4 Most Important

[comiso90]

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

yeahh..

I'm thinking someone wanted to use the Lanc for dear hunting instead of shooting fighters!



Retrofit with 50 cal and i think it's beat only by the B29

 

[Flyboy2]

OK GUYS I'M SORRY!!
I just really think that the B-17 was important for the time it was used in. Sure the B-24 and Lanc may have been a better weapon system but we CANNOT FORGET ABOUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE THE B-17 PLAYED IN THE EARLY BOMBING CAMPAIGN. That is why I chose the B-17, if it was such a bad airplane, why did we deploy it. I really don't want to get into a B-17, B-24 and Lanc debat. Every aircraft served its purpose and well. Using the B-17 was not like using a Manchester if you know what I mean. Oh, and its not fair to compare a B-17 to a B-29, their a generation apart. If you look at my earlier comments you'll see I replaced Il-2 with B-29 on my list.

But I'm telling you, thier is no debating that the P-51 was possibly the most effective USAAC aircraft in Europe. (Its defiantly better than the P-63!) Somebody has to agree with me on that right?

 

[kool kitty89]

The lanc also lacked the High altitude performance of the B-17/24 and still there was nothing touching the B-29 (the B-32 was quite problematic and less capible)

The liqid cooled Merlins were more volnerable as well, and the Bristol Hercules was even worse at high altitude.

 

[comiso90]

That is why I chose the B-17, if it was such a bad airplane, why did we deploy it.

Thats a leap... no one said it's bad. It was a great aircraft. I just dont see how it could be considered vital when it has peers with redundant capabilities.

No aircraft that has equals (or even close to equals) should be in the top 4.

 

[evangilder]

Nobody was saying the B-17 was a bad plane, we were only pointing out that it was not one of the four most important aircraft of WWII. If the USAAF had not had the B-17, the daylight bombing campaign would still have happened. The truth of the matter is that is was the combined effort of numerous bombers and fighters over a course of years to achieve victory in Europe.

 

[pbfoot]

The lanc also lacked the High altitude performance of the B-17/24 and still there was nothing touching the B-29 (the B-32 was quite problematic and less capible)

The liqid cooled Merlins were more volnerable as well, and the Bristol Hercules was even worse at high altitude.

and the 17 didn't exactly pack a punch with its bomb load.
The B17 was a great aircraft there were just better in its weight class

 

[Flyboy2]

Alright for a second their I thought you guys where just tearing apart the B-17 and I really didn't think you could just destroy it like that, especially after all the people who gave their lifes in it.
So if we rule out the B-17 because other aircraft had similar capabilities than what do we replace it with, beacause we can't use the B-24 or the Lanc because they all had similiar capabilities to each other?

 

[comiso90]

Alright for a second their I thought you guys where just tearing apart the B-17 and I really didn't think you could just destroy it like that, especially after all the people who gave their lifes in it.
So if we rule out the B-17 because other aircraft had similar capabilities than what do we replace it with, beacause we can't use the B-24 or the Lanc because they all had similiar capabilities to each other?

strange... no one said it was a bad palne and no one was tearing it apart.



Why does it have to replaced by a 4 engine bomber? The question was what were the 4 most important planes, not plane types.

 

[evangilder]

Agreed, Comiso. The question was what the four most important aircraft of WWII were. You continued to harp on the B-17 like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and night baseball. It was a good plane, and we all know that, but one of the most important of the war? There were hundreds of aircraft used during WWII, some were more successful than others. The key is to narrow it down to what did a job that clearly stood head and shoulder above it's contemporaries. The B-29 is certainly that.

You said it wasn't fair to compare the B-17 and the B-29 because they were a generation apart. Yes, they were, but they both served in WWII and are both part of the collection of the hundreds of aircraft doing battle in WWII. It may not be fair to compare, but the simple fact of the matter is that the B-29 was hands down a more important aircraft. I think Robert Morgan would probably have agreed, he flew both.

