WWII Airplanes [Archive]

Aenlic

04-10-2006, 10:35

I'm fond of the experimental aircraft of the period which never saw widespread use or even production; but which would have had definite impacts if ever produced or if the war had gone on longer.

One of my favorites is the Kyushu J7W, which was a very advanced plane for the time. It was a canard design, with a turbo-prop in the rear for the J7W1 version; although the initial concept called for a turbojet engine. The actual first prototype is supposed to be in the Paul E. Garber facility of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. The plans for the jet powered version, the J7W2, which would have solved most of the weight and fuel problems of the twin-jet German ME-262 design, never got past the drawing board stage. Curtiss had a similar experimental rear turbo-prop canard design called the XP-55 Ascender.

If the turbojet J7W2 version had ever seen the light of day, it might have had a great impact on the ability of the U.S. to bomb with impunity from altitude with B-29's, including the flights of the Enola Gay.

For actual best WWII airplane, I'd have to go with the P-51D Mustang. No other plane, before or since, has beaten its 19:1 kill ratio.

For worst, in concept and design and implementation, I'll go with German idea near the end of the war of welding a FW-190 to the top of a JU-88 to make a pilot guided bomb. The cockpit of the JU-88 was replaced with a massive warhead and the pilot flew the combined plane from the FW-190. Once aimed and diving at the target (bridges, etc.) the pilot was supposed to be able to break away with explosive charges from the welds. The combined aircraft was called the JU-88H-3 Mistel and JU-88H-4 Fuhrungsmachine. Bad idea all around. There were other versions of the Mistel, even one with a JU-287 and an ME-262 and an Arado E.377a and an He-162.

Kraxis

04-10-2006, 11:05

Of all the special, never finished planes, I would have to say the Heavy Fighter Do-335 Pfeil is my favourite.
Never has a piston fighter been that fast, never so ugly, never so brutal looking and yet be both stabile and maneuverable (not to talk of the possibilities for weapons).

http://www.skylighters.org/encyclopedia/images/do335c.jpg

Franconicus

04-10-2006, 12:07

Alexander,
I will try to answer to your question.

I guess in the beginning Germany was better prepared and the German planes were best.
According to prewar theory the bombers were the decisive weapons and so most of the development was put in those. Furthermore there was some synergy from civil planes. Early 30ies most bombers were more modern and therefore faster than fighters. Therefore most people thought that there was no need for fighters at all, only to protect some objects, maybe.

Germany was lucky because despite of this doctrine Messerschmidt developed the Me109, which was outstanding then (please note that it already fought in the Spanish civil war!!).
The German bombers were made for tactical missions and ground support. Germany realized that it did not have enough resources sp it made too decisions: no resources to strategic bombers; all bombers had to have the ability to dive.
The Stuka was anoutstanding plane in the beginning of the great war. There were few interceptors and weak air defence. So they could dive straight into the target and had an excellent effeciency.
The two engine bombers were very fast (due to the doctrine that they had to be faster than fighters) and had only weak weapons for selfdefense.

screwtype

04-10-2006, 12:07

Edit.......

English assassin

04-10-2006, 14:23

I guess in the beginning Germany was better prepared and the German planes were best.

?? Bombers, possibly, but fancy a Spitfire, anyone??

German fighter tactics were superior in the earlier part of the war, due to the lessons learned from Spain, that's true. But IMHO the planes were no better.

Franconicus

04-10-2006, 14:44

King Kurt

04-10-2006, 15:36

I think the Me109 and the Spit were equal, at least in the beginning.If I had had the choice, I would have taken the Messerschmidt. It was a bit faster and could climb and dive faster, if my memory serves. It could not turn that fast and the range was always an issue.

