What was the most versatile plane of ww2?

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

There may be a difference in flying supplies through a small area of "contested" airspace and flying supplies/material through large areas of
"controlled or dominated" airspace?

I am sure the Russians tried very hard to shoot down the Stalingrad supply planes but flying a few dozen or few hundred kilometers (hopefully with escort?)
doesn't really compare to flying over Norway or the Skagerrak does it?
 
The Stalingrad airlift cost the Luftwaffe dearly both in aircraft and in valuable school instructors, as they had been called in to pilot transports (with their trainers like the Si204) and the Red Airforce mauled them.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Stalingrad airlift cost the Luftwaffe dearly both in aircraft and in valuable school instructors, as they had been called in to pilot transports (with their trainers like the Si204) and the Red Airforce mauled them.
Click to expand...


try swapping planes.

Could the JU-88 have performed the Britain to Sweden run?
And carried enough stuff to make it worth while? granted carrying a passenger in the Ju-88 is bit easier but the JU-88 may have to fill the bombay/s with fuel tanks to make the distance.

Would 100 or 200 Mosquitos had made any difference at Stalingrad as cargo carriers?
They can't avoid getting shot up on the ground. The weather is horrible so the accident rate isn't going to be that much different.
getting caught landing or taking off isn't going to change getting shot down. Greater fuel capacity/range doesn't give much advantage?
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The debate is not what about what is best, but rather what is more versatile. It was used as a heavy fighter, therefore it had that role.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure the zerstorer role is very much different from the fighter bomber role, indeed most C-variant Ju-88s were used as fighter bombers. One could make a decent case that Mosquito intruder missions against German airfields were very much zerstorer-like.

Essentially, I think we're splitting hairs a wee bit with some of these "roles". Another one is "Guided Missile Controller" - that was a weapon not a role. The role was anti-shipping. Now, the fact that the Ju-88 carried guided weapons is certainly a point in its favour from a versatility perspective...but it's not a distinct role (IMHO).
 
The "Zerstorer" role is that of a heavy fighter.

The Zerstorer was a long range bomber escort or bomber interceptor and in that light, the Bf110, KI-45, Beaufighter, Fokker G.I, Do335, P-38, Ju88 and Mosquito all qualify.
 
Some are tenuous but hey I didn't think up Unmanned bomb

Bomber - Both But the Mosquito was better
Zerstörer (Heavy Fighter) - Both
Night Fighter - Both But the Mosquito was better
Dive Bomber - Ju88 But how often? and the precision strike capabilities of the Mosquito were every bit as good
Ground Attack - Both
Torpedo Bomber - Ju88, balanced by Rocket anti shipping strike - Mosquito. You could just claim bouncing bomb anti shipping Mosquito
Reconnaissance - Both But the Mosquito was better
Anti-Tank - Ju88 but a desperate throw on the dice and the Mosquito did carry a 6pd which easily gave it the potential had they wanted to
Unmanned Bomb - Ju88 A really desperate throw of the dice
Guided missile controller - Ju88 but only the Germans had the weapons
Cargo - Mosquito
Weather recce - Mosquito
Post strike recce - Mosquito
Better looking - Mosquito
 
At least two of the missions to Japan were completed in Italain SM-82s
 
Mosquito mission capabilities that I can think of.

High altitude recon
low altitude recon
medium altitude recon
maritime patrol (surface search)
maritime patrol (ASW)
anti shipping (Bombs)
anti shipping (torpedo)
anti shipping (high ball....bouncing bomb)
antishipping (heavy cannon)
anti shipping (rockets)
Night time reconnaissance
carrier borne...all of the above repeated
Light Bomber
Medium Bomber
Pathfinder
daytime nuisance bomber
daytime ground attack
daytime intruder
night time intruder
day/night pathfinder
specialist point attack strategic bomber
radar equipped nightfighter
passive detection night fighter
Interceptor (destroys V1s)
Ersatz transport
Research platform
aerial survey (of at least two complete continents...completed post war)
counter insurgency strikes
construction using non strategic materials
longest serving aircraft in the RAAF (1942-64) on active operations.....puts the lie to bed that it was susceptible to the wet.

There are more which we can add to as I think a bit further.
 
Glider said:
Some are tenuous but hey I didn't think up Unmanned bomb
Click to expand...
Interesting list, but it seems to be missing several attributes of the Ju88 for one reason or another.

I also noticed that some of the Ju88's attributes were waved off as "desperate" like the ground attack variant, which if we follow that convention, would have to dismiss the B-25H and J gunships for the same reason, despite their effictiveness.

In regards to dive-bombing, virtually everything the RLM had their hands in, had to be dive-bomb capable. So much so, I am surprised the Tiger wasn't dive-bomb capable, but the fact of the matter was, the Ju88 was and did.

Torpedo-bombing and skip-bombing each require a different approach and training, as well as modifications to the airframe. The Ju88 torpedo-bomber's ventral gondola was omitted for this application.

And as mentioned before, the Ju88 both conducted cargo missions and supply drop missions.

The A-7 was equipped to carry a barrage balloon cutter for penetrating into protected areas.

The Ju88H had the FuG200 radar for long-range maritime and photo-recon.