 

[pbfoot]

redundant

 

[Flyboy2]

Got it I agree. And I never said that it needed to be replaced by another 4-engined bomber. Sorry I kept sticking on the B-17, I just really like the plane I guess. Mabye replaced by the Spit or F6F so that my list would be
B-29
C-47
P-51
Spitfire/F6F

 

[comiso90]

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.
. (and that goes double for the commonwealth P-40's)

True. A good example of how "important" doesn't have to be "best".

Maybe the F4F was more critical then the F6F. It's true that the F6F provided the first carrier aircraft that could outclass the enemy but wildcat was the only one of it's kind....

Hmmmmm

 

[Thorlifter]

GREAT point Cosimo. Maybe that is what has been lost in this thread. It's not the BEST. It's asking what were the 4 MOST IMPORTANT. So I ask......

Which was more important in the BoB? The Spitfile or Hurricane. I don't think too many people would argue that the Spit was a better plane, but the Hurricane was SO much more vital to the RAF. The Spit could have been the best plane of WWII, but if you only had 5, then it really didn't matter.

I won't argue with anyone if they choose a B-24, B-17, or Lanc. Each was extremely important to their role and contributed greatly to V-E day.

While the F6F devasted the Japanese fighters, F4F's had a very good kill ratio after the Battle of the Coral Sea, which was before the F6F was even available. And remember, the Kawanashi N1K was so good that pilots considered the F6F an easy kill. So which was more important? hmmmm

So I still go with.......

B-29
Hurricane
C-27
P-51

After all, we are once again nit picking here. Would the 8th airforce been much worse off not having P-47 but having twice the number of P-51's? Probably not......but that's the fun of it, right?

 

[phoenix7187]

I'll assume this is both ETO and PTO.

Spitfire- the only allied fighter the reich pilots feared.

Lancaster- dam buster, grand slam, very heavy bomb load

P-51 rustang- without it's range the bombing campain in the ETO would have been really bad, and in the PTO tokyo club.

B-29- ended the war with a bang.

 

[kool kitty89]

I would still say the C-47 was THE most important aircraft in the war. ie the one that contributed the most over the entire conflict. Granted it had no effect on the BoB, but there was no real alternative foe what it did. And certainly the most important after the US entered the war.

Others, like the C-46 could fly farther and faster with 2x the load but there were no where near enough to do what the C-47 did. Plus the C-47served on every front with virtually every Allied force (in one form or another) and it even served with the enemy!!! (as the Japanese Showa L2D converted from their licence coppies of the DC-3)

 

[kool kitty89]

After all, we are once again nit picking here. Would the 8th airforce been much worse off not having P-47 but having twice the number of P-51's? Probably not......but that's the fun of it, right?

Well it would have mattered if you did that to the 9th AF though...

 

[comiso90]

I would still say the C-47 was THE most important aircraft in the war. ie the one that contributed the most over the entire conflict. Granted it had no effect on the BoB, but there was no real alternative foe what it did. And certainly the most important after the US entered the war.

Others, like the C-46 could fly farther and faster with 2x the load but there were no where near enough to do what the C-47 did. Plus the C-47served on every front with virtually every Allied force (in one form or another) and it even served with the enemy!!! (as the Japanese Showa L2D converted from their licence coppies of the DC-3)

There are some ancient threads on here about "the best plane of ww2" The C-47 was determined the best. Few people would argue with you.

The C-47 should be on everybodys list

 

[joy17782]

i dont think the spitfire was all that and a bag of chips , she was a good plane ,but a war winner, not hardly, there was so many fighters that were good , but the war winner waqs the p_51 mustang , grip and bitch all you want, but facts are what turns the page , in the pasific it would be the hellcat, those were fighters boys !!!!!

 

[comiso90]

I be done tink dat da hellcat were done a gud pasific phiter too.

 

[comiso90]

GREAT point Cosimo. Maybe that is what has been lost in this thread. It's not the BEST. It's asking what were the 4 MOST IMPORTANT. So I ask......

Thanks Thor..

I dont want do anguish over a logic matrix BUT, if you list the Hurricane as one of the 4 most important planes to the allied cause, are you saying that the allies would have lost without Britain?

If you think that America, Russia and the rest of the Allies would have EVENTUALLY won without Britain, then it doesn't make sense to add any English plane.