Franc - how come Galland asked Goering for a squadron of Spitfires during the Battle of Britian then?
The Spit takes some beating - and later war the Mustang.
I disagree about the Stuka as well - it was only any good when there was complete airsuperiority - like wise the Me110 - in the battle of Britian it ended up being escorted by 109s. The Ju 88 was a nice plane, but the Germans never really had a heavy bomber worth the name.
As for others - the Il2 is an excellent ground attack plane which set the standard for all ground attack planes.
For its impact on the war I don't think a plane can out do the SPD Dauntless - the plane that tore the heart out off the Japanese navy - in the face of stiff fighter opposition.
As for worst - well where do you start? - The Boulton Paul Defiant was a complete failure, the Fairey Battle was a death trap as was the Devastator. However you could argue that such aircraft - and you could name many more - were just old designs facing the next generation of designs. Looking for new designs that failed what about the Me 163 Komet - virtually a single shot weapon, limited range, in practice limited in its effectivness and a lottery to land. The best planes had a degree of flexability, could adapt to other roles, were good all round weapon platforms while being a master of their particular trade such as fighter, bomber, ground attack etc.
Finally - a personal favorite - the Fairey Swordfish - a plane looking like it came from WW1 - it was instrumental in sinking the Bismark, it savaged the Italian navy at Taranto (and inspired Pearl Harbour) then later in the war was the scourge of the U Boats operating from escort carriers and using a crude ASV radar - now that is a plane!!!!:2thumbsup:

Kraxis

04-10-2006, 16:00

Actually the Me109 could outturn a Spitfire in the BoB. But becasue of a structural weakness the pilots seldomly dared to press the plane that hard. But a few notable cases happened, for instance I once read of an encounter between two aces where the German pilot, being such an experiecned and natural pilot that he pushed his plane as far as it could go and got onto the tail of the Spitfire, despite it being a pure turnfest. Also, the 109 had a better armament.
But it had several deficiencies, such as the weak landinggear (in itself it wasn't that weak but too close together), the mentioned weak structure of the wings and a worse canopy in regards to visibility.
The main advantage the Spit had was that it was somewhat less dangerous to learn to fly.

Most scholars actually put the two planes on an equal footing.

InsaneApache

04-10-2006, 16:12

In any event the Battle of Britain was won by the Hurricane not the Spitfire.

English assassin

04-10-2006, 16:33

In any event the Battle of Britain was won by the Hurricane not the Spitfire

In a sense. But then in a sense it was won by radar and a sophisticated fighter control system on the ground. Squadron for squadron you couldn't say the Hurricane was the equal of the Spitfire.

InsaneApache

04-10-2006, 16:38

In a sense. But then in a sense it was won by radar and a sophisticated fighter control system on the ground. Squadron for squadron you couldn't say the Hurricane was the equal of the Spitfire.

Agreed. However the Hurricane is credited with shooting down much more enemy raiders.

Hurricane (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/airbattle2.htm)

David

04-10-2006, 16:43

In any event the Battle of Britain was won by the Hurricane not the Spitfire.

I think the BoB was won because the Germans started focussing their attention on bombing London instead of the airfields and radar installations. But I agree that the Hurricane was far more important (read: numerous) than the Spitfire. And one (small) thing a Spitfire had and the Me109 didnt: Fuel injection (at least during BoB).

But on the original question: I think its hard to say what plane was best. It all depends on the role of the plane, the skill of the pilots, the quality of the enemy etc.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2006, 17:01

The Me-262. The first operational jet powered fighter, a revolution in aircraft, it could outrun, outturn, and usually outshoot a Mustang, a Spitfire, or anything else the Allies had. Sometimes as few as two of them could cause huge damage to a formation. Also, it was barely effected by fuel shortages at the end of the war, since it ran on different and more abundant fuels. If this plane had been released in 1942 or 1943 (Hitler put it on hold to make it a fighter-bomber), it would have done very well in general in WWII. Even at the end of the war they shot down numerous planes, over 150 Allied planes shot down with the loss of less then 100 262's, and they were usually vastly outnumbered by Allies forces.

https://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3897/me262bw017ov.jpg

English assassin

04-10-2006, 17:30

And one (small) thing a Spitfire had and the Me109 didnt: Fuel injection (at least during BoB).

