Which plane was the most economically efficient?

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

How are we measuring 'economical' and 'bang for buck' here?

Whatever the Bf109 cost in development, the cost is spread across roughly 33,000 units, service in the ETO, MTO, N Africa and the Eastern Front and a colossal accumulation of kills. It was probably the best fighter in the world at the beginning of the war and was still dangerous in the few remaining 'right hands' at the end. It produced a galaxy of aces, some of whom preferred it over later types.

It continued fighting after WWII, in the form of the Avia S-199, assisting the Israelis in cementing their independence against hostilities from the Egyptian Air Force, though not terribly reliably.

It continued to pick fights with old enemies and scored over Spitfires in one or two combats.

It soldiered on in service until the late 50s when the Czechoslovakian Air Force withdrew the last of them from service.
 
Last edited:
"They were also used the devastating attack on the Italian fleet in Toronto.

Ah, yes.. the Canadian Coast Guard is still recovering wreckage from Lake Ontario,

MM
 
For the Allies, I'll say the mustang. I am assuming we are talking about the actual cost of one plane vs. how much it contributed. Mustang was cheaper and easier to build than it's Allied counterparts, and was bascially a war winner in it's role as a escort. For the Axis, I'd say the Zero or Bf109, although I am guessing the Zero was far cheaper to build, certainly not as hi tech as the BF109.
 

The Bf 109 was designed for rapid production from the outset but I understand the Zero took far more man hours to leave the line than western fighters.
 
Lingo, was the Zero's longer production time due to less advanced production facilities and availability of supplies? Or was the Bf109 just that easier to produce? I am guessing Germany had more advanced production facilities. Any truth to this?
 
Might be a bit off track, but I'd go with the V1 BuzzBomb. Not accurate, not in the slightest. But the production model, complete with warhead cost $420 each (mass produced). That has got to be economical. One way bombing trip, no-reuseable and fairly efficient.
 
I agree.

As for accuracy, it was common for Lancaster bombers to entirely miss the city of Berlin. I would hazard a guess the V1 was just as accurate as RAF Bomber Command overall.
 
What about the Mosquito?

From start to finish it was pretty damn efficient.

Started as a private initiative.

Endlessly adaptable to the mission profile. Operated as fighter, bomber, strike fighter, night fighter, communications aircraft, target market, fast courier, photo recon ect, ect.

Used minimal strategic materials in construction, and was manufactured by people that otherwise would not have been employed in the war effort.

Risked about 1/5 of the crew of a heavy bomber for each sortie. Hauled up to 4,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin in less than half the time of a heavy.

Had the lowest loss rate of any Allied bomber, with one example performing 209 missions before retirement.

Biodegradable too
 
davebender said:
I agree.

As for accuracy, it was common for Lancaster bombers to entirely miss the city of Berlin. I would hazard a guess the V1 was just as accurate as RAF Bomber Command overall.
Click to expand...

Common eh? Perhaps you can give some examples? Or perhaps you can't.
Now remind us as to which airforce not only missed the target but bombed Switzerland?
 
From "The Other Battle" by Peter Hinchliffe.

23/24 August 1943.
RAF Bomber Command sent 727 bombers to Berlin escorted by 36 Beaufighter and Mosquito night fighters. Dispite a Master Bomber being present damage was slight. 56 RAF aircraft were shot down.

27/28 August 1943.
Nuremburg was attacked. Dispite clear skies and the use of a Master Bomber the majority of bombs fell in open countryside.

18/19 November 1943
440 Lancaster bombers escorted by 7 Mosquitos bomb Berlin. The bombing was widely scattered. 9 bombers were shot down by flak.

19/20 November 1943.
266 bombers attack Luverkusen in the Ruhr. Only a single bomb fell within the city limits!

20/21 December 1943.
647 bombers attacked Frankfurt. The bombing was widely scattered. 41 bombers shot down.

23/24 December 1943.
379 bombers attacked Berlin. 16 are shot down. Bombing lacked concentration with many bombs falling in wooded areas to the SE of the city.

1/2 January 1944.
Berlin attacked by approximately 800 bombers. 55 shot down. Approximately 100 houses destroyed and 100 (German) people killed.

2/3 January 1944.
Berlin attacked again. 27 bombers (7% of the attacking force) shot down. Damage was slight with 37 Germans killed on the ground.

14/15 January 1944.
Nearly 500 bombers attack Brunswick with 38 shot down. Bombing was so scattered that the city of Brunswick reported only a light raid.

21/22 January 1944.
650 bombers escorted by 3 Mosquitos attack Magdeburg. 57 shot down. Very few bombs fell within the target area.

19/20 February 1944.
816 bombers escorted by 7 mosquitos attack Leipzig. 78 shot down. Bombing was very scattered.

24/25 March 1944.
811 bombers attack Berlin. 72 shot down. Many bombs missed the metropolitan area completely.

