Best World War II Aircraft?

[Wespe]

Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.

It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.

So how could it be the best "overall plane" if it could only perform in one mision characteristic ?

It is still the Me-262, reason:

Could fullfil almost any mission, but at about 150-200 km faster then anything else around.

So best overall plane ? Yes the Me-262

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by Wespe

Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.

It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.

So how could it be the best "overall plane" if it could only perform in one mision characteristic ?

It is still the Me-262, reason:

Could fullfil almost any mission, but at about 150-200 km faster then anything else around.

So best overall plane ? Yes the Me-262

Read back through the thread... Alongside transport it also did troop carrying, glider tug, parachute jump plane and general airline like work. Essentially without it the Allies would not of been able to supply their troops so effectively and get there supplies to where they needed to be and so the war would of lasted longer.

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Read back through the thread... Alongside transport it also did troop carrying, glider tug, parachute jump plane and general airline like work. Essentially without it the Allies would not of been able to supply their troops so effectively and get there supplies to where they needed to be and so the war would of lasted longer.

Hi Gnomey
Transport, troop carrying, parachutist transport,cargo and passanger transport, supply, glider tug, so exept for the last one it is all transport, which doesn't make a plane an "overall best" amongst planes, just the "best transport plane",to which I would certainly agree.

So it is still the Me-262, reasons - please see above.
Wespe

[FLYBOYJ]

Besides all the missions and roles mentioned earlier in the thread, the DC-3/ C-47 set the stage for modern aircraft production. The way the aircraft was assembled planned, constructed and delivered was adopted by almost all the major aircraft manufacturers. It's basic cockpit set-up and arrangement of instruments, standardization of controls and set up of systems have evolved to what you see on modern airliners and multi-engined combat aircraft. And finally - longevity. 50 years after it first flew several hundred are still flying and it was used by dozens of the world airforces and some may still be used today in a military role. The aircraft was relatively simple to work on and therefore it survived the rigors of time. No other WW2 aircraft could lay claim to any of this. Those naysayers who continue to pump a combat plane into "the best overall" actually don't understand that there is more to flying than stalking and shooting bullets at your enemy..

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Wespe

Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.

It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.

So how could it be the best "overall plane" if it could only perform in one mision characteristic ?

Come on man. There is more to winning a war than the fighters and bombers. You can not win a war without the troops getting supplies, ammo, medical supplies, and troop reinforcements. The C-47 hauled more supplies than any aircraft in WW2 and it is still in use today.

Using your logic when I was in Iraq I did not contribute anything to the war effort as a Support Helicopter crewmember. I just flew the troops to the battle, I resupplied them and flew the wounded. I guess though (again with your logic) since I only had 2 machine guns on my aircraft I did not help "fight" the war.

Okay eneogh of that, lets get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Wespe

It is still the Me-262, reason:

Could fullfil almost any mission, but at about 150-200 km faster then anything else around.

So best overall plane ? Yes the Me-262

You say it could fullfill any mission. Stop kidding youself man!

Could the Me-262 drop torpedos to sink ships? Could it transport troops? Could it evacuate wounded?

All it could do was shoot down bombers and drop a small (very small amount of bombs), and do some photo recon....

....Nothing else....

The Me-262 was the best jet fighter to see service but it did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory.

Pipedreams man, that is all you have....

Again there is more to winning a war than the gun slingers. I will repeat myself anyone with knowledge of military operations knows this...

[Burador]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You say it could fullfill any mission. Stop kidding youself man!

Could the Me-262 drop torpedos to sink ships? Could it transport troops? Could it evacuate wounded?

All it could do was shoot down bombers and drop a small (very small amount of bombs), and do some photo recon....

....Nothing else....

The Me-262 was the best jet fighter to see service but it did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory.

Pipedreams man, that is all you have....

Again there is more to winning a war than the gun slingers. I will repeat myself anyone with knowledge of military operations knows this...

For the world's first jet fighter, roles such as shooting down bombers (and heavy bombers like the B-17 at that), drop some bombs, do photo reconnaisance, etc., I call that a very versatile fighter. But there were only a very few of them to be decisive against the USAAF. Germany's problem in that point of the war was almost always inferiority in numbers and fighting a big 2-front war. As to the C-47/DC-3, yes being a versatile transport carrier is a plus but you will need the gunslingers to protect you from like say, enemy bombers destroying everything including your airfields and enemy ground-attack aircraft strafing anything around. But everything, like fighters, bombers, transport carriers, etc. should work together in order to satisfy military operations.

