament but less than many others (partiularly in the P51A/B/C), it also wasn't all that great down low when compared to the P-38 P-63 F4U Fw 190 or Me 109.
However, besides the cost, the other biggest advantage of the P-51 over the P-38J/L, P-47D, and P-63 was that it carried a much larger pecent of fuel internally, allowing it to go much longer after dropping tanks.

For over watter flights the better reliability of the radial engined P-47 and F4U and the Tin P-38 could not be over exadurated.

Flyboy2 said:

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?

Click to expand...

If the B-17 was that important, why did they build more B-24s? You mention a Hudson, but not a B-25?

Flyboy2 said:

The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Click to expand...

Although the Lancaster was primarily a night bomber, it excelled in many other roles including daylight precision bombing, and gained worldwide renown as the "Dam Buster" used in the 1943 Operation Chastise raids on Germany's Ruhr Valley dams.

So following that logic, the B-17 wasn't as good because it was only used in the daylight hours, right?

The B-17 was a good bomber, but better than a B-29? Nope.

Flyboy2 said:

Yeah. I'm telling you the B-17 was extremely important. Mabye it didn't win the war, but it sure helped alot. It defienatly deserves a top 4 rating because who would have filled the daylight bombing gap between bombers like the Hudson and the B-24?
The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Click to expand...

I think you should read some of the threads devoted to the Lanc B24 B17 debate you'll be enlightened , if you look back in some of the older threads you'll learn about many of the questions you ask about. I believe the following is the 3rd or 4th thread devoted to the debate
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-17-b-24-lancaster-3442.html

Flyboy2 said:

The Lancaster was an effective system, but was only used at night, therefore cannot be compared to the B-17

Click to expand...

Are you saying the Lanc was not capable of daylight flight?

Dont confuse doctrine with aircraft capability.

Bomber Command doctrine and lack of long range escorts dictated nigh time use.

If the B-17 was never developed, more lancasters could have been built, perhaps in America and escorted by mustangs during the day.

More B-24s could have filled the gap.

The B-17 was a great aircraft but not essential to the war effort... it had replacement aircraft equal to the task...

IMO, it's a pretty plane with too many fans

Hell, the Lanc was better except for the defensive armament.

comiso90 said:

Hell, the Lanc was better except for the defensive armament.

Click to expand...

I remember your comments when you looked at the rear turret of the lanc about the tiny 303's

And besides the Hurricane, lets not forget all the US a/c that held the line when there were no good alternatives 'till superior, fully capable a/c came along.

The P-40 was the only really "modern" fully equipped a/c (the P-39 was too small and lacked range) the USAAF had to deploy in large numbers when we entered the war up to early 1943. There was no better alternative available and it did indeed "hold the line." (particularly in the PTO, and moreso with propper hit and run tactics against the Japanese)

The Wildcat, the only "modern" fully equipped carrier based fighter available in the numbers needed to equip the USN and USMC 'till late 1943. (the F2A was poorly developed and Brewster could never hope to make enough) It was enough to hould out against the Japanese until the F4U and (mostly) the F6F were there. And once group and hit and run tactics were developed, they were found to be fairly sucessful as well.

Without having some "good enough" fighters able to be produced in large numbers immediately, we wouldn't have been able to do much, particularly in the PTO. (and that goes double for the commonwealth P-40's)