Best World War II Aircraft?

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.

Juha

 

[Marcel]

Hello Marcel
IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.

Juha

Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished.

 

[JoeB]

1. I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think.

2 Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.

1. Best of the war, questionable IMO, though I doubt there is any single 'best', not sure what it even means. The best a/c from purely technical viewpoint were 1945 types, naturally, but many earlier types had good success in their own time.

The Type 1 Fighter (as Japanese Army operating units almost invariably referred to it, later codenamed Oscar, operating units almost never used the Kitai numbers, eg. Ki-43) had considerably success early in the Pacific War. At that time Allied units didn't distinguish it at all from the Navy's Zero; later references to Allied success v the Type 1 are mainly from mid-1943 onward. In early 1942 the Type 1 achieved a several to one kill ratio (based on each side's loss accounts, not relying on claims) against Brit/CW/Dutch Buffaloes and Hurricanes, although it didn't do as well against AVG P-40's in fewer engagements. And the Type 1 in reality held its own against USN/USMC and USAAF a/c in the Solomons in early '43 and in New Guinea from late '42 respectively, again until well into 1943. The JAAF did really like the Type 1's manueverability, even when the Type 3 ('Tony') first came along in New Guinea, contrary to some Western accounts saying the Type 3 was immediately preferred. Experienced Type 1 pilots felt they could not be defeated by 'boom and zoom' tactics because they'd see the Allied fighter coming and turn into its attack, and sooner or later the Allied fighter would have to slow down and come into their preferred element (eg. how the US P-47 ace Neal Kirby was shot down in 1943). Now, did this always pan out? no, eventually Type 1's were typically bested by Allied fighters, but it performed well to at least fairly well in late 1941-mid '43.

Most Type 1's encountered until mid '43 had a single 12.7mm and a single 7.7mm. Francillon's description of Ki-43-I a, b and c with 2*7.7, one each, and 2*12.7 respectively isn't correct, almost all -I's had the mixed armament.

2. Type 97's ('Nate', Ki-27) shot down a number of P-40's. The AVG mostly met Type 97's and downed around 35 of them (per Japanese accounts) to around a dozen P-40's downed by Type 97's (AVG's accounts). However that lack of Type 97 success was the exception. Against the USAAF in the Philippines and DEI in 1941-42 Type 97's downed around 6 US fighters (P-35/P-40) and while the exact Type 97 losses aren't known in that case the P-40's didn't even claim 6 Type 97's. Likewise v the Hurricane in early months of the war the Type 97 downed 8 for the loss of 5, and v the Buffalo downed over a dozen for the loss of 1 or 2. IOW except against the AVG, the Type 97 units were competitive with the Allied opposition they encountered early in the war, and by mid '42 it was mainly phased out of front line service, though there were some later encounters (eg. P-38's engaged some Thai AF Type 97's in '44, USN F6F's encountered some Japanese ones in '44 also).

Joe

 

[Juha]

I agree with Joe
and IIRC Ki-43s occasionally gave hard time even to Spit VIIIs over Burma in 44.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
Quote:"Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished."

Yes I agree. And of course it was effective against ships and bridges.

Juha

 

[Boss Calamari]

Oscar best fighter? It was eventually shot down in droves. While it was extremely maneuverable and could be a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot, it was light and unarmored and basically became cannon fodder. Even the most veteran pilots flying the Oscar eventually found themselves either few in numbers or dead. Sorry but I think the final outcome speaks for it self.

As far as all-round best aircraft - the Oscar wouldn't be in the top 50 from WW2.

I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.

 

[kool kitty89]

An interesting note on the opinion JAAF pilots had of the Ki-43 was discussed here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18

HoHun posted a transcript of it on post #32 of that thread.


It seems they weren't very confident of the Ki-43-I, but the Ki-43-II was a vast improvement.

 

[drgondog]

I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the faster and higher energy US fighters like the F4U, P-38 and F6F did not have to 'slow down' if they had an initial altitude advantage - and they had a lot more firepower in the head on pass... continue through the head on pass, zoom climb back to altitude advantage and repeat step one.

Spotting the enemy is MANDATORY but not by and of itself an ACM benefit until the heavier fighters slow down and engage in the horizontal - same issue against Zero.

Last but not least is that the opponent in a dive has you in his 12 o clock position whereas the evading fighter breaking 180 degrees to meet head on is exposed to deflection shooting before engaging.

Lat question - which a/c do you suppose the IJA would prefer as a 'gift' if they could choose - 1000 F4U-4 or Ki-43II's??

 

[kool kitty89]

There would also be manufacturing and cost considerations when comparing the F4U to the Ki-43, differences in industrial capabilities.

