Greatest aircrat of WWII?

[Bleipriester]

The Me 109 clearly outperformed any other WWII aircraft. Although it was the first aircraft of its kind in 1935, its Upgrades allowed it be superior even ten years later.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Me 109 clearly outperformed any other WWII aircraft. Although it was the first aircraft of its kind in 1935, its Upgrades allowed it be superior even ten years later.

The Me-109 was, at best, equal to contemporary Spitfire models. It was superior to Hurricanes, but inferior to the Merlin powered Mustangs, the P-47 and later model P-38s. It was also inferior to both the Hellcat and Corsair. So you’d have a real problem claiming it outperformed all other fighters. In 1938 you’d probably be correct since it was up against biplanes for the most part. By the time it got to the G model, it was inferior to all of its opponents.

 

[Bleipriester]

The Me-109 was, at best, equal to contemporary Spitfire models. It was superior to Hurricanes, but inferior to the Merlin powered Mustangs, the P-47 and later model P-38s. It was also inferior to both the Hellcat and Corsair. So you’d have a real problem claiming it outperformed all other fighters. In 1938 you’d probably be correct since it was up against biplanes for the most part. By the time it got to the G model, it was inferior to all of its opponents.

The list of air aces tells the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

 

[AZrailwhale]

The list of air aces tells the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

No it doesn’t. The Germans were notorious for inflating kill numbers and even worse, they never checked claimed kills. They just accepted them. Add to that that most German kills were against Red Air Force pilots that were badly trained and flying sub-standard aircraft and German experten were kept in continuous combat until they were killed inflated their kill figures. In some cases against WAllied aircraft, Germans claimed more kills than than the total number of WAllied aircraft that were committed.

if you look at the article you linked to, almost all aces with over sixty kills were German with one Finn and. couple of Japanese who had the same problem with not checking kill numbers. You have to get down to about thirty kills where the RAF, USAAF and other air forces were before you get accurate kill calculations.

 

[Bleipriester]

No it doesn’t. The Germans were notorious for inflating kill numbers and even worse, they never checked claimed kills. They just accepted them. Add to that that most German kills were against Red Air Force pilots that were badly trained and flying sub-standard aircraft and German experten were kept in continuous combat until they were killed inflated their kill figures. In some cases against WAllied aircraft, Germans claimed more kills than than the total number of WAllied aircraft that were committed.

if you look at the article you linked to, almost all aces with over sixty kills were German with one Finn and. couple of Japanese who had the same problem with not checking kill numbers. You have to get down to about thirty kills where the RAF, USAAF and other air forces were before you get accurate kill calculations.

Yeah, yeah, thousands of strange reasons why the list is led by German pilots, except good pilots and good planes. The Soviet pilots are still above the other allied pilots, so their planes can´t be that bad. Plus, there was world war, all soldiers, except for the US-Pilots, were in missions constantly. All the lame excuses cannot undo that the Germans were simply the very best in all fields. Leave us that in the face of the pitiful condition our army is in today.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah, yeah, thousands of strange reasons why the list is led by German pilots, except good pilots and good planes. The Soviet pilots are still above the other allied pilots, so their planes can´t be that bad. Plus, there was world war, all soldiers, except for the US-Pilots, were in missions constantly. All the lame excuses cannot undo that the Germans were simply the very best in all fields. Leave us that in the face of the pitiful condition our army is in today.

The Germans weren’t the best. Your private soldiers and NCOs were very good, your tankers were about average most of the time, and your pilots couldn’t defeat the RAF with a numerical advantage in the BOB. Your navy was flat inferior. You came up with some good technical items, but none of them were war winners.

 

[Oddball]

The Germans weren’t the best. Your private soldiers and NCOs were very good, your tankers were about average most of the time, and your pilots couldn’t defeat the RAF with a numerical advantage in the BOB. Your navy was flat inferior. You came up with some good technical items, but none of them were war winners.

They were all serving under Generals who couldn't make a move without Der Fuhrer's say-so.

Cut von Runstedt, Rommel, Guderian, von Kleist, et. al. loose to freelance, and the war turns out very differently.

 

[Oddball]

Everyone thinks the B-17 was perhaps the best heavy bomber of WWII, in actuality it was the British Avro Lancaster.

Also during the first part of the war the two best fighter planes were Axis planes, the Japanese Zero.

And the FW190 which was superior to the Spitfire in everyway except high altitude performance.