[Pedantry on] Other way around. The Mk1 Spitfire had carbs, the ME109 injectors. An ME109 could often get away by going into a power dive. The negative G at the start of the dive would interrupt the Spits fueling. [pedantry off]

InsaneApache

04-10-2006, 17:35

IIRC, wasn't the 'Spit' the first to approach mach 1 in a dive?

edyzmedieval

04-10-2006, 17:41

Me262 for me. I love jet fighters. ~D

Second, the Hurricane. ~:)

Brenus

04-10-2006, 18:18

The Me 262 was good plane but to expensive to produce. And the answer was ready: Meteor, Comet, Shooting Star… Even the Russian started the developed the own Mig.
My choice would go in the 1940 to the Spitfire. I like the Mosquito, but the Republic Thunderbolt was quiet good as well. 1944, Focke Wulf 190 D, and the Mustang, the Lightenning.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2006, 18:28

Yes, but the fact that the Me-262 could own almost anything that was thrown at it certainly makes it worth the cost. And I'm not just on about speed. The book "Luftwaffe" (I forgot who wrote it) has graphs that show that the 262 had greater firepower then any other fighter plane shown. Including Mustangs, Me-109s, Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc.

The sheer amount of planes that Me-262s shot down, when heavily outnumbered, in the last year of war, shows that the Me-262 was worth almost any cost.

Alexanderofmacedon

04-10-2006, 22:17

I Wikied many of these planes and it was very cool learning about them. Thank you everyone.:2thumbsup:

Spino

04-10-2006, 22:29

Are we talking about fighter planes or anything with a wing and an engine that flew during the war?

I'll just touch on the fighters...

I don't mean to tow the patriotic line but I'd have to go with the P-51 Mustang as the best all around fighter of the war. Blisteringly fast & maneuverable with impressive firepower and jaw dropping range compared to its peers. The key to its success was its low drag airframe, laminar flow wing design and the incorporation of the marvelous Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the B & D variants. The astounding thing about the Mustang was that it only took 6 months to go from design to flying prototype.

United States - P-51 Mustang

U.K. - Spitfire

Russia - La-5fn - Vicious little aircraft with excellent low-med altitude performance. However most Russian aces flew and preferred the lend-lease versions of the U.S. P-39... go figure.

Germany - FW-190A - Small, fast, tough, maneuverable and a veritable flying AA battery; four 20mm cannons and two light or heavy machine guns!

Italy - Macchi MC-2002 - Sorely underarmed but both Allied & German pilots spoke highly of its flight characteristics.

Japan - Ki-84 Hayate - Everyone talks about the A6M Zero and it certainly dominated in the early part of the war but after 1942 it's effectiveness was in serious question to everyone but its dogfight obsessed pilots and the Japanese high command. Overall the Ki-84 Hayate flown by the Army (Allied codename 'Frank') and the N1K1 Shiden (codename 'George') flown by the Navy were Japan's best fighter planes of the war. I'd give the edge to the Ki-84 though; a captured one was put through a series of tests and compared favorably to a P-51. On the other hand the N1K1 Shiden was good enough that the IJN issued it to Air Group 343, best of the best and home to virtually all of Japan's aces. The N1K1 was on par with the F6F Hellcat.

The Me-262 was a purely 'boom & zoom' fighter. I believe the Me-262's kill ratio is skewed by the fact that most were shot down as they were taking off or landing, Allied fighters would specifically shadow them and snoop around their airfields looking to exploit their extreme vulnerability during that phase of flight (they were otherwise extremely difficult to shoot down when flying at altitude and at speed). In order to keep Me-262's protected during take off and landing FW-190D's were assigned to patrol the skies around their airfields.

Flavius Clemens

04-10-2006, 22:48

The Spitfire is part of British national mythology and it's no surprise that it is now an official icon http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/spitfire (why icon of England rather than Britain I don't know!), not least because it's drop dead gorgeous. So don't try and convince anyone brought up on British war comics and films that anything else deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as a fighter. ~:)

Of course in reality it's often said that in the Battle of Britain the Spit and 109 were very well matched. One big difference - said to epitomise our national characteristics - is that the Spitfire was a craftsman built work of art , the 109 was a mass produced machine. An exageration no doubt, but ease of production is one of those unglamerous things that can make all the difference in the real world.

And to bring in a class of aircraft we haven't discussed yet - Sunderland or Catalina?

In general it's so difficult to single out one best. e.g. how do you compare heavy bombers - bombload, range, armament? What's best for night raids over Europe may not be as good at covering huge distances over the Pacific.

