And for what reasons? Theres nothign wrong with that choice and it is a good choice, but tell everyone why.
Best World War II Aircraft?
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the Hurricane was one of the most important A/C of the war. Without these, which were easier to crank out in masses than spits, the brits may not have been able to keep fighting off the Germans after france fell. Maybe not a sexy plane, but definitely a workhorse... and giving her her due.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Important for a certein time of the airwar.
But far outclassed by the Spitfire and Mustang (and a slew of others) as the ar progressed.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but unlike many other types she did go on to prove very useful in a number of other roles, and whilst i agree she is not the best aircraft of WWII she does deserve a mention as an all time great.......
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Id throw her into a Top 50 list.
Hello, my father was the "engine and guns" man of Luigi Gorrini, one of the top aces of italian Regia Aeronautica, serving in the 85 squadriglia of 3 stormo. He always told me that his pilot told him that the english and amirican planes were not so good good, the SPitfire itself...good to dive shoot and fly away. They had less handling and manouvrability than the italian planes (Fiat Cr 42 "the best of all biplanes", the Macchi Mc 200, the Macchi 202, and the Macchi 205) and that the pilots were not able to make aerobatics. Most of italians pilots, in fact, were much more experienced than the english and the americans, because they had fought in the Spanish civil war. You can read everywhere that "the italian planes were undergunned", but I had the canche to talk with generale Giulio Cesare Giuntella that shot down two english planes over the desert and He told me that the italian breda 12,7 impressed Adolf Galland in Belgium when they showed him that the bullets from that gun could hole steel and fire a tank of fire put behind, while the weak bullets from english planes were stopped even by the parachute, when they had the chance to fight spitfires and hurricanes them over the Channel. The Macchi 205 veltro was better than the spitfires (i read a very interesting text on this site confirming that) but the P 51 pilots too feared the 205 at least at low heights. I think it was the best of fighter plane with propeller, at least in Europe. But the director of the italian museum ot air force (Museo storico dell'Aeronautica militare di Vigna di Valle), very well informed, told me that the Germans tested the italian fighter planes (they know that they were better than theirs) of the "5" series, Macchi 205, Reggiane 2005 and Fiat 55. They wanted to chose a single type plane to produce TO REPLACE Me 109 and Focke Wulf 190. And they chose the Fiat 55: the superb plane was, for them, THE BEST FIGHTER. And they were not short of excellent planes.
English historians tell that the SPitfire was the best defensive fighter, and the americans that the Mustang was the best offensive. The history is written by the winners and the winner people likt to believe to their lies.
English historians tell that the SPitfire was the best defensive fighter, and the americans that the Mustang was the best offensive. The history is written by the winners and the winner people likt to believe to their lies.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good information wolfpath, but it's not a matter of "lies from the winners." You stated that "the english and amirican planes were not so good good, the SPitfire itself...good to dive shoot and fly away." Well that's what you call tactics and those dive, shoot and fly away eventually prevailed along with the numerical superiority that no axis power was able to achieve. The Italians built great planes, but their numbers and tactics did them in, and that my friend is the truth....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
ah you also have to remember EVERYTHING from the past is propaganda, even facts are because you use facts to support your arguments, so whilst some of it is perhaps fact, of course they would have told your father that his enemy was inferior because that's what they told their pilots, no pilot goes into a fight thinking he will loose, even your statement about the winners believing their lies is propaganda, and remember the italians ended up on the winning side.........
Don't give him the idea that his country was on the winning side in the end. Italy got slaughtered and embarassed in that war. The only times Britain, then the Allies met real resistance in any theatre Italy was in...was when the Germans were there.
Makes me laugh really that he attacks the Mustang ... I don't see any Italian planes escorting their bombers from Rome to Alexandria. Or the equal distance of Britain to Berlin .
Makes me laugh really that he attacks the Mustang ... I don't see any Italian planes escorting their bombers from Rome to Alexandria. Or the equal distance of Britain to Berlin .
pD's got a point there.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
pD's got half a point there... Italy cannot be counted on the winning side, actually it can be said it managed to lose the war twice.
But it's not laughable the statement that the series 5 was a good match for Spits and Mustangs.
We already have discussed and compared the performances of this machines, and at equal development (= mid 43 versions) no other fighter can be claimed
superior.
And the allied planes had always tough times in facing them, even in 1944 (look at the score of RSI aviation)
Besides, except the Mustang no single engine fighter can be vaunted for long range escort, and the tactical use of the '5' did not call for external fuel tanks.
Also true the fact that the Germans were highly impressed by the series 5 and planned the production of the G55.
Then we can say that the reports from Italian airmen are biased like the reports of airmen of any other Country, but also it is not impossible that Galland was 'impressed' by the Breda 12,7: it all depends WHEN the demo took place.
Being in Belgium it is likely that it was the time od BoB (the only time when Italian planes were deployed in Belgium), and so the comparison was with the British 7,7 and the current armament of the German planes (7,9 and slow firing 20mm MG FF)
No wonder that a good 12,7 with a very good cartdrige (like the Breda was) could be considered very effective.
Six months later every other plane had improved the armament far beyond the 2x12,7 while Italians had to wait 1943 and the Macchi 205 to be back on track.