The German do all heavy fighter was the excellent Messerschmitt BF 110.

The Dora 9 was a particularly formidable late entry.

 

[Bleipriester]

The Germans weren’t the best. Your private soldiers and NCOs were very good, your tankers were about average most of the time, and your pilots couldn’t defeat the RAF with a numerical advantage in the BOB. Your navy was flat inferior. You came up with some good technical items, but none of them were war winners.

The Brits covered their coast with radar installations. That gave them a major advantage as they could always prepare. Nevertheless they were almost beaten and almost all southern airfields were destroyed when they first attacked Berlin, followed by Hitler´s 6 week campaign against London during which the Brits managed to recover all their airfields.
The German tanks were superior to those of western allies but not to the soviet tanks, nevertheless the way the Soviets used them led to massive losses all the time. The German navy was very effective, all of the British ships were busy to hunt down a single German ship and they could not have destroyed it if a torpedo dropped by a plane would not have disabled it. Also, Germany had hundreds of submarines and they were very effective. Unfortunately for them, the Brits managed to capture one of them, thus gained possession of the enigma device, a cipher machine with an extra security layer compared to normal German communications. With this device the Brits could decipher the German submarine communication in a time frame that allowed them to make use of the gained intel. Altogether, the Germans had lower casualties on every theatre of war during its entirety, thus making their army the very best.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They were all serving under Generals who couldn't make a move without Der Fuhrer's say-so.

Cut von Runstedt, Rommel, Guderian, von Kleist, et. al. loose to freelance, and the war turns out very differently.

Nope. The only chance Germany had to win was not to go to war at all. Each of the major combatants dwarfed Germany’s population, GDP and productive capacity. Germany beat France because the French commander thought he was fighting WWI. He refused to use radios or telephones and used motorcycle-mounted messengers for communication. The Whermacht got inside his decision loop and stayed there.

The Brits covered their coast with radar installations. That gave them a major advantage as they could always prepare. Nevertheless they were almost beaten and almost all southern airfields were destroyed when they first attacked Berlin, followed by Hitler´s 6 week campaign against London during which the Brits managed to recover all their airfields.
The German tanks were superior to those of western allies but not to the soviet tanks, nevertheless the way the Soviets used them led to massive losses all the time. The German navy was very effective, all of the British ships were busy to hunt down a single German ship and they could not have destroyed it if a torpedo dropped by a plane would not have disabled it. Also, Germany had hundreds of submarines and they were very effective. Unfortunately for them, the Brits managed to capture one of them, thus gained possession of the enigma device, a cipher machine with an extra security layer compared to normal German communications. With this device the Brits could decipher the German submarine communication in a time frame that allowed them to make use of the gained intel. Altogether, the Germans had lower casualties on every theatre of war during its entirety, thus making their army the very best.

The only Soviet tanks superior to the Panzer IIIs were the few hundred T-34s and KV-1s. Almost all of the Soviet Tank force were T-26s, BT-5s and 7s that were unreliable and had paper-thin armor. The Soviets also had no spare parts; new tanks were sexy to Stalin, spare parts to keep them running weren't. The British Matildas were superior to any German tank as was the French Somua S-35. Most of the German tanks involved in France and Russia were Czech Panzer 35Ts and 38Ts with two man turrets and thirty seven mm guns. The RAF fighter force was never in danger of being destroyed, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were perfectly happy operating from grass fields. British fighter strength was steadily increasing throughout the BOB as Luftwaffe strength declined. Germany only had twenty six Type VIIs and IXs in 1939. The Germans never managed to get a hundred U Boats to sea until August 1942 and the maximum number they ever got to sea at one time was one hundred fifty six. The U Boats cost more to produce than the damage they did. The Entire German surface navy wasn't larger than a decent sized task force and its ships ranged from mediocre (Bismarck and Tirpitz) to terrible (the K Class light cruisers). The "Pocket Battleships" were too slow to run from cruisers and battle cruisers, poorly armored and their gun layout was horrible. The only time one saw battle, it was shot to pieces by three small British cruisers with six guns each (six 8 inch and twelve 6 inch) The Hipper Class heavy Cruisers had unreliable engines and short range. The Light Cruisers were so flimsy that they couldn't be used outside the relatively calm Baltic And the various destroyer classes were poor sea boats and constantly lost battles to much smaller and weaker British destroyers. You've been sold a bill of goods. Bismarck was mission killed by ONE hit from Prince of Wales that contaminated it's forward fuel tanks and flooded her forward compartments. She was already running for Brest at reduced speed with several RN carriers and Battleships between her and the port. Even without the lucky torpedo hit she was doomed. With a twenty one thousand ton advantage in displacement she and Tirpitz were no better than RN KG V class battleships. The Twins were under gunned and ran from anything even close to their class. Scharnhorst was shot to pieces by a KG 5 that suffered no damage in return. No Germany got very little return for hundreds of millions of Riechmarks worth surface warships.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The winner is not an aircraft, each type had a role and served them well. The winner is a person - Jimmy Doolittle.