[mkloby]

So - am I training to not contribute to the war effort when I deploy next year too?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Burador

For the world's first jet fighter, roles such as shooting down bombers (and heavy bombers like the B-17 at that), drop some bombs, do photo reconnaisance, etc., I call that a very versatile fighter. But there were only a very few of them to be decisive against the USAAF. Germany's problem in that point of the war was almost always inferiority in numbers and fighting a big 2-front war. As to the C-47/DC-3, yes being a versatile transport carrier is a plus but you will need the gunslingers to protect you from like say, enemy bombers destroying everything including your airfields and enemy ground-attack aircraft strafing anything around. But everything, like fighters, bombers, transport carriers, etc. should work together in order to satisfy military operations.

Yes but shooting bullets and dropping bombs is just the tip of the iceberg. More goes into winning a war. Just because an aircraft can do so does not make it the best aircraft of the war.

Opinions are fine but I want to see facts from Wespe that show that the Me-262 was the best aircraft ever built in WW2. Facts....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

So - am I training to not contribute to the war effort when I deploy next year too?

Yes mkloby. You are training to be a low life transport, cargo, resupply, and support aircraft flyer that does nothing for the war effort. My 14 months in Iraq was worthless....

How dare you mkloby for not resigning your commission because they did not give you F-18s, Harriers or Cobras so that you can truely make a difference!!!!



Lets get back on topic here...

[Wespe]

Military operation knowledge eh!!


Well someone with military knowledge or military operation knowledge can also tell you that one thing doesn’t go without the other thing, meaning logistics alone have never won a war, and you will still need troops and combat vehicles and combat aircraft.
So since you also know that, you shouldn’t be so one-sided.
But if you want to put your criteria’s regarding the “best plane” into logistics and therefore support, yes you would be correct the best plane for these criteria’s would indeed be the C-47 which I never disputed.
Since it was not a combat plane I leave it up to you and others to decide what won the 2nd WW logistics or combat?
Using your logic it would have been logistics alone.
And just because the Me-262 couldn’t carry torpedoes - come on so what? And since Germany didn’t win the war, automatically no German plane can be the best? “did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory”, according to your logic.

It was the Me-262 that brought a milestone in aviation history – changing the world’s air forces, manufacturers and strategic thinking from prop to jet. The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane.
It would be the Ju 90 (Cargo Ramp) or the Arado (double boom and Cargo ramp) which left an impact on the following developments or today’s military cargo planes.

Just because the US won the war, and therefore logically stopped any continuance on behalf of any German development, doesn’t mean to me that they had the best. The fact that the US are the masters of mass production also doesn’t justify a reason to declare something the best, Just because Ford motors can cheaply mass produce doesn’t say anything about having the best cars.

So the fact that the Me-262 could do anything in comparison to prop planes for the same mission spectrum at 200km +, and the fact that it kicked of the jet age, makes it to me still the best overall combat fighter.

If you want to place the debate generally on behalf of planes, than how about the Havard Texas Trainer aircraft?

No Trainer – no pilots, right? please see below text.

When production ceased more than 10,000 British pilots had been trained on Harvards, not to mention those from Canada, America, Rhodesia and South Africa, with many moving onto Spitfires, Mustangs and other types. Even the Japanese built a variant under license in 1940, albeit with a Japanese engine and in the 1960's were to receive AT-6's from the US Government to enable former Japanese Navy pilots to re-qualify. The Luftwaffe's new Flying Training School was opened in 1955 with 145 brand new Canadian built Harvard 4's under the US Military Defence Aid Program and manned by RAF instructors. At some time, nearly every Air Force in the world operated the type, with 14 Air Forces still using them as recently as 1985.

Wespe

[Gnomey]

Logistics alone may of never won a war but they have sure as hell have lost wars on their own... No ammo, fuel, food etc = no fighting for any vehicle or infantry.

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Logistics alone may of never won a war but they have sure as hell have lost wars on their own... No ammo, fuel, food etc = no fighting for any vehicle or infantry.

I dont think that Germany had much of a logistic problem in the West-front, what Germany had was a Industrial capacity/ human recources, rawmaterial supply and production-manufacturing problem, which also made them loose the war. - not logistics -

[lesofprimus]

Originally Posted by wespe

I dont think that Germany had much of a logistic problem in the West-front

Really??? In late 1944, how many trains do u think went west to east unmolested???? The Germans had all sorts of logistic problems.... For Christs sake, they were using horses and mules...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Wespe

Military operation knowledge eh!!

Yeah I have that...

Originally Posted by Wespe

Well someone with military knowledge or military operation knowledge can also tell you that one thing doesn’t go without the other thing, meaning logistics alone have never won a war, and you will still need troops and combat vehicles and combat aircraft.

