WWII Airplanes

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Who had best, who had worst. I'm just asking for you guys to discuss, so I can gain some knowledge

[Seamus Fermanagh]

By country?

By theater of ops?

By year?

By primary mission?

By personal fave?

There are hundreds of models and variants to consider, so a matrix or something might help you get more coherent answers. Can you give us more of a lead for the discussion?

[Kraxis]

It is not so easy to determine.

The Zero would not have been a very good plane in Europe, meanwhile most of the European planes wouldn't have done well outside of defending airfields in the Pacific.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Personally I've always liked the German fighters. They're fast, fairly durable, and very well-armed. But they were often hobbled by their generally short range.

EDIT: I play too much IL-2...

But the Germans did have an edge in speed for quite a while, and they definately held an edge over the allies in firepower, which is very important when facing lots of big bombers.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Just give me information

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Okay, check out the Mk 108 cannon. You can wiki it. The Luftwaffe claimed it could take down a fighter with one hit and a heavy bomber with four, IL-2 supports this for what it is worth. The gun was extremely powerful and proved its worth against bombers, it could also be mounted on everything from an Me-109 to an Me-163.

[Aenlic]

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]

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).

[Franconicus]

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]

Edit.......

[English assassin]

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]

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.

And the Spit was the only other plane you could compare at the beginning of the war. No Polish, French or Italy plane could mess with it.

The Me 110 was an excellent plane, too. However, during the Battle of E it had no chance against the Spits and Hurricanes.

The Russians had had an excellent and big air force and they had experience from Spain, too. However, when the war began, the air force was very bad with outdated planes.


Who had the best planes at the end of the war?

[King Kurt]

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!!!!

[Kraxis]

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]

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

[English assassin]

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]

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

[David]

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]

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.

[English assassin]

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]

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

[edyzmedieval]

Me262 for me. I love jet fighters.

Second, the Hurricane.

[Brenus]

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]

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]

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

[Spino]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Fighter;
Bombers
B-29, B-17
Mosquito

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