But it's not laughable the statement that the series 5 was a good match for Spits and Mustangs.
We already have discussed and compared the performances of this machines, and at equal development (= mid 43 versions) no other fighter can be claimed
superior.
And the allied planes had always tough times in facing them, even in 1944 (look at the score of RSI aviation)
Besides, except the Mustang no single engine fighter can be vaunted for long range escort, and the tactical use of the '5' did not call for external fuel tanks.
Also true the fact that the Germans were highly impressed by the series 5 and planned the production of the G55.
Then we can say that the reports from Italian airmen are biased like the reports of airmen of any other Country, but also it is not impossible that Galland was 'impressed' by the Breda 12,7: it all depends WHEN the demo took place.
Being in Belgium it is likely that it was the time od BoB (the only time when Italian planes were deployed in Belgium), and so the comparison was with the British 7,7 and the current armament of the German planes (7,9 and slow firing 20mm MG FF)
No wonder that a good 12,7 with a very good cartdrige (like the Breda was) could be considered very effective.
Six months later every other plane had improved the armament far beyond the 2x12,7 while Italians had to wait 1943 and the Macchi 205 to be back on track.
While I think the Ho-229 would have been a great aircraft we can not for certain place it into the catagory of the best of WW2. It only flew on test flights and never saw combat. Therefore we will never see how it handled against other aircraft.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and whilst the design does offer some advantages you can't believe all the stats for an aircraft untried in combat, which is what adler's saying, there's always problems that you can't find until you're flying combat sorties, so this belongs in the what ifs..........
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I agree with Adler and Lanc: I love the 229, is full of charme and was probably the most innovative approach, but was only a prototype.
Besides, the concept proved valid with the B-2 but only after fly-by-wire was available.
Besides, the concept proved valid with the B-2 but only after fly-by-wire was available.
I think the 229 would have been allright without the fly by wire technology only because of its small size. Still though it is a what if only.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Rolls back to the gooney bird!
saw a program on history channel yesterday called battleground i think ?
it was supposed to be about d-day in normandy but the producers must have been the biggest P-51 fans because all they banged on about was how the invasion couldn,t have happened without the mustang, it seems it was the only fighter good enough to match luftwaffe.
then it was off shooting up every thing on the ground,destroying railstock and you would think it was the only aircraft in the allied inventory they even tried to pass off footage of a low flying spitfire as a P-51 no mention was made of P-47's, spitfires, typhoons or P-38's etc, i know the P-51 was a good aircraft but come on other planes made a contribution to the air war in europe !
sorry to rant but just annoyed me what do you all think did the P-51 deserve its reputation as the ultimate piston engine fighter ?
i'm not sure it does other planes were better in certain roles
it was supposed to be about d-day in normandy but the producers must have been the biggest P-51 fans because all they banged on about was how the invasion couldn,t have happened without the mustang, it seems it was the only fighter good enough to match luftwaffe.
then it was off shooting up every thing on the ground,destroying railstock and you would think it was the only aircraft in the allied inventory they even tried to pass off footage of a low flying spitfire as a P-51 no mention was made of P-47's, spitfires, typhoons or P-38's etc, i know the P-51 was a good aircraft but come on other planes made a contribution to the air war in europe !
sorry to rant but just annoyed me what do you all think did the P-51 deserve its reputation as the ultimate piston engine fighter ?
i'm not sure it does other planes were better in certain roles
twoeagles
Senior Airman
Keep in mind the P-51 has had 60 years of glowing press, is highly
recognizable (even my wife knows a 'Stang), and not only flew over
Berlin, but over Tokyo, too. It flew on into the Korean war. No F4U Corsair
escorted 8th Air Force bombers, for instance, but it is highly recognizable
yet comparatively rare in the public's eye. Getting an objective documentary
isn't easy because they are written and produced by real people who also
have their own prejudices, and also large knowledge gaps.
My son is at Pensacola starting flight school and has loved airplanes his
whole life (he had no choice). Ask him about the P-51 and he will gush.
Ask him about the Hawker Tempest and he will return a blank stare. Every
airshow we attend has a P-51, but neither of us has seen a real Tempest.
So familiriarity plays a role, especially on TV aimed at a mass audience.
Look at it this way: if you could hands down with no argument nail down
the best aircraft in every type, we wouldn't be having any fun here talking
about it.
recognizable (even my wife knows a 'Stang), and not only flew over
Berlin, but over Tokyo, too. It flew on into the Korean war. No F4U Corsair
escorted 8th Air Force bombers, for instance, but it is highly recognizable
yet comparatively rare in the public's eye. Getting an objective documentary
isn't easy because they are written and produced by real people who also
have their own prejudices, and also large knowledge gaps.
My son is at Pensacola starting flight school and has loved airplanes his
whole life (he had no choice). Ask him about the P-51 and he will gush.
Ask him about the Hawker Tempest and he will return a blank stare. Every
airshow we attend has a P-51, but neither of us has seen a real Tempest.
So familiriarity plays a role, especially on TV aimed at a mass audience.
Look at it this way: if you could hands down with no argument nail down
the best aircraft in every type, we wouldn't be having any fun here talking
about it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
