Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Fighter- Proberly P-47, although the P-38 and mossie in the NF role deserve honerable mentions

Ground pounder- i'd proberly go with IL-2 also

Bomber- proberly B-17, get enough hits on the b-29 and it'll start to de-pressurise, not good, Stirling gets an honerable mention also.......

Carrier plane- i'd say it's between corsair and, as he didn't specify it had to be a fighter, the Avenger..........

Fighter - P-47 (the Fw-190A could take some good punishment also)
Bomber - B-17
Ground Attack - Il-2
Carrier Aircraft - F4F

Fighters - P-38 and Fw-190A-8
Bomber - B-17
GA - IL2
Carrier - Corsair

Hardest plane to take down? IL2 Handsdown!

Or the B-17

Fighter - F4U Corsair

It was as tough structrally as the P-47, the fuel tank and pilot were better protected, and its superchargers were well protected. The P-47 would probably be about equal except the turbo-supercharger (and related plumbing) was somewhat exposed.

The FW-190F series also has to be considered a serious contender, and the Tempest was no slouch.

For Bombers it is probably the B-29 which was fast, tough, and more than anything else BIG. Size does help to withstand damage.

For attack planes it's probably about a draw between the IL10 Sturmovich and the TBF Avenger.

=S=

Lunatic

I forgot about the Il-10 actually.

Everyone keeps saying "The P-47".

Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane. It has a much stronger wing (too support carrier landings), shorter tougher landing gear, better pilot protection (at the expense of some pilot vision to the rear), better actual armor. The P-47 has only the rear panel behind the pilot and the armor glass, the F4U has this plus a panel on top of the cowl, a panel on the bottom of the cowl, and a thicker firewall (again mostly required for carrier landing). The F4U also has fabric covered wings rear of the main spar outside the fold, and this also makes the plane more rugged against enemy fire (this fabric will not burn, will not shred though it can be holed or cut, and will not set off or fuse HE rounds).

The F4U supercharger is entirely behind the engine which makes it much less succeptable to combat damage than the P-47 turbo-supercharger which is strung all over the place accross the bottom of the plane to well behind the canopy.

=S=

Lunatic

i think everyone is saying P-47 for the fighter because the Corsair goes in the carrier plane catagory, i know it was a fighter but i for one, i don't know about the others, would exclude all carrier aircraft from the other catagories as they have their own catagory.........

Yeah but you like French Bombers Lanc....

can you blame me, they're hot!

the lancaster kicks ass said:

can you blame me, they're hot!

Click to expand...

You have a warped sense of what is hot Lanc...

Alder: I agree, I forgot about the Stormavik. That gets my vote with the 'Bolt. I have heard stories from Luftwaffe AA and flak gunners shooting at these planes, hitting them several times, with chunks flying off and smoke, and the plane simply turns around and waxes the position. Though I hate to be the pilot when his crew chief sees what he brought home.

Lanc: Get new glasses!!!! Or just get some!!!

:{)

Although I choose the Wildcat, I have to agree with Lunatic as well. The corsair was built was like a rock. I posted a thread several moths ago comparing skin thickness and structure of several WW2 combat aircraft and you could really see the difference. For the most part, I think the consensus is...

1. Il-10
2. Thunderbolt
3. Corsair

Note: When I saw a Wildcat (Marlet) much of its skin thickness was about the same as the Zero. The major difference was the rigidity of its structure - there were many more ribs, bulkheads and longerons built into the structure, it resembled an old steam locomotive's boiler.

Lunatic said - Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane.

I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.

I have read this report and there is no mention of any comparison between the Corsair and Thunderbolt and no mention or battle damage survivability with respect to either.

Does anyone know where this alleged admission can be found?

I would readily admit that any aircraft designed to crash land into a carrier deck has to have a robust structure but I think there may be a difference between being able to absorb the energy of the impact of a landing through the landing gear, into the wings and into the wing to body juncture and being able to fly after taking ten or twelve 20mm hits.

I have seen the skin thickness of a Corsair and Thunderbolt only on the fuselage and the Thunderbolt is visibly thicker. (I can't speak for the wings)

Incidentally, according to a manual from Republic Aviation, the P-47M had the potential to handle a 4,200lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the belly).

The P-47N had the potential to handle a 3,700lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the belly).

In sum, the wings and wing to body juncture had to be robust in the Thunderbolt as well.

On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated. Have you have ever seen what happens to fabric covered control surfaces after 20mm hits that detonated upon impact with structural pieces underneath? Thanks but I'll take aluminum skin on my control surfaces.

many fighters/fighter bombers could withstand 2cm until the new Minegeschoss was developed and used, then it was all over. reason why I noted ...... what year ? ...........

I know it's not on the list of aircraft types but can I sneak a honorable mention in for the FW 189.

They had a reputation of being very difficult to bring down - I'm at work so not near any of my books but if memory serves me well they were even known to have got back with a boom missing after suffering ramming attacks from frustrated fighter pilots.

Well that's my 2 pence worth.