We could sit here all day and detail the Ju88's many roles, but it comes down to this: I don't base my choice for the Ju88 on opinion nor it's looks. The Ju88 is not even one of my favorite German bombers, that distinction would go to the Me264, even though it never entered production but I have to acknowledge that the Ju88 was cast into an amazing array of situations far beyond what it was designed for, and did them all well.
 

The Mosquito did these roles
Fast bomber
Ground attack
Heavy fighter
Night fighter
Anti-shipping
Anti-submarine
Target tug
High-speed recon
Pathfinder
Transport
Trainer

These roles it didn't do, or wasn't asked to do.
Dive bomber - the Mosquito wasn't equipped as a dive bomber, though it could deliver bombs in a shallow dive
Torpedo bomber - was equipped to do this, but only after the war with the Sea Mosquito, which was a carrier aircraft
Tank buster - didn't do this, as far as I am aware, but it is an extension of the ground attack mission. Mosquitoes with either rockets or 57mm cannon could have performed this role.
Glider tug - didn't do this role as that was done, in the main, by heavier aircraft that were no longer front line capable. Aircraft such as the Stirling.
Flying bomb (mistel component) - Any sizeable aircraft could have been fitted with explosives and used as a bomb. Mosquito wasn't needed in this role.
Supply drops - I'm not sure if Mosquitoes did or didn't do this. It would have been capable of doing this, as it had the bomb bay and underwing hard points.
Equipment testing platform - the Mosquito was used for testing equipment, mainly for equipment to be used in conjunction with the Mosquito.

Additionally, 618 squadron was trained and equipped to fly off carriers with Highball Mosquitoes for anti-shipping operations in the Pacific. But they never went into action.

And the OSS used Mosquitoes to communicate with agents in occupied Europe using the Joan-Eleanor system - Wikipedia.
 
I didn't say that the GA role was desperate just that both could do it. The Anti Tank role was desperate but here the Mossie with the 6pd would have been at least as effective as the Ju88.
In regards to dive-bombing, virtually everything the RLM had their hands in, had to be dive-bomb capable. So much so, I am surprised the Tiger wasn't dive-bomb capable, but the fact of the matter was, the Ju88 was and did.
Click to expand...
Something I didn't dispute, but again the Mossie was at least as good at precision attack, an ability that was proved a number of times. See the Amiens raid where particular walls had to be destroyed, something even the best dive bomber would have struggled to do
Torpedo-bombing and skip-bombing each require a different approach and training, as well as modifications to the airframe. The Ju88 torpedo-bomber's ventral gondola was omitted for this application.
Click to expand...
Again something I didn't dispute but again the Mosquito was at least as effective in the maritime strike role using rockets
The A-7 was equipped to carry a barrage balloon cutter for penetrating into protected areas.
The Ju88H had the FuG200 radar for long-range maritime and photo-recon.
Click to expand...
Both true

Again True
 
parsifal said:
Service ceiling of the Mosquito PR34 was 44000 ft. Was wondering what the service ceiling for the Ju88 might be.
Click to expand...
Going from memory, it was roughly 29,000 feet - if anyone has a book handy, correct me if I'm off on that figure.

They did make a high-altitude variant with the Ju388, with a ceiling of about 44,000 feet (again, going from memory - this figure may change) but it was much later in the war and to be fair, shouldn't be attached to the Ju88 in this thread.
 
Just an observation. What Dave said about compairing like types for most versatile makes good sense as it provides a more even basis for comparison and reduces the need to wieght certain rolls.
It seems however that even among like types there are so many factors that need by necessity of comparison to be weighted against each other as to make picking an objective which of these two planes as most versatile impossible.
Examples, how effective was each plane in a particular role. When does a mission become a role and constitute another point twards versatility. How about the opportunity or lack thereof to fullfil a role it was capable of. If it could fulfill a role efectivly but rarely or never got the chance should this count as another feather in its cap on the road to versatility and if so by as much as a roll it or the other plane did frequently? And if yes by as great a percentage?
The point is all these things require subjective weighting/discounting and every person will likely wieght them diferently.
So I don't think there is a right answer here. If you had 2 planes with a wide disparity in versatility say the b24 and Ju88 for example then there would be a right answer but if they are very close then unless they had the same opportunities, had there capabilities to fill different roles utilized to the same degree, and were capable in the same multiple rolls but had different effectiveness in each then all these things will require subjective weighting. So I think the best we can do is say thet they were both great planes and certainly two of the most versitile of the war. IMHO.
 
we should stick to the dictionary definition of "versatile"
VERSATILE:
  1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks, fields of endeavor, etc.: a versatile writer.
  2. having or capable of many uses: a versatile tool.
  3. Botany. attached at or near the middle so as to swing freely, as an anther.
 
Last edited:
Zipper730 said:
Mosquito and Tu-2 seem the best contenders
Click to expand...
.
If you look at the definition of versatile and then apply it to the range of possibilities, I think it is a close race between Mosquito and Ju88. You could pick either and not be wrong

P-38, for all its capability, just wasn't as versatile as either of these other two. And I don't think realistically there are any other contenders.

Does the question of versatility also include their respective capability in each of these roles. And should we discount. or penalise situations where special modifications are needed to make the aircraft suitable for a given role.

I think its a matter of cost....how much additional effort was needed to make the subjects basic airframe suitable for a given task. And I also think we need to consider capability/efficiency in the equation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
587
Dimlee
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
GTX
Menu
Log in
Register