Best World War II Aircraft?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Following up on this thread it might be "dangerous" to post the following:

The C-47 is the best ww2 a/c

because; ?

1) the best fighter was a C-47
2) the best heavy bomber was a C-47
3) the best medium bomber was a C-47
4) the best ground attack a/c was a C-47
5) the best sub hunter was a C-47
6) the best night fighter was a C-47
7) the best transport a/c was a C-47
the best sea plane was a C-47
9) the best recon a/c was a C-47
10) the best trainer a/c was a C-47

Let's assume that the C-47 was indeed the best transport a/c, so does 1 out of ten criterias make any a/c the BEST of all ?

Even in a direct comparrison to a Ju 290 it wouldn't stand up to being the best transport a/c. Fact is that Germany lost the war and as such Douglas could market the C-47 unoposed, which makes it at most - the best post war transport a/c.

Which a/c had the overall biggest impact in regards to the outcome of WW2in the ETO or PTO ? the answer according to Gen. Eisenhower is C-47, to me it would be thousands of B17's and B24's or sarcastically the B-29 over Japan during a week in August 1945.

Which a/c had the means to forward the future layout of any transportation or civil airliner after ww2, the answer (IMHO) would be a C-47 a Ju 290 and even a Fw C-200 ex Condor/Lufthansa

So to my understanding this answer could only be verified by setting up certain criterias and make a poll out of it (I think this could be an interesting alternative).

Regards
Kruska

Go back and actually read the posts and you might find that people are voting for the C-47 because of historical aspects.

There is more to winning a war than shooting bullets and dropping bombs...

[coabienjames]

I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by coabienjames

I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?

Personally I don't think the Hellcat is even in the top 10.
109, Spit, P51, Corsair, Fw190, Ta152 , B17, B29, Lancaster,B24

[parsifal]

Each type is a specialty, so you have transports, fighters etc. The question in my mind is which type had the greates impact on the wars outcome.

The arguments about the C-47 are good, but i dont agree that these flashier front line types are the types that had the most impact...

IMO it was the trainers that turned out the pilots that could fly these things. Without good pilots, the aircraft is just an airborne target. Without good trainers you cant get good pilots.

So my votes are going to go to a/c like the tiger moth, or the harvard. IMO these were the planes that contributed most to the outcome of the war.

[xCR33Dx]

hey smg. whered you get the first picture?
--------------
P-47 and F-4U

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Each type is a specialty, so you have transports, fighters etc. The question in my mind is which type had the greates impact on the wars outcome.

The arguments about the C-47 are good, but i dont agree that these flashier front line types are the types that had the most impact...

IMO it was the trainers that turned out the pilots that could fly these things. Without good pilots, the aircraft is just an airborne target. Without good trainers you cant get good pilots.

So my votes are going to go to a/c like the tiger moth, or the harvard. IMO these were the planes that contributed most to the outcome of the war.

Hello parsifal,

I was just about to mention exactly the same whilst reading the above posts,
so thanks for helping me out on this. If the Luftwaffe had the best pilots in ww2 then you might have to consider to add a German trainer

However it all comes back to ones own criterias; as such FLYBOY would indeed be correct to place a C-47 above all.

As for my criterias it would be a P-51, since it displayed its abilities not only in the historical section but also in the technical, support and action role.

Regards
Kruska

[Elvis]

Parsifal,

Just a side note to an otherwise exemplary posting - the primary trainer for the Americans was not the Harvard / Texan.
There's a reason for the "A" designation in "AT-6".
By your accord, it would be the one of PT's, like the Stearman (and Budd Davidson did say that if he was going ground loop in any aircraft, it would be a Stearman. One tough airplane).

-------------------------------------

Kool Kitty,

The C-47 was actually the DC-2, which was a slightly smaller aircraft.
The DC-3 was actually a "stretch" version of the "-2", because it originally housed sleeping berths, as well as regular seats.
Eventually, the berths were removed and the DC-3 received all seating in the traditional fashion.
I believe the DC-2 was 12-14 passenger, while the DC-3 was 16-18 passenger.
Not saying the DC-3 wasn't used by the military in WWII, just that it was not the C-47. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think it was like C-49 or C-52, something like that.
...that's why I call the C-47, "The Good Ship Lolly-Pop", because was a DC-2 that Shirley Temple was "flying" on when she sang that song in the movie.



Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello parsifal,

I was just about to mention exactly the same whilst reading the above posts,
so thanks for helping me out on this. If the Luftwaffe had the best pilots in ww2 then you might have to consider to add a German trainer

Regards
Kruska

You know, you bring up an interesting thought.
The only trainer I'm aware of was the BF-108.
That seems like it would be more of an Adavanced Trainer, considering the time.
I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used?
I feel there had to be something that was simpler.



Elvis

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Elvis

I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used? Elvis

Hi Elvis,

Primary and basic trainers of the early years. Class A2 Land, B1 Land, B1 Sea, B2 Land and B2 Sea...