He could see war was coming, so on his own initiative he began working with oil companies to produce high octane gas for aircraft. The use of this gas gave us the edge with our aircraft.

 

[DudleySmith]

The winner is not an aircraft, each type had a role and served them well. The winner is a person - Jimmy Doolittle.

He could see war was coming, so on his own initiative he began working with oil companies to produce high octane gas for aircraft. The use of this gas gave us the edge with our aircraft.

Those fuel formulas and boosters also kept the Soviets in the air via British importsl the Soviets couldn't produce the stuff on their own and their air force couldn't get off the ground without the boosters.

 

[DudleySmith]

My choice is a toss up between the P-51 and B-17.

A list of the most produced fighters of WW II.

The Most Produced Warbirds of WWII

Manufacturers in World War II were engaged in the greatest industrial effort in history. Aircraft companies went from building a handful of planes at a

www.warhistoryonline.com

I was surprised to see the P-47 edged out the P-51 by a small margin.

Also didn't know more B-24's were produced than B-17's, apparently; quite a few more, in fact.

World War II Bomber Production in the U.S.

www.airplanes-online.com

The B-24 was my favorite model as a kid; I built a dozen of them.

 

[Bleipriester]

Nope. The only chance Germany had to win was not to go to war at all. Each of the major combatants dwarfed Germany’s population, GDP and productive capacity. Germany beat France because the French commander thought he was fighting WWI. He refused to use radios or telephones and used motorcycle-mounted messengers for communication. The Whermacht got inside his decision loop and stayed there.

The French military was considered Number 1 in the world in 1939. They even had a large tank force and were the only ones to field tanks with large guns of 75mm in the beginning. What they didn´t make provisions for was that their phony war turned into real war and that the German Luftwaffe was this strong. That´s why they lost.

The only Soviet tanks superior to the Panzer IIIs were the few hundred T-34s and KV-1s. Almost all of the Soviet Tank force were T-26s, BT-5s and 7s that were unreliable and had paper-thin armor. The Soviets also had no spare parts; new tanks were sexy to Stalin, spare parts to keep them running weren't.

Vast nonsense. Over 40.000 T-34 were made during the war. KV Tanks were successful too but the Germans took the factory. The SU also fielded thousands of real heavy tanks, the Joseph Stalin series (JS I, II and III). The T-34 was very powerful and had not a single weakness. The Germans considered to copy it but after all they came to the conclusion that they would not be able to produce enough of them. As a consequence the Pzkw V Panther was developed. Only 5000 were made. As another result, every German soldier, regardless of his specialization, was trained in anti-tank close combat, even the cook.

The British Matildas were superior to any German tank as was the French Somua S-35. Most of the German tanks involved in France and Russia were Czech Panzer 35Ts and 38Ts with two man turrets and thirty seven mm guns.

Matildas were not really superior. They were heavily armored but lacked a powerful armament. The Germans knew they were a threat nevertheless and took them out with Flak 88 guns from kilometers.

The RAF fighter force was never in danger of being destroyed, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were perfectly happy operating from grass fields.

Grass fields do not provide hangers for maintenance, fuel tanks, housing for the crews, nothing at all.

The Germans never managed to get a hundred U Boats to sea until August 1942 and the maximum number they ever got to sea at one time was one hundred fifty six. The U Boats cost more to produce than the damage they did.

Over 400 operational submarines at a time. Had the Americans not spammed transport ships, England would have given in.

