FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's only the preamble. Most-1s of the day had similar propaganda in them. The rest of the manual is pretty comprehensive.
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
That's only the preamble. Most-1s of the day had similar propaganda in them. The rest of the manual is pretty comprehensive.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I suppose times were different, when I watch a pathe newsreel its hard sometimes to believe its not a kind of spoof. I suppose it was the same with documents.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
No it's not, Daniel Ford's book Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942. cut through the bs claims and got to the hard facts. The Tigers actually shot down around 115 which would put them above a 3-1 ratio.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For the Tigers, not the rest of the P-40 operators, and I believe the AVG "actuals" (the 115 aircraft you mention) includes all types of aircraft. nit just fighter-to-fighter engagments. Their record was still commendable.
Last edited:
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
??? I was replying to your response to my following statement:
I did not say anything about all P-40's achevied this, and never said anything about fighter vs fighter
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sorry, my mis-read...
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I dont think it is unusual to overestimate anyway almost all forces did.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Very true
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I have not read Ford's book, but will try to get it at the library. Sounds like a good read. After reading Shores and Lundstrom, I have realised that a lot of the info we have gotten about aircraft shootdowns is in error. Unless the records of kills credited by the Allies is cross checked against the Axis records of that particular day and that particular engagement, then there are often kills credited that don't exist.
I think that everyone is familiar with the famous record of the Hellcat in the PTO with around a fifteen to one kill ratio. And then the Corsair record of eleven to one. I suspect that those ratios are based on "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics" published in June of 1946. That publication shows that Navy carrier based F4Fs shot down 190 bombers and 112 fighters in WW2. I am sure fairly sure that that statistic includes Butch O Hare's famous day when he became an ace in one mission by being credited with five Betty bombers. The fly in the buttermilk is that in Lundstrom, his research with Japanese records shows that actually O Hare probably only shot down three Betties although he probably severely damaged others.
If the above paragraph is accurate, then the total numbers of Japanese aircraft destroyed in combat in the PTO by Naval Aviation(which includes the Marines) totaling 2746 bombers and 6535 fighters may be off by 30% to 50%.
I guess we just have to live with the fact that some "facts" are subject to human error and are now unprovable. The Battle of the Alamo has been studied and written about ad nauseum since that day in March of 1836 and we still don't know exactly how many defenders were in the Alamo and how many, if any, were captured and then killed. At least we know who won the war ultimately.
I think that everyone is familiar with the famous record of the Hellcat in the PTO with around a fifteen to one kill ratio. And then the Corsair record of eleven to one. I suspect that those ratios are based on "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics" published in June of 1946. That publication shows that Navy carrier based F4Fs shot down 190 bombers and 112 fighters in WW2. I am sure fairly sure that that statistic includes Butch O Hare's famous day when he became an ace in one mission by being credited with five Betty bombers. The fly in the buttermilk is that in Lundstrom, his research with Japanese records shows that actually O Hare probably only shot down three Betties although he probably severely damaged others.
If the above paragraph is accurate, then the total numbers of Japanese aircraft destroyed in combat in the PTO by Naval Aviation(which includes the Marines) totaling 2746 bombers and 6535 fighters may be off by 30% to 50%.
I guess we just have to live with the fact that some "facts" are subject to human error and are now unprovable. The Battle of the Alamo has been studied and written about ad nauseum since that day in March of 1836 and we still don't know exactly how many defenders were in the Alamo and how many, if any, were captured and then killed. At least we know who won the war ultimately.
More than likely everybody's claims are a bit overstated. Hartmann and the "Experten" are probably still dozens upon dozens ahead of everybody else though. You have to look at how long the German's flew though. A Luftwaffe pilot flew until he was either dead, captured or the war was over.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I agree with Chris. Even if you halve Hartmann's kills that still leaves him with around 150 plus kills which if you correspondingly halve Bong's kills that leaves him with around 22. I read somewhere where Bob Johnson's records were compared to one of the LW aces, Moelders, and if Johnson had stayed in action and had the same rate of success he would have equaled Moelders. Those poor guys in the LW stayed in action so long and were exposed to so many EA, particularly on the Eastern Front, that if they had aptitude and stayed sane and lucky they were going to get so experienced and good that they were bound to have big numbers.