KrooK

04-10-2006, 22:58

Fighter;
At the beginning of war best were Messerschidt Me 109 and Spitfire.
In the middle Fockewulf Fw190, new versions of Spitfire and of course Zero.
But mention that pacific fighters needed different things that those who fought into Europe. Over sea most important was range of plane, over land speed.
At the end of war (autumm 1944 and 1945) best was Messerschmidt Me 262
That plane was undefeated - they could destroy it only during start or landing.

Bombers
B-29, B-17
Mosquito

Anti-tank planes (some of them were bombers some fighters)
Ju- 87G
Typhoon
IL - 2 Bitewnyj Szturmovnik

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-11-2006, 00:07

I don't mean to tow the patriotic line but I'd have to go with the P-51 Mustang as the best all around fighter of the war.

See:

The Me-262. The first operational jet powered fighter, a revolution in aircraft, it could outrun, outturn, and usually outshoot a Mustang, a Spitfire, or anything else the Allies had.

And:

best was Messerschmidt Me 262
That plane was undefeated - they could destroy it only during start or landing.

Pannonian

04-11-2006, 00:34

Fighter;
Bombers
B-29, B-17
Mosquito

The Lancaster carried a bigger payload than the B-17.

Beirut

04-11-2006, 00:50

The Lancaster was the bomber of the war. For payload and versatility, nothing else could compare.

The Mosquito was the best strike-fighter/medium bomber. Firepower, payload, accuracy, versatility, speed, range. The Mosquito had it all.

P-47 was probably the best all around aircraft. Tough as nails, fast as sin, and lots of firepower. If you only had one plane near the front line, this would be the one.

Best fighter? Very tough to call. Me-262. P-51. Perhaps one or two others.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2006, 01:05

Faves

Fighter: P47-D or F4uf (piston); ME-262 (jet) [though the DO-335 would have been a beast too I think. HE-219 (night).

Bomber: Mosquito, B-25 Mitchell, SBD, Betty.

Attack: Tempest, B-25 Mitchell Gunship, IL-2

InsaneApache

04-11-2006, 01:09

The Lancaster carried a bigger payload than the B-17.

Very true, however the Wellington was a much more sturdier bomber. Able to take horrendous pounding due to it's 'lattice' airframe.

For very much the same reason, plus about twice it's speed and versatility and armourment, for me, it has to be the DeHavilland Mosquito.

A superb machine. IMHO unsurpassed as a piston engined fighter/bomber. Two Rolls Royce Merlins (that's right kids, twice the power of the P51s) and a wood and canvass airframe made a devastatingly fast and deadly aircraft.

Beirut

04-11-2006, 01:25

I think at least one of the categories may be considered agreed upon, that of strike aircraft/medium bomber.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/mosquito.jpg

Lest anyone post objections.

InsaneApache

04-11-2006, 01:31

Seconded. :2thumbsup:

Kraxis

04-11-2006, 01:58

The Lancaster was the bomber of the war. For payload and versatility, nothing else could compare.
Actually the B-17 could.
Sure its payload was significantly less, but it had the range it needed for the most part. And unlike the Lancaster it could bomb in daylight, not needing to lay waste to entire cities to kill the objective, and thus not needing the bigger payload.
This made the bombing of Schweinfurt and Regensburg possible. These bombing are widely seen as defeats for the bomber, but in actual fact they were spectacular successes that were never followed up on.

In general the B-17 managed similar to the Lancaster in numbers despite its lesser payload.

Initially the losses were higher, but the Lancaster had some spectacular run of losses as well, where the daybombers did better. THe B-17 was simply more rugged than the Lancaster (though it was hardly brittle).

Also, the B-17 served with distinction in the Pacific, as a bomber, scout, transport and ship-/submarinehunter. The Lancaster can't match that record. Nor the time the plane served or the numbers (7377 to 12700).

The B-17 was arguably more versatile than the Lancaster.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-11-2006, 02:08

Beirut

04-11-2006, 02:37

Actually the B-17 could.
Sure its payload was significantly less,

Indeed, my Moderatoral friend, the B-17 would chortle, snort, and lawn dart like a pro if ladden with a Grand Slam bomb, which the Lancaster was able to deliver with aplomb. Payload vs. target was a prime consideration at times and only the Lancaster was able to accomplish some very crucial missions.

