Best World War II Aircraft?

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

So the P-40 may have actually served on more fronts than the Hurricane.

Though the DC-3/C-47 was pretty much used everywhere as well (including the Japanese), since it was the dominant pre-war civil transport and airliner.
 
Elvis said:
What was that list again? The C-47, the landing craft and the 2 1/2 ton truck.
That what won the war for us.
Click to expand...
ToughOmbre said:
The bazooka, the Jeep, the atom bomb, and last but not least, the C–47.
Click to expand...
LOL! Good one, Ombre!

I did an google search and came up with this quote...

"The Jeep, the Dakota and the Landing Craft were the three tools that won the war"
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

It can be found at Brian's Military Jeep website.




Elvis
 
Following up on this thread it might be "dangerous" to post the following:

The C-47 is the best ww2 a/c

because; ?

1) the best fighter was a C-47
2) the best heavy bomber was a C-47
3) the best medium bomber was a C-47
4) the best ground attack a/c was a C-47
5) the best sub hunter was a C-47
6) the best night fighter was a C-47
7) the best transport a/c was a C-47
8) the best sea plane was a C-47
9) the best recon a/c was a C-47
10) the best trainer a/c was a C-47

Let's assume that the C-47 was indeed the best transport a/c, so does 1 out of ten criterias make any a/c the BEST of all ?

Even in a direct comparrison to a Ju 290 it wouldn't stand up to being the best transport a/c. Fact is that Germany lost the war and as such Douglas could market the C-47 unoposed, which makes it at most - the best post war transport a/c.

Which a/c had the overall biggest impact in regards to the outcome of WW2in the ETO or PTO ? the answer according to Gen. Eisenhower is C-47, to me it would be thousands of B17's and B24's or sarcastically the B-29 over Japan during a week in August 1945.

Which a/c had the means to forward the future layout of any transportation or civil airliner after ww2, the answer (IMHO) would be a C-47 a Ju 290 and even a Fw C-200 ex Condor/Lufthansa

So to my understanding this answer could only be verified by setting up certain criterias and make a poll out of it (I think this could be an interesting alternative).

Regards
Kruska
 
The C-47 was the most important for what it did, the C-46 and C-54 were superior and more capable designs but they weren't available in the numbers necessary to do what the C-47 did, it being the dominant pre war airliner as well. And the DC-3/variants was undoubtedly the most successful a/c of all time. And on the trainer issue, the docile characteristics of the C-47 would have made for an excellent multi-engine introductory trainer, or even a basic trainer in a pinch. (better than going straight to "live" trainer like a T-6 etc)

But "best" is really kind inspecific, "most important" or "most capable" being more descriptive. So it kind of leaves allot up to interpretation.

There's another discussion over here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/4-most-important-12434.html

And some more here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/pick-6-c-build-your-af-beginning-wwii-11731.html
 
I look at the "best" in terms of being able to perform its mission, versatility, ease of maintenance and construction, impact to the war effort, ability to be improved, longevity, and cost. Role it up and it's the C-47.
 

Go back and actually read the posts and you might find that people are voting for the C-47 because of historical aspects.

There is more to winning a war than shooting bullets and dropping bombs...
 
I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?
 
coabienjames said:
I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think the Hellcat is even in the top 10.
109, Spit, P51, Corsair, Fw190, Ta152 , B17, B29, Lancaster,B24
 
Each type is a specialty, so you have transports, fighters etc. The question in my mind is which type had the greates impact on the wars outcome.

The arguments about the C-47 are good, but i dont agree that these flashier front line types are the types that had the most impact...

IMO it was the trainers that turned out the pilots that could fly these things. Without good pilots, the aircraft is just an airborne target. Without good trainers you cant get good pilots.

So my votes are going to go to a/c like the tiger moth, or the harvard. IMO these were the planes that contributed most to the outcome of the war.
 
Code:

Hello parsifal,

I was just about to mention exactly the same whilst reading the above posts,
so thanks for helping me out on this. If the Luftwaffe had the best pilots in ww2 then you might have to consider to add a German trainer

However it all comes back to ones own criterias; as such FLYBOY would indeed be correct to place a C-47 above all.

As for my criterias it would be a P-51, since it displayed its abilities not only in the historical section but also in the technical, support and action role.

Regards
Kruska
 
Parsifal,

Just a side note to an otherwise exemplary posting - the primary trainer for the Americans was not the Harvard / Texan.
There's a reason for the "A" designation in "AT-6".
By your accord, it would be the one of PT's, like the Stearman (and Budd Davidson did say that if he was going ground loop in any aircraft, it would be a Stearman. One tough airplane).