A lot of factors go into "best". Ease of production, scope of production, performance and most of all, the more esoteric question of how it did in the role INTENDED FOR IT. Did the C-47 do everything it was intended to do and more? How about the P51 and Spitfire? The B-17 and Lancaster and B-24? They ALL performed up to spec and did what they were supposed to do. They soldiered on, endured and won through. Obviously no German, Italian, French, or Japanese aircraft did these things as well because they LOST. In the end you are left with the C47, Spitfire and Mustang, all of whom won their wars doing their "thing". Now you have to decide one thing only: is the greatest DEFENSIVE fighter better than the greatest WAR WINNING fighter and or are either better than the plane that transported the allies everywhere right up to DDay and beyond and are flying commercial flights even today?
Based on rational criteria of ease of production, scope of production, loss ratios and meeting the original purpose of the design, nothing beats the C47. Unglamorous but if you look up in the sky in 2010, you'll still see one or two flying.
Based on rational criteria of ease of production, scope of production, loss ratios and meeting the original purpose of the design, nothing beats the C47. Unglamorous but if you look up in the sky in 2010, you'll still see one or two flying.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gotta agree as well. That is why the C-47 gets my vote.
parsifal
Colonel
Reagrding overclaqiming, It doesnt necessarily follow that just because a particular incident can be shown to have not occurred, it doesnt meaqn that the pilots score is necessarily wrong. What it means is that for that action it is wrong. What about all the unreported shoot downs, or the probables that were actuals. To prove if an ace is not an ace, one would have to checks every combat they were involved in, check every aircraft that came into contact with them etc etc. in other words, an impossible exercise.
Hartmann was a phenomenal pilot, and he shot down a lot of enemy aircraft. thats as far as we can take it at this point....
Hartmann was a phenomenal pilot, and he shot down a lot of enemy aircraft. thats as far as we can take it at this point....
Based on your criteria, the SBDs were the best. What other aircraft at that time could have done what they did at Midway? It would be unfair to compare them to other bomber-fighters, such as the F6F, as the F6F wasn't around at that time. What's the best motor vehicle? Is it the Ford T-Bird? How can one even compare that to the Lamborghini Murcielago? How can one even compare either of those to the Chevy F-10 pickup? The Zeroes were the best fighters in the Pacific, but still, the FM2s, even the earlier F4Fs, with guys like Joe Foss at the stick, downed their share of them. Put the aircraft in its element, with a crack pilot, and every one of these aircraft could do the job, and, indeed, they did.
Hey, I'm just sayin'...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And entitled to your opinion...
In the mean time as I attend a Twin Otter maintenance familiarization course in Toronto, I meet a fellow student who works out of North Carolina at a place that has a several Twin Otters, some King Airs, a few other corp jets, and oh yea, a DC-3 that was around during the war. Its used regularly so he tells me...
Hey, I'm just sayin'....
I beg your pardon but I'm at a loss as to how you seem to have inferred from my innocent comment that it was deserving of such a crass reply. The point I was trying to make was that when you're rating anything you pay attention to the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand. What other aircraft, in June, 1942, could have made a 60-degree dive on an enemy warship with a 1000 pound explosive under its belly, dropped that on its target, then got out of there, safely, and while being shot at from every conceivable direction? I don't know of any other period aircraft that could have done that like the SBD had. That, in my opinion, make's it the best, at that time. If you should think I'm mistaken, endeavor to teach me something. Just make it intelligible, this time, and I'm all ears.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
First off you need to chill out, there was nothing crass in what I said and if anything it was evident of my innocent sarcasm within my statement. If you bothered to read the whole thread you would have read there were many "friendly" banters within this thread. You're new here, I suggest you read some of the posts and the thread for new members before making such a statment.
Now with that said you bring up "the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand." Well look at the logistics required to move armies and supplies AND then have that same "item" to be able to function long after the mission is accomplished, it shows that you not only had a machine that did its job on a daily basis, but participated in critical battles and continued to serve years after their intended use, and that being the C-47. The SDB was a great aircraft and continued to serve long after its greatest hour but no way holds any type of innovative uniqueness or technical advancements that would have given it longevity 60 years after its greatest hour.
Aside from your argument, the success of the SBD at Midway was actually attributed to luck more than anything else. Although I personally don't believe it would have been subjected to the same slaughter that Torpedo 8 was subjected to, it would have been a way different story if the zeros that attacked Waldron's squadron had been at altitude to deal with the SBDs.
Now I do hope my response wasn't too crass for your sensitive being and please don't tell me to make any of my posts "intelligible," as in plain English I will directly tell you that will piss me off!