However, given another Japanese aircraft (Ki-44 or Ki-61) to the Ki-43 would make more sense. (in which case I'd take the Ki-44 over the Ki-43 with its superior speed, firepower, and durability -and similar climb)

One point I do agree with is the canopy design. (also on the Ki-44 and Ki-84 and similar to the earlier Ki-27) Very good all around view with minimal framing and fairly sleek shape. (compared to the Zero's -which was pretty good by contemporary standards as well)
Nakajima managed to design a very good "bubble" like canopy using the flat and slightly curved glass/plexiglass available at the time. (highly curved examples that were available were prone to defects, limiting visibility worse than framing -as experienced on some British examples -ie Spitfire)

The closest western counterpart would be the Gloster Gladiator's canopy and the Brewster F2A.

 

[wingnuts]

I thought Yasuo Kuwahara's book "Kamikaze" was mostly fiction? ... I may be wrong.

 

[JoeB]

An interesting note on the opinion JAAF pilots - Mr. Yohei HInoki Japanese Ace Pilot

Re: previous statement about general success of the Type 1 in 1941-42 except against AVG, Hinoki was WIA v. the AVG April 10, 1942 (his a/c hit 21 times but did not 'fall apart'). In its relatively few combats v. the AVG the 64th Flying Regiment seems to have lost 11 Type 1's while only downing 3 AVG P-40's. But again that was opposite to the Type 1's record v Hurricane and Buffalo in early 1942 (Type 1's downed 20 Hurricanes for 4 losses, and 14 Buffalo's for another 4 losses, in 1941/42 combats where both sides' losses are known). And as mentioned the Type 1 had its moments against even later Allied types in Burma. Hinoki claimed a couple of P-51A's in 1943 and the 311th FG's Allison Mustang operations over Burma ca. Nov 1943 only yielded about a 1:1 real ratio v Japanese fighters, mainly Type 1's. Hinoki was severly WIA though v. P-51A's, lost part of a leg and became and instructor at the Akeno Fighter School back in Japan. He fought one last battle v P-51's, D's of the 506th FG, in the Type 5 Fighter (radial 'Tony') July 16 1945.

F4U v Type 1 isn't a comparison of real contemparies. The Type 1 was competitive against the Allied fighters in met at least to the end of 1942 (though some of those in turn were earlier planes than the Type 1). Also, though there were limited cases of F4U v Type 1 (in 1943 in the Solomons), and it's not a well documented period from both sides, remember that we still tend to evaluate F4U fighter combat success in the Solomons ca. 1943, mainly v the Zero, based on Allied claims which we do know enough two sided examples to say were quite overstated (so were Japanese claims, but traditional Western popular perception is based mainly on Allied claims, not Japanese claims).

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.

Yep - Bong also shot down around 10 Oscars as well.

I think Joe B summed it up pretty well.

 

[Marcel]

!

 

[Boss Calamari]

I thought Yasuo Kuwahara's book "Kamikaze" was mostly fiction? ... I may be wrong.

It's claimed to be fiction by people who knew him, the author defends Yasuo with statements such as the people only knew him during school. I think it's possibly fiction or at least some parts are. I think the ki-84 is also a great aircraft, it just had the misfortune of having a lot of bad pilots and engine problems. I also would like nominate the b-29. It was advanced and has a successful history.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Best War Two Aircraft....

Oh boy. Tough. But here goes..

IMHO...

Fighter: FW 190, Mustang, tie. Absolute dead heat.
Ground Support: B-25 a whisker ahead of Ju-87, with the Stormovik a close third. (Yes, yes, the Il-2 was a design dog - but as the ******* Stalin said "Quantity is a quality all by itself) Why the 87? Here I'll put Stalin in reverse, and say that the quality (of the pilots) is a quantity all on its own.
Bomber: In spite of my great admiration for the Lancaster, it's the B-17 by a head...or should I say a nose...
Transport: Dakota. no other comes even close.

 

[Elvis]

So, as far as fighters are concerned, we seem to be coming to a realization (at least over the past couple of pages of this thread) that maybe its not one single aircraft, but a small group that stand above the others.

Again, concerning fighters only, would we all agree that, over the entire war, the list is pretty much as follows?...

P-51
Me-109
FW-190
Spitfire
Zero

Yes? No?



Elvis

 

[kool kitty89]

Elvis, on fighteres alone there have been several "best fighter" threads, the overal reasoning gets pretty complicated in such discussions, particularly given the abiguity of "best." (and what it means to be the best fighter, which devides into interceptor, dogfighter, escort, etc... as well as if best means most important, best performing, most effective, etc.)

There's a good poll http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415-12.html which was organized after a preceding discussion thread to narrow down the choices. So you can see that there are a lot of variables even in such a discussion even when you narrow it to a single type.

In terms of most important to WWII of all types, it would have to be the C-47.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Agree Kitty. Air transport is the most underrated and overlooked aspect of air power. Yet...in many situations it is the winning hand.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Hey! I just noticed! Within 24 hours of joining I've been promoted to member!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey! I just noticed! Within 24 hours of joining I've been promoted to member!

You've been busy!