The B-17 was arguably more versatile than the Lancaster.

I think the Dam Busters raids speak volumes about the Lancaster's versatility. Night, low level, accurate, heavy payload. The dam raids, like the raids on the sub pens that required Grand Slam hits, would have been impossible using the B-17, but were accomplished by the Lancaster. The Lancaster also served as a Pathfinder plane, that required very accurate navigational and bombing abilities.

No doubt the B-17 was historic, but the Lancaster, IMHO, was a far more versatile combat aircraft.

Beirut

04-11-2006, 02:46

Kraxis

04-11-2006, 03:11

What? I know that B-17s could load up to 12,000 pounds of bombs.

Enough to carry the dambuster bombs (9,000 pounds). And given that the B-17 was more maneuverable than the Lancaster and tougher, I would say it could have done it as well had the Americans decided to do this.

Sure it couldn't have carried the Grand Slam, but that weapon was a nice little niche weapon. Basically the only thing it has to its credit is the sinking of Tirpitz, an immobile platform. The Grand Slam never penetrated the sub pens, much to the dismay of the Allies. It's tactical effects could have been covered better by a large supply of smaller bombs.

The raid as well as the pathfinder missions had more to do with training than the planes involved.

Keeping your position (and knowledge of it) over water is far more troublesome than over land. But again it has to do with the crew.

I would still say that accuracy beats area. Even for the bombers. And here the B-17 wins out as it flew during the day.

Goalie

04-11-2006, 03:14

Spitfires kicked German butt! I also like the P-51 mustang.

Papewaio

04-11-2006, 03:34

I have to go Lancaster as my Grandfather was a tail end charlie on one. Served in both the European and Burma theaters (not sure if he was still in a Lancaster by the time he hit the Asian theater).

Out of all the Grandchildren, Great Grandchilden and the single Great-Great Grandchild (yes my Grandfathers Granddaughter was a Grandmother) I was the one that received his campaign medals. He joined the airforce because he was turned away from the army because of his bad feet.

As for best fighter in BoB the Hurricane was better suited for attacking bombers while the Spitfires were better attacking other fighters. Given the lack of fighter escort further north for the bombers, and that the only real threat to Britain were the German bombers not the fighter escorts... it would appear that the Hurricane was more important in fulfilling the mission of stopping the bombings by the Germans. As such I would say in BoB the Hurricane was the workhorse while the Spitfire was the glamour girl.

English assassin

04-11-2006, 10:55

And to bring in a class of aircraft we haven't discussed yet - Sunderland or Catalina?

Sunderland, obviously. More guns, more engines, more range, more British.

But I love all flying boats, me.

But yeah, if I head to serve in a plane, it would be a mosquito. Drop dead gorgeous and a fantastic crew survival rate. And lets face it kids, whatever you think about living, it beats the alternative.

ShadesPanther

04-11-2006, 11:49

I would still say that accuracy beats area. Even for the bombers. And here the B-17 wins out as it flew during the day.
The Lancaster flew during the day, it was just deemed by the RAF to be more effective in losses to bomb at night.
As for accuracy. If I remember correctly for the B17 to have bombed on target the bombs have to land 200 yards away or something like that.

Franconicus

04-11-2006, 11:56

A quick Googling of some specs.

The B-17

Maximum Speed:
263mph @ 25,000ft

Combat Payload:
4000-6000lbs

Combat Range:
1,850mi

The Lancaster

Maximum Speed:
287 mph @ 22,000 ft

Combat payload:
22,000lbs

Combat range:
2500 miles
Forget both.