The Entire German surface navy wasn't larger than a decent sized task force and its ships ranged from mediocre (Bismarck and Tirpitz) to terrible (the K Class light cruisers). The "Pocket Battleships" were too slow to run from cruisers and battle cruisers, poorly armored and their gun layout was horrible. The only time one saw battle, it was shot to pieces by three small British cruisers with six guns each (six 8 inch and twelve 6 inch) The Hipper Class heavy Cruisers had unreliable engines and short range. The Light Cruisers were so flimsy that they couldn't be used outside the relatively calm Baltic And the various destroyer classes were poor sea boats and constantly lost battles to much smaller and weaker British destroyers. You've been sold a bill of goods. Bismarck was mission killed by ONE hit from Prince of Wales that contaminated it's forward fuel tanks and flooded her forward compartments. She was already running for Brest at reduced speed with several RN carriers and Battleships between her and the port. Even without the lucky torpedo hit she was doomed. With a twenty one thousand ton advantage in displacement she and Tirpitz were no better than RN KG V class battleships. The Twins were under gunned and ran from anything even close to their class. Scharnhorst was shot to pieces by a KG 5 that suffered no damage in return. No Germany got very little return for hundreds of millions of Riechmarks worth surface warships.

There was a German-British agreement that the German fleet cannot be larger than one third of the British. And sure, the Prince of Wales was the British flagship and had bad luck in the battle but it was a WW1 ship, the Bismarck was brand new. It was underway to the French coast, without the lucky torpedo, it would have made it.

 

[Vrenn]

The list of air aces tells the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

Most were done against the Russians early on. But due to the Lend Lease Program and that buying the Russians the chance to manufacture some really good models, The list of Aces became limited.

 

[Shawnee_b]

The Bowing Stearman PT17, and AT6 Texan. Both TRAINED PILOTS, very important. My first ride was a yellow PT17, Navy marked. I was an airport rat about 13 and he was flying, I ran up pointed to the empty cockpit, his son came over put a leather flying helmet on me and strapped me in. WOW!
The AT6 Texan trained pilots in WW2, Korea and into the 70's.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Now for fighters, Messersmitt (German) and Yak 3 (Russian).

 

[AZrailwhale]

The French military was considered Number 1 in the world in 1939. They even had a large tank force and were the only ones to field tanks with large guns of 75mm in the beginning. What they didn´t make provisions for was that their phony war turned into real war and that the German Luftwaffe was this strong. That´s why they lost.



Vast nonsense. Over 40.000 T-34 were made during the war. KV Tanks were successful too but the Germans took the factory. The SU also fielded thousands of real heavy tanks, the Joseph Stalin series (JS I, II and III). The T-34 was very powerful and had not a single weakness. The Germans considered to copy it but after all they came to the conclusion that they would not be able to produce enough of them. As a consequence the Pzkw V Panther was developed. Only 5000 were made. As another result, every German soldier, regardless of his specialization, was trained in anti-tank close combat, even the cook.



Matildas were not really superior. They were heavily armored but lacked a powerful armament. The Germans knew they were a threat nevertheless and took them out with Flak 88 guns from kilometers.



Grass fields do not provide hangers for maintenance, fuel tanks, housing for the crews, nothing at all.



Over 400 operational submarines at a time. Had the Americans not spammed transport ships, England would have given in.



There was a German-British agreement that the German fleet cannot be larger than one third of the British. And sure, the Prince of Wales was the British flagship and had bad luck in the battle but it was a WW1 ship, the Bismarck was brand new. It was underway to the French coast, without the lucky torpedo, it would have made it.

You early don’t know very much about WWII. The 75mm gun in the Char Bis 1 was a low velocity gun for attacking bunkers. It had a good 47mm gun in the turret, but the commander had to command the tank, load the gun and aim and fire the gun. There were a lot of T-34s built eventually, but in 1941 there were very few. The KV-1 continued to be built until the JS-1 came out. The T-34s claim to fame is that it is the most destroyed tank in history. The T-34 has tons of weaknesses, I will list just a few, the transmission was so poorly designed the driver needed a hammer to shift it. The transmissions were so fragile that T-34s left the factory with Spare transmissions lashed to the engine deck. The turret was one of the worst of the war. Very limited visibility, the commander doubled as the gunner, the interior was horribly cramped. Track rarely survived more than two hundred kilometers. The 76mm gun in the early models was inferior to the US M-2 75mm and the longer gun was about the same as the US M-3 75mm that was on the later Grants and all the Sherman’s. The Panther was built because the Germans didn’t have the capability to build the Aluminum engine of the T-34.
The two pounder (40 mm) gun n the Matilda was as good as the 37mm the Germans used and neatly as good as the short 50mm guns on mid production Panzer IIIs. The Matilda had better armor than any German tank before the a Tiger I. At Kilometers an 88 crew couldn’t even see a British tank. Engagement ranges in Europe were usually under 400 meters. You couldn’t move an 88 within 400 meters of a tank Without it being almost certainly spotted and destroyed. The German dug them in and expended tanks to draw British and a Soviet tanks into an ambush.