-------------------------------------

Kool Kitty,

The C-47 was actually the DC-2, which was a slightly smaller aircraft.
The DC-3 was actually a "stretch" version of the "-2", because it originally housed sleeping berths, as well as regular seats.
Eventually, the berths were removed and the DC-3 received all seating in the traditional fashion.
I believe the DC-2 was 12-14 passenger, while the DC-3 was 16-18 passenger.
Not saying the DC-3 wasn't used by the military in WWII, just that it was not the C-47. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think it was like C-49 or C-52, something like that.
...that's why I call the C-47, "The Good Ship Lolly-Pop", because was a DC-2 that Shirley Temple was "flying" on when she sang that song in the movie.



Elvis
 
You know, you bring up an interesting thought.
The only trainer I'm aware of was the BF-108.
That seems like it would be more of an Adavanced Trainer, considering the time.
I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used?
I feel there had to be something that was simpler.



Elvis
 
Elvis said:
I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used? Elvis
Click to expand...

Hi Elvis,

Primary and basic trainers of the early years. Class A2 Land, B1 Land, B1 Sea, B2 Land and B2 Sea...

Bu 131
Bu 133
Bu 181
Fw 44
He 72
Kl 25
Kl 35

Ar 65
Ar 66
Ar 68
Ar 76
Ar 96
Fw 56
Go 145
He 45
He 46
He 51
Bf 108

He 42W
He 60W
He 114

Fw 58
He 70
Ju F13

Ju W33 W
Ju W34 W
 
How do the german trainers compare to the Allied ones. The whole concept of the ideal trainer turns the per formance issue right on its head. What makes for a good trainer? I would think low cost, and ease of flying for basic traiers. For the advanced trainers, you want to ramp things up so that your trainee pilots get as close as possible to the fron line types as is possible. Finally there are the OTU aircraft, actual frontline types.

I dont know that ther is much in the different types, but I do know that the allied training programs pulled right away with their pilot training programs. By the wars end, allied pilots were emerging from the flight schools with over 250 hours of flight training under their belts, whereas the axis pilots might be lucky if they had 50 hours. There was a chaotic training program behind the axis frontline forces, whereas the allied efforts were all designed to maximise pilot survivability, and integration.

For the Commonwealth the scheme par excellance was the EATS scheme. At the start of the Second World War, the British Government looked to the Empire and Dominions for air training help because the United Kingdom did not have the space to accommodate training and operational facilities, and because aerodromes in the United Kingdom were vulnerable to enemy attack. The Agreement was signed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand on 17 December 1939, it listed the percentage of trainees each country would send, the percentage of costs each would take on, the training schedule, and the aerodrome opening schedule.
Between 1940 and 1945, some 151 schools had been established across Canada with a ground organization of 104,113 men and women. By the end of the Second World War, the BCATP (Canada) and the EATS (Australia/NZ) had produced 131,553 aircrew, including pilots, wireless operators, air gunners, and navigators for the Air Forces of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The USAAF scheme was even greater. I have no idea exactly the number of aircrew, but i do know that more than 50% of the total US inventory never left the contininetal US. The main reason for this was thhat this enormous investment of airframes was dedicated to the provision of aircrew.

Moreover, both the US and CW systems were dedicated to producing aircrew of far superior quality and experience than anything the axis could produce. The allies spent a lot of time and effort in integrating new aircrew into existing air units. Genarally, it is a statistical fact that the majority of kills are made by no more than about 15% of the available flyers. The remainder, are to all intenses and purposes, targets, and padding to protect the main shooters of the formation. However, as a pilot learns the ropes, and grows in confidence, he gradually transforms from being a target, to being a shooter. With more experience comes the ability to expand by creating yet more units, and so the process continues. It is not good practice, incidentally, to concentrate too many shooters into the one formation....because you will not markedly increase the firepower of the unit with the over supply of aces, but you will increase the mortality rate of your experienced aircrew. The Germans found this at the end of the war. Faced with an airforce largely grounded, the germans decided to form a special group made up of super aces. This unit did not enjoy a markedly greater success rate, but it did mean that every pilot lost, was another ace also lost, something that the germans were in acutely short supply of by wars end.

By comparison, the axis efforts at pilot training were quite abysmal. Ther was never enough fuel, or not enough trainers, never enough instructors, and new aircrew were often sent out to the front to learn the hard way, with the obvious effect that mortality rates amongst the new axis aircrew going through the roof. The axis air forces (ecen the italians) enjoyed an early advantage in having a greater proportion of expereinced flyers, but because of the poor training establishment supporting the front line forces, this advanatage was a wasting advantage.
So, i dont know which type was the best trainer, but I do know which system was superior. The allies had things in the bag from the latter part of 1940 onwards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
434
GTX
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
692
Shortround6
S
Bomber Command, World War II (1939-45); and the lies and corruptions of Geopolitics
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register