The Liberator won the Battle of the Atlantic and therefore the war:

Performance
Maximum speed: 290 mph (470 km/h)
Cruise speed: 215 mph (346 km/h)
Range:

Combat radius:1,800 nm (2,100 mi, 3,400 km)
Ferry range: 3,200 nm (3,700 mi, 6,000 km)
Bombs: 12,800 lb (5,800 kg)

QUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator
The Liberator made a massive contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic. The decision to allocate early-build Liberators to RAF Coastal Command produced results immediately. The Very Long Range (VLR) Liberator closed the vital Atlantic Gap and was the only aircraft with the range to do so. The VLR sacrificed some armour and often turrets for weight whilst adding extra fuel in bomb bay tanks. Radar and the Leigh light gave them the ability to hunt down U-boats by day and night. They were operated from both sides of the Atlantic with the RCAF to the West and the RAF from the UK and Iceland.

Pannonian

04-11-2006, 12:32

I think at least one of the categories may be considered agreed upon, that of strike aircraft/medium bomber.

Lest anyone post objections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?

There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Hermann Göring, January 1943

Pannonian

04-11-2006, 12:51

The Lancaster flew during the day, it was just deemed by the RAF to be more effective in losses to bomb at night.
As for accuracy. If I remember correctly for the B17 to have bombed on target the bombs have to land 200 yards away or something like that.
The old joke: "When the Germans fly overhead, the allies dig in. When the British fly overhead, the Germans dig in. When the Americans fly overhead, both sides dig in."

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-11.asp

An elaborate bombing program was devised for Operation Goodwood, the British armored blitzkrieg of July 18, 1944, and Atlantic–the code-name for the Canadian portion of the operation. Christopher Evans, a young air historian who has written a detailed account of Bomber Command’s role in Goodwood, argues the bombing achieved almost all of its objectives. The weakness of the plan was the absence of a second, equally powerful onslaught the following day.

The bombing was equally successful in the British sector where German formations were so thoroughly shaken that many units surrendered en masse. The companies of 22nd Panzer Regt. were destroyed along with 20 of their tanks, including some Tigers that were flipped on their backs by the force of the explosions.

The operational research section confirmed this view, noting the accuracy of the concentrations and the evidence of enemy demoralization that lasted for several hours after the bombing had ended. For the U.S. 8th Air Force preparing to attack in close support of the American army at Saint Lô, the RAF achievement was a real confidence booster. If a bomber force trained for night operations could strike with precise accuracy, surely the daylight "precision bombers" of the U.S. Army Air Force could do no less.

Unfortunately, the bombing in support of Operation Cobra, General Omar Bradley’s carefully planned breakout battle, was far less accurate. The American soldiers who had withdrawn 1,000 yards north of the main east-west highway as a safety measure, frantically dug in as bombs crashed onto their positions on July 24, when the operation was postponed, and July 25 when it went ahead. Despite the serious and demoralizing losses to "friendly fire", 90 per cent of the aircraft bombed accurately and this was the key to Cobra’s early success.

Rodion Romanovich

04-11-2006, 13:27

I'd say the Superfortress owned all other bombers in range, speed and armament. The B-24 was great in both numbers and quality, and had an important role, although later beaten by Superfortress and others. The British Landcasters did a lot of damage throughout the war, although the crew training was perhaps more crucial than the plane design? Too bad they were late in the war assigned to city carpet bombing instead of supporting ground offensives more.

The Stuka divebombers were effective, accurate and above all tremendously demoralizing to allied forces in the early parts of the war. Maybe one of the key weapons of Fall Gelb? Especially at the allied river line defenses.

As for best fighter I don't know.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2006, 17:37

....Ah, the time-honored argument about the best heavy bomber.

Lancaster = best range and payload,

Liberator = good range and payload, more robust than Lancaster

Fortress = fair range and payload, very robust

It all depends what you value most, I guess. The Fortress was the only one that could fly against then-modern daylight fighter opposition without taking prohibitive casualties (and only by a slim margin, the casualty rates were terrible in daylight raids in '43). On the other hand, once fighters had achieved air superiority, the larger payloads of the Lanc's and Lib's made them far more effective at damaging targets.

Side note: accuracy was horrible by today's standards.

Bombing Accuracy
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.
In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)

Source:http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml

Lancasters were reputed to be even less accurate than these daylight bombing figures. If you want accuracy, use a dive bomber. Given the generally poor performance of such bombardment, area bombardments such as those used by the British at night over the Reich or in support of Goodwood/Cobra may have been the better choice -- and that would dictate that payload mattered most.