Some RAF Bomber Command attacks were more successful then others. But I get the impression that hitting the target was pretty much a matter of luck.
 
Out of a total number of raids there was bound to have been plenty of missed drops to say that V1,s were overall as accurate as the RAF IMO is just as an inaccurate statement as the old WW2 saying, when the British bomb the Germans duck, when the Germans bomb the British duck, when the Americains bomb everybody ducks. Agreed techknowledgy never lent its self to generally highly accurate bombing and at night this was made even harder but even with the Nordon sight and daylight, hitting with pinpoint accuracy was never an achievable goal hence the need for vast fleets of bombers to complete tasks. that these days would take just a fraction of the aircraft.
 
trackend said:
hitting with pinpoint accuracy was never an achievable goal hence the need for vast fleets of bombers to complete tasks. that these days would take just a fraction of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

True, but fortunately the RAF never bombed Switzerland. Whether that was by design or intent is another matter!
 
to say that V1,s were overall as accurate as the RAF IMO is just as an inaccurate statement
Click to expand...
$420 to purchase a V1 cruise missile.
$200,000 to purchase a B-17 bomber.
You can purchase over 400 V1 cruise missiles for the price of a single heavy bomber.

V1 life expectancy = 1 mission.
Heavy bomber life expectancy = 20 missions (if you are lucky).

Considering the difference in life expectancy you can still launch at least 20 V1s for the price of a heavy bomber sortie. Actually the cost difference is much greater but I am not going to look up prices for aviation gasoline, ground crew, air crew etc.

Even if the V1 is only 10% as accurate as a heavy bomber you still come out ahead in putting explosives on an area target.
 
yep, dave, I have to agree.

In fact, this gets me wondering...

what if the V1 had been in mass production and in use by 1941? Could London have taken three years of pounding?
 
Burmese Bandit said:
yep, dave, I have to agree.

In fact, this gets me wondering...

what if the V1 had been in mass production and in use by 1941? Could London have taken three years of pounding?
Click to expand...

The Meteor would have been accelerated into service by, perhaps, early 1943, this is reasonable because it was not initially pursued as a high priority as, following the end of the Battle of Britain, it was seen as a plane without a mission but a useful experiment - the start of the V-1 attacks is what changed this so V-1's dropping in 1941 would have had a profound effect on accelerating the UK jet programme . Meteor design began in May 1940 even as France was falling. its an interesting idea.
 

The Bomber Command War Diaries, Middlebrook:


Of course all air forces had troubles with accuracy in poor conditions. The USAAF studied their own bombing in the period September - December 1944 and found that using H2X through complete cloud, which accounted for 35% of their bombing effort, only 0.2% landed within 1,000ft of the aiming point. 39.8% landed within 3 miles and 58.5% within 5 miles, which means over 40% of bombs were more than 5 miles from the target (and that assumes the aiming point was actually on the target)

But even that was much better than the V-1. London was the largest target in the world, more than 20 miles by 20 miles. 65% of the V-1s launched reached London, not taking in to account the actions of the defences.

When you take those in to account, the Germans launched about 10,300 V-1s at London, of which only 2,312 hit within the Greater London area. That's not very good for a target where a miss by 10 miles still counts as a hit, especially when you consider the short range of the V-1.

In the second half of 1944 Bomber Command was landing about 80% of its bombs within 3 miles of the aiming point. The 8th AF was getting up to 73% (I only have the figures for H2X bombing, which accounted for 58% of the 8th AF total. That got an average of 53%) The V-1 achieved 22.5% within 20 miles.

Edit: looking at a map of the old London boroughs, it looks like approx 3% of V-1s hit within 3 miles of the aiming point (Tower Bridge)
 
Last edited:
Thus, Hop, of 10,300 2,312 hit. We'll call it 20%.

So one out of five. Multiply $ 420 by five we get $ 2100.

That's for one ton on target. Multiply by 100 we get the cost of a B-17. 100 tons on target for the cost of one B-17.
B-17s dropped an average of three tons per sorties. That's 33 sorties to drop 100 tons on target. On the average, a B-17 is dead after 30 sorties.

So it looks like a wash. EXCEPT...

When a B-17 goes down about 50% average of the 10 crewmen die. Aircrew, and especially pilots, are expensive. And the other half are lost till the end of the war in a POW camp At a VERY conservative estimate those ten aicrew have a replacement cost of $ 50,000.

Over 33 missions a B-17 will consume a large amount of fuel, 50 caliber gun ammo, pay and rations for the ten crewmen and fifty ground crew, and will probalby have at least one engine replaced - all of which costs money.

Since London is a large city the poor aim of the V1 is actually good - otherwise the buzz bombs would be landing in the same crater!

So: I suspect the V-1 was at least twice as cost efficient as the B-17. In fact, it was probably three times or more.
 
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
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
39K
Think Tanker
P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
638
Greyman
G
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
489
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register