And without fuel the fighter aint gonna fly. Without ammo, they are not going to shoot anything down. Without spare parts they are not going to fly. Without replacement crews they are not going to fly.

Originally Posted by Wespe

So since you also know that, you shouldn’t be so one-sided.

I am one sided? You are the one that thinks that if it was not made by Germany it was a piece of crap... Or atleast you lead me to believe that with your posts.

Originally Posted by Wespe

But if you want to put your criteria’s regarding the “best plane” into logistics and therefore support, yes you would be correct the best plane for these criteria’s would indeed be the C-47 which I never disputed.

No aircraft made more of a contribution to the war as a whole than the C-47.

Originally Posted by Wespe

Since it was not a combat plane I leave it up to you and others to decide what won the 2nd WW logistics or combat?

A bit of both. However was it the allies or Germany that in the end had eneogh fuel for there aircraft? Had eneogh spare parts for there aircraft? Had eneogh spare pilots for there aircraft? Had the largest production capacity? Think about it...

Originally Posted by Wespe

Using your logic it would have been logistics alone.

Nope never said that. However I do realize that fighters and bombers dont win a war alone...

Originally Posted by Wespe

And just because the Me-262 couldn’t carry torpedoes - come on so what?

You said that that the Me-262 was the most versatile aircraft of WW2. I gave your proof that it was not. Prove me wrong then...

....You cant.

Originally Posted by Wespe

And since Germany didn’t win the war, automatically no German plane can be the best? “did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory”, according to your logic.

No I never said that. I happen to be a Luftwaffe aircraft fan. I personally think the Ta-152 was the best aircraft built. I think the Me-262 was the best jet fighter to see service in WW2.

However I do not fool myself into thinking that the everything German was the greatest thing since bread and butter. I do not let my Pride for my German heritage get involved.

Originally Posted by Wespe

It was the Me-262 that brought a milestone in aviation history – changing the world’s air forces, manufacturers and strategic thinking from prop to jet.

I agree but that does not make it the greatest thing to fly in WW2. Your opinion is noted and allowed since everyone has an opinion and opinions are good but show me proof that makes the Me-262 the best aircraft to see service in WW2.

Can you... I dont think so....

Originally Posted by Wespe

The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane.

That is completely wrong. It revolutized the way cargo and transport planes were designed and built. The way there cockpits were design. It ushered in the new era of modern commercial and military transports.

Hundreds of C-47s are still flying, how many original Me-262s are flying today?

Many Allied campaigns would have failed had it not been for the C-47. Fact is fact my friend.

Originally Posted by Wespe

It would be the Ju 90 (Cargo Ramp) or the Arado (double boom and Cargo ramp) which left an impact on the following developments or today’s military cargo planes.

No they did not. The C-47 is what based the designs for all further cargo aircraft. It set the bar. Again fact is fact.

Originally Posted by Wespe

Just because the US won the war, and therefore logically stopped any continuance on behalf of any German development, doesn’t mean to me that they had the best. The fact that the US are the masters of mass production also doesn’t justify a reason to declare something the best, Just because Ford motors can cheaply mass produce doesn’t say anything about having the best cars.

I never said that. Now you are just getting off topic. Lets stay on topic and prove to me that the Me-262 is the best aircraft built during WW2. I dont think you can.

Originally Posted by Wespe

So the fact that the Me-262 could do anything in comparison to prop planes for the same mission spectrum at 200km +, and the fact that it kicked of the jet age, makes it to me still the best overall combat fighter.

That is an opinion and I respect that. But I dont think it could do anything and everything in comparison with prop aircraft.

Originally Posted by Wespe

If you want to place the debate generally on behalf of planes, than how about the Havard Texas Trainer aircraft?

Great aircraft and I have flown in them and worked on a T-6 engine.

Originally Posted by Wespe

No Trainer – no pilots, right? please see below text.

When production ceased more than 10,000 British pilots had been trained on Harvards, not to mention those from Canada, America, Rhodesia and South Africa, with many moving onto Spitfires, Mustangs and other types. Even the Japanese built a variant under license in 1940, albeit with a Japanese engine and in the 1960's were to receive AT-6's from the US Government to enable former Japanese Navy pilots to re-qualify. The Luftwaffe's new Flying Training School was opened in 1955 with 145 brand new Canadian built Harvard 4's under the US Military Defence Aid Program and manned by RAF instructors. At some time, nearly every Air Force in the world operated the type, with 14 Air Forces still using them as recently as 1985.

Wespe

I think it was the best advanced trainer of WW2. Just my opinion though.

[lesofprimus]

Good arguments Adler, dont think he can prove the 262 either...

The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane.

Ever hear of the C-130??? It was a direct decendant of the C-47...