On Mediums: I have a hard time picking between the 'Squito and the Mitchell. Both were great birds in almost any attack role they were tried in. The De Haviland had better speed, but the Mitchell gunships were just scary. Both ended up doing the all the things the JU-88 was designed to do only better across the board.

On Flying Boats:

Sunderland v Catalina = Sunderland, by far. More range at cruise -- and range is almost everything for maritime patrol. I'd actually put the Emily ahead of all of them, myself, but the Brits had a good kite in this role.

Spino

04-11-2006, 19:02

Me-262 was a revolutionary plane but the idea that it could out turn any allied fighter is pure fantasy. The Me-262's strengths lie in its speed, climbing ability and its wicked armament of four 30mm cannons. Its armament speaks volumes about the Luftwaffe's intent for the aircraft to serve as a bomber killer. The Me-262 was strictly a hit and run, 'boom n' zoom plane', any attempt to dogfight with it would have been the purest expression of ego and/or foolishness on the part of its pilot. Limited maneuverability aside Me-262 pilots were also instructed to go slow and easy on the throttle as its engines were notoriously touchy, hardly the sort of limitation you'd want for a fighter plane. The Me-262's Jumo engines were also far less reliable than the radial and in-line propellor engines of the day and had an alarmingly short service life (no surprise there as the technology was in its infancy).

Despite what has been posted here the B-17's maximum bomb load was comparable to that of the Lancaster and B-24. However during operations it's average bomb load was considerably less, it had to be in order for it to fly deep into Germany and return to airfields in Britain. The general rule of thumb is the bigger the bomb load the smaller the range. I'd definitely take the B-17 over the Lancaster or B-24 for one reason; it's extraordinary durability and flying characteristics. Few heavy bombers of the war could take damage like the B-17, its wing design was particularly resilient to damage and it could take hits that would otherwise cripple or destroy a B-24 or Lancaster. American bomber crews preferred the B-17 over the B-24 for that reason alone and B-17 pilots loved the fact that the it was a very forgiving and stable aircraft to fly.

However, as far as WWII heavy bombers go the B-29 wins hands down; it could go farther, faster & higher than its peers and it had an astounding payload capacity... :2thumbsup:

It's nice to see people give a nod to the Mosquito, truly one of the great planes of the war and arguably the best twin engined plane of that era. It was also a plane born out of desperation and sheer ingenuity.

Flavius Clemens

04-11-2006, 20:00

Sunderland, obviously. More guns, more engines, more range, more British.

Of course! but I didn't want to sound too biased up front ~:)

I also have to take Franconius seriously on the Liberator - my father was an air gunner in one for Coastal Command.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-11-2006, 21:33

I may be a bit biased, considering that my Opa helped design navigational systems for German aircraft, but my opinion holds none the less...

Fighter: Me-262
Bomber: Ok, fine. Lancaster.

Spino, look at all the American and British fighters (and bombers) that the 262 took down...even when massively outnumbered.

Beirut

04-12-2006, 00:22

I'd say the Superfortress owned all other bombers in range, speed and armament.

Hmmm, yes and no. The B-29 had very real teething problems even after three billion dollars were spent developing it (more than the development of the atomic bomb). It repeatedly failed at high altitude bombing over Japan. Only when Curtis Lemay switched to low level incendiary attacks did the B-29 become such a devastating weapon. In that case, it was the range of the B-29 above all that gave it a marked superiority. (That and the wood construction of so many of Japan's buildings.)

The B-29s, while obviously incredible airplanes, never faced the brutal opposition the B-17s and Lancasters faced in Europe. Often, Japanese fighter defence was non-existent and flak was thin. It would have been interesting (so to speak) to see how the B-29 would have dealt with a full scale defence of fighters, night fighters, ground radar, and heavy AAA.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-12-2006, 03:23

ISpino, look at all the American and British fighters (and bombers) that the 262 took down...even when massively outnumbered.

It did well against fighters too, but using the same kind of "yo-yo" tactics that let the P-40 and the Wildcat hold their own against the Japanese -- dive down firing, zoom past, climb away fast after building a gap. Playing the "dogfight" game against a better-turning aircraft was a good way to get shot.