NR61

Still, I think, after '42 it was had to shoot down any US fighter even the 'Stang. If you look at the inventory, Hellcat, Wildcat, Corsair, 'Bolt, 'Stang, Lightning, Warhawk/Kittyhawk, and so on, thier adveraries always had things to say about how tough these birds were and how hard it was to kill them. Also the all the literature bears this out. It seems to me too that in comparison the rest of the world's planes with the Stormavik being a notable exeption, were not as durable but I think that also stems from the fact that the doctorine and tactics of US allies and enemies was different than that of the US.

:{)

the lancaster kicks ass said:

......get enough hits on the b-29 and it'll start to de-pressurise, not good, ......

Click to expand...

B29's airframe was strong enough to withstand rapid depressurization. It would have made the crews life miserable untill they got down to lower altitudes but it wouldnt have brought down the plane.

Read Rain of Ruin. It talks about a depressuruzation. espisode. Also the designers at Boeing, knowing that the Superfort was going into combat would have not made so fragile (a Italian word!) that it would crumple like a piece of aluminium if it depressurized.

:{)

Magister said:

Lunatic said - Yet, in post war testing (1946-47 I believe) even the USAAF concluded that the Corsair was the more rugged plane.

I have looked for this "admission" and have never found it. I have heard from a number of people that is was chronicled in the Report of Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 which was a gathering of brass, industry, test and fighter pilots and a number of planes including Corsairs and P-47's for the purpose of determining which planes had good characteristics and performance vis a vis others so that the evolution of future fighters could be shaped accordingly.

I have read this report and there is no mention of any comparison between the Corsair and Thunderbolt and no mention or battle damage survivability with respect to either.

Does anyone know where this alleged admission can be found?

I would readily admit that any aircraft designed to crash land into a carrier deck has to have a robust structure but I think there may be a difference between being able to absorb the energy of the impact of a landing through the landing gear, into the wings and into the wing to body juncture and being able to fly after taking ten or twelve 20mm hits.

I have seen the skin thickness of a Corsair and Thunderbolt only on the fuselage and the Thunderbolt is visibly thicker. (I can't speak for the wings)

Incidentally, according to a manual from Republic Aviation, the P-47M had the potential to handle a 4,200lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 1,000lbs under the belly).

The P-47N had the potential to handle a 3,700lb bomb load (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the belly).

In sum, the wings and wing to body juncture had to be robust in the Thunderbolt as well.

On a final note, yes a 20mm explosive round may very well pass through fabric without detonation but unless the round is striking at a perpendicular angle to the surface, it will likely strike a structural piece just under the surface and upon detonation, will prove more damaging to the fabric overhead than if it had just struck an aluminum surface and detonated. Have you have ever seen what happens to fabric covered control surfaces after 20mm hits that detonated upon impact with structural pieces underneath? Thanks but I'll take aluminum skin on my control surfaces.

Click to expand...

I simply don't have the time to look it up, but it was a joint test done post-war, not during the war. It should be somewhere in my archives which should be available to you soon.

Basically, the two planes are about equally tough except for the wing spar on the Corsair is much stronger, it has the fabric sections which are less vulnerable, it has more redundancy in the wing structure (it has 3 spars, none of which are needed except for carrier landings), the fuel tank is better protected, the pilot is better protected, the landing gear is shorter and therefore tougher, the pilot is less exposed (than the P-47D with bubble top) from the rear, and less exposed from the sides, and the supercharger is much less vulnerable than the turbo unit on the Bolt.

Skin thickness should be similar, both were quite thick.

While the P-47 could theoretically carry just over a 3000 lbs bomb load, the F4U actually did carry and drop a 4000 lbs payload during WWII (C. Lindberg), and had the "potential" to carry up to 6000 lbs!

The most dangerous 20mm (or other caliber) cannon rounds were delayed action HE rounds. These were designed to (ideally) detonate after about 6-8 inches after the fuse made contact with the skin. Such a round hitting the fabric section of the Corsair wing would likely already be out the far side before it detonated even if it hit a minor structral element (such as ribbing). If it hit a major structural element, it would have a good chance of shattering and not detonating at all. Also, at angles from 90 degrees to something less than 30 degrees the odds are less than 50/50 that a such a round would pass through and through w/o hitting metal at all. At shallower angles the chances the round might strike the forward section where the metal begins increases substantially, but that part of the wing is exceptionally tough. There is nothing but ribbing under the fabric sections of the wings, and the space between the ribbing far exceeds the space of the ribbing.

The fabric used on the F4U was a tyvex like stuff soaked in an flame retardant (later shown to be hazerdous to handlers). It was very tough material. And F4U control surfaces (i.e. ailerons on the wings) were wood, which was found to hold up to damage (and remain at least partially functional) better than aluminum.

All that being said, the biggest difference between the toughness of the two planes by far lies in the exposure of the P-47's Turbo-supercharger vs. the very well protected dual supercharger of the F4U. I suspect the evaluation was mostly w.r.t. ground fire, where the placement of the turbo unit plumbing would be particularly detrimental.

=S=

Lunatic