WWII aircraft didn’t need hangers for maintenance, tents or tarps worked just fine and fighters could be fueled from tanker trucks, fifty five gallon drums and in many cases five gallon Jerry Cans, Pilots could and did live in tents.
The Germans only got to four hundred operational U Boats in February 1943 and by March, the had most eighty boats. It was all downhill from there. If you don’t believe me, go to UBoat.net And open the tab for combat strength.

POW was never the RN’s flagship. In fact in the Bismarck battle she was so new she had construction workers working on her turrets. You might have been thinking of the Hood, but as far as I can tell she was never more than a squadron flagship, and with two carriers and two battleships between Bismarck and Brest, she would never have made it. Bismarck was a poor design, she had an immense amount of wasted tonnage for no benefit. Go look at the photos of her wreck. There are hundreds of shell holes, from sixteen inch to six inch guns. She had a twenty one thousand ton displacement advantage over a KG V battleship and all it bought her was a one knot speed advantage.

 

[Bleipriester]

You early don’t know very much about WWII. The 75mm gun in the Char Bis 1 was a low velocity gun for attacking bunkers. It had a good 47mm gun in the turret, but the commander had to command the tank, load the gun and aim and fire the gun. There were a lot of T-34s built eventually, but in 1941 there were very few. The KV-1 continued to be built until the JS-1 came out. The T-34s claim to fame is that it is the most destroyed tank in history. The T-34 has tons of weaknesses, I will list just a few, the transmission was so poorly designed the driver needed a hammer to shift it. The transmissions were so fragile that T-34s left the factory with Spare transmissions lashed to the engine deck. The turret was one of the worst of the war. Very limited visibility, the commander doubled as the gunner, the interior was horribly cramped. Track rarely survived more than two hundred kilometers. The 76mm gun in the early models was inferior to the US M-2 75mm and the longer gun was about the same as the US M-3 75mm that was on the later Grants and all the Sherman’s. The Panther was built because the Germans didn’t have the capability to build the Aluminum engine of the T-34.
The two pounder (40 mm) gun n the Matilda was as good as the 37mm the Germans used and neatly as good as the short 50mm guns on mid production Panzer IIIs. The Matilda had better armor than any German tank before the a Tiger I. At Kilometers an 88 crew couldn’t even see a British tank. Engagement ranges in Europe were usually under 400 meters. You couldn’t move an 88 within 400 meters of a tank Without it being almost certainly spotted and destroyed. The German dug them in and expended tanks to draw British and a Soviet tanks into an ambush.

WWII aircraft didn’t need hangers for maintenance, tents or tarps worked just fine and fighters could be fueled from tanker trucks, fifty five gallon drums and in many cases five gallon Jerry Cans, Pilots could and did live in tents.
The Germans only got to four hundred operational U Boats in February 1943 and by March, the had most eighty boats. It was all downhill from there. If you don’t believe me, go to UBoat.net And open the tab for combat strength.

POW was never the RN’s flagship. In fact in the Bismarck battle she was so new she had construction workers working on her turrets. You might have been thinking of the Hood, but as far as I can tell she was never more than a squadron flagship, and with two carriers and two battleships between Bismarck and Brest, she would never have made it. Bismarck was a poor design, she had an immense amount of wasted tonnage for no benefit. Go look at the photos of her wreck. There are hundreds of shell holes, from sixteen inch to six inch guns. She had a twenty one thousand ton displacement advantage over a KG V battleship and all it bought her was a one knot speed advantage.

I read until spare transmissions. You told before, the Soviets didn´t mind spare parts. The T-34 was the best tank and spread fear and terror amomg the Germans.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I read until spare transmissions. You told before, the Soviets didn´t mind spare parts. The T-34 was the best tank and spread fear and terror amomg the Germans.

Then how come the Germans killed thousands of them? Soviet production was optimized to please Stalin, tanks made him happy, spare parts didn't. This is all commonly available information, all you have to do is look it up. The T-34 was no super tank. It had some good features and a lot of horrible ones. It had a good engine in the V-2 Diesel and a decent gun with the 76mm.