Best World War II Aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That's why I say hurricane, not because it was the best fighter out there but because it performed when it was needed.
 
You know lanc they did a study the other day and they found that the Hurricane won the battle of Briton and not the Spitfire, there were to few of them to be able to win it.

yeah i knew that, i was just saying the Fw-190 didn't meet the hurricane in the BoB..........
 
Kiddies, I think you need to think outside the box and leave the combat aircraft behind. Other surveys have elected the C-47 because of its role in delivering troops, supplies, towing gliders and its ability to fly the Hump. Eisenhower even said the C-47 was one of the most important weapons of WW2 - Then look at its post war longevity It's still flying!!!!

The C-47 also possessed capabilities to fly easily in IFR conditions and was probably one of the better equipped aircraft with this capability.

I know it isn't glamorous to say the "Best" aircraft of WW2 isn't a combat aircraft, but the C-47 accomplished more and flown more miles than entire combat aircraft fleets combined!!
 
Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)
 
netudki said:
Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)

Yea but could tow a glider, carry 20 soldiers and fly on one engine? :lol:
 
Welcome to the site netudki.

That is a good argument for the Spitfire.

I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
netudki said:
Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)

Yea but could tow a glider, carry 20 soldiers and fly on one engine? :lol:

How many other engines is a Spit gonna fly on? ;)
 
To FLYBOYJ
No but it could carry a barrel of beer without any conversation! And of course it could fly with only one engine!!!!!
Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet :lol:
 
netudki said:
To FLYBOYJ
No but it could carry a barrel of beer without any conversation! And of course it could fly with only one engine!!!!!
Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet :lol:
:lol: welcome!!
 
Welcome to the site netudki.

That is a good argument for the Spitfire.

I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.

Its true, but without defending, these C-47 are worth nothing! In the siege of Burma in 1944 Spiti VIII defended the transport a/c-s and the Japanese fighters could shot down only 3 C-47.
 
netudki said:
Welcome to the site netudki.

That is a good argument for the Spitfire.

I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.

Its true, but without defending, these C-47 are worth nothing! In the siege of Burma in 1944 Spiti VIII defended the transport a/c-s and the Japanese fighters could shot down only 3 C-47.

In the beginning of the war C-47s and C-46s were rarely escorted in the PTO....
 
In the beginning of the war the C-47s weren't so important then in the ending phase. Anyway, I think nobody can win the war only with transport aircraft.
 
netudki said:
In the beginning of the war the C-47s weren't so important then in the ending phase. Anyway, I think nobody can win the war only with transport aircraft.
No, and you can't win one without one - a good one!
 
Just look at the mass tonnage of supplies they carried. Dont forget the airborne drops into Normany.

I look at this way, there is more to fighting a war than just the weapons. One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission. I would not have been able to fly day in and day out without food, water, medical supplies and what.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Just look at the mass tonnage of supplies they carried. Dont forget the airborne drops into Normany.

I look at this way, there is more to fighting a war than just the weapons. One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission. I would not have been able to fly day in and day out without food, water, medical supplies and what.
Amen!

And the fact that the C-47 did its job so well on all fronts by all participants (the Japenese even had their version) says something for the aircraft....

All round its got to be the best aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built!!!
 
OK its true so the good old C-47 won the war. But I can imagine a new Spiti, with a box for 10 soldiers and the beer.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back