Moreover, a ridiculous percentage of those piloting the Schwalbe were "grosse experten" and were precisely the kind of pilots for whom a .4 second shooting zone was sufficient for a kill.

It is fortunate for those flying Allied planes that the MK108 had a relatively low cyclic ROF -- since the shells massed more than 8 times the weight of a Ma Deuce round. Each one-shot (4 round) salvo from a 262 carried the same impact weight of metal as 32+ rounds from an American opponent -- about 5 planes worth. You do not need many such hits for a kill.

Franconicus

04-13-2006, 09:30

Me-262 was a revolutionary plane but the idea that it could out turn any allied fighter is pure fantasy. The Me-262's strengths lie in its speed, climbing ability and its wicked armament of four 30mm cannons. Its armament speaks volumes about the Luftwaffe's intent for the aircraft to serve as a bomber killer. The Me-262 was strictly a hit and run, 'boom n' zoom plane', any attempt to dogfight with it would have been the purest expression of ego and/or foolishness on the part of its pilot. Limited maneuverability aside Me-262 pilots were also instructed to go slow and easy on the throttle as its engines were notoriously touchy, hardly the sort of limitation you'd want for a fighter plane. The Me-262's Jumo engines were also far less reliable than the radial and in-line propellor engines of the day and had an alarmingly short service life (no surprise there as the technology was in its infancy).
Everything you say is right. However, the main purpose of the plane was to fight the bombers; and it was ideal for this. It was so fast that it could break through the fighter screen and was heavily gunned, so it could get a bomber within a very short time. Additionally it was fast enough to get away and start another attack.
Fighting between the Me262 and the allied fighters would have been very interesting. As you say, the Me had the advantage of speed, while the others could turn much better. So while the Me could decide when to fight and when to interrupt, an average allied fighter could escape by turning.
If you compare speed to turning abilties of a fighter, my choice is speed. That is the reasons why you did not have many biplanes in WW2 and why all air forces switched to jet fighters after the war.

Spino

04-19-2006, 21:34

Hmmm, yes and no. The B-29 had very real teething problems even after three billion dollars were spent developing it (more than the development of the atomic bomb). It repeatedly failed at high altitude bombing over Japan. Only when Curtis Lemay switched to low level incendiary attacks did the B-29 become such a devastating weapon. In that case, it was the range of the B-29 above all that gave it a marked superiority. (That and the wood construction of so many of Japan's buildings.)

The B-29s, while obviously incredible airplanes, never faced the brutal opposition the B-17s and Lancasters faced in Europe. Often, Japanese fighter defence was non-existent and flak was thin. It would have been interesting (so to speak) to see how the B-29 would have dealt with a full scale defence of fighters, night fighters, ground radar, and heavy AAA.

I think the B-29s would have done quite well in Europe. Teething problems or not it was the most advanced heavy bomber of the conflict and brought with it all the advantages of state of the art design and technology. True, the B-29 suffered from numerous problems during its development and early deployment (engine problems) but those obstacles were eventually overcome with modifications. Its initial performance over Japan had more to do with the inherent difficulties of high altitude bombing over the Japanese islands than any technical shortcomings of the plane's design, any other heavy bomber of that conflict would have fared just as poorly under the same conditions. LeMay insisted on lowering mission altitudes because it eliminated the jet stream & weather factors that affected accuracy and navigation while decreasing overall fuel consumption to the point where B-29 strikes could actually put more ordinance on their targets. And as you pointed out, LeMay knew that Japan's air defense assets paled in comparison to Germany's so the overall risks were negligible (especially when mounting night strikes).

Tribesman

04-19-2006, 22:21

Seamus Fermanagh

04-21-2006, 00:30

With regards to the Lancaster and its "niche" abililies , it should be remembered that the US requested that 20 squadrons of Lancs be sent to the far east , especially 9 & 617 sqdrs. for their "niche" bombing .

The "Tallboy" was what they really wanted....that Wallis was a bright fellow.

My dad (ATC for the USAF in early 50's) said that the first bomber that could get a Grand Slam up to the ideal height for its penetration and seismic effect was the B-36, and that the sucker worked like a charm too. No longer had a role with A-bombs in the arsenal.