Bu 131
Bu 133
Bu 181
Fw 44
He 72
Kl 25
Kl 35

Ar 65
Ar 66
Ar 68
Ar 76
Ar 96
Fw 56
Go 145
He 45
He 46
He 51
Bf 108

He 42W
He 60W
He 114

Fw 58
He 70
Ju F13

Ju W33 W
Ju W34 W

[parsifal]

How do the german trainers compare to the Allied ones. The whole concept of the ideal trainer turns the per formance issue right on its head. What makes for a good trainer? I would think low cost, and ease of flying for basic traiers. For the advanced trainers, you want to ramp things up so that your trainee pilots get as close as possible to the fron line types as is possible. Finally there are the OTU aircraft, actual frontline types.

I dont know that ther is much in the different types, but I do know that the allied training programs pulled right away with their pilot training programs. By the wars end, allied pilots were emerging from the flight schools with over 250 hours of flight training under their belts, whereas the axis pilots might be lucky if they had 50 hours. There was a chaotic training program behind the axis frontline forces, whereas the allied efforts were all designed to maximise pilot survivability, and integration.

For the Commonwealth the scheme par excellance was the EATS scheme. At the start of the Second World War, the British Government looked to the Empire and Dominions for air training help because the United Kingdom did not have the space to accommodate training and operational facilities, and because aerodromes in the United Kingdom were vulnerable to enemy attack. The Agreement was signed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand on 17 December 1939, it listed the percentage of trainees each country would send, the percentage of costs each would take on, the training schedule, and the aerodrome opening schedule.
Between 1940 and 1945, some 151 schools had been established across Canada with a ground organization of 104,113 men and women. By the end of the Second World War, the BCATP (Canada) and the EATS (Australia/NZ) had produced 131,553 aircrew, including pilots, wireless operators, air gunners, and navigators for the Air Forces of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The USAAF scheme was even greater. I have no idea exactly the number of aircrew, but i do know that more than 50% of the total US inventory never left the contininetal US. The main reason for this was thhat this enormous investment of airframes was dedicated to the provision of aircrew.

Moreover, both the US and CW systems were dedicated to producing aircrew of far superior quality and experience than anything the axis could produce. The allies spent a lot of time and effort in integrating new aircrew into existing air units. Genarally, it is a statistical fact that the majority of kills are made by no more than about 15% of the available flyers. The remainder, are to all intenses and purposes, targets, and padding to protect the main shooters of the formation. However, as a pilot learns the ropes, and grows in confidence, he gradually transforms from being a target, to being a shooter. With more experience comes the ability to expand by creating yet more units, and so the process continues. It is not good practice, incidentally, to concentrate too many shooters into the one formation....because you will not markedly increase the firepower of the unit with the over supply of aces, but you will increase the mortality rate of your experienced aircrew. The Germans found this at the end of the war. Faced with an airforce largely grounded, the germans decided to form a special group made up of super aces. This unit did not enjoy a markedly greater success rate, but it did mean that every pilot lost, was another ace also lost, something that the germans were in acutely short supply of by wars end.

By comparison, the axis efforts at pilot training were quite abysmal. Ther was never enough fuel, or not enough trainers, never enough instructors, and new aircrew were often sent out to the front to learn the hard way, with the obvious effect that mortality rates amongst the new axis aircrew going through the roof. The axis air forces (ecen the italians) enjoyed an early advantage in having a greater proportion of expereinced flyers, but because of the poor training establishment supporting the front line forces, this advanatage was a wasting advantage.
So, i dont know which type was the best trainer, but I do know which system was superior. The allies had things in the bag from the latter part of 1940 onwards

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Elvis

The C-47 was actually the DC-2, which was a slightly smaller aircraft.

Hi Elvis, again.

I get a different story from Yenne's "A Tale of Two Giants" (McDonnell Douglas).

The...

C-32
C-33 (One had a DC-3 tail, called the DC-2 and 1/2)
C-34
C-38
C-39
C-41
C-42

..were all commercial or military versions of the DC-2

The...

C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-68
C-84

...were all commercial or military versions derived from the DC-3 airframe. The difference between the C-47 and DC-3 principally involved a lack of carpeting, soundproofing and interior detail. The door size was more than doubled which required structural strengthening. The C-47A upgraded to 24 volts to accommodate a conveyor-belt motor.

(Incidentally - small world, the C-44 was a Bf-108.)

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by parsifal

How do the german trainers compare to the Allied ones. The whole concept of the ideal trainer turns the per formance issue right on its head. What makes for a good trainer?

Another interesting question. I wonder how the German trainers compare, too.

On the subject of training procedures, that's been a debate of great conjecture for many years.
Here's all I've really ever heard on the subject.
The Americans used trainers that were easy to fly so as to nurture the trainees into being comfortable with the concept of flying.
As time goes on, the trainee moves onto higher performance aircraft, ultimately leading to the actual front line planes of the day.
The British docterne was to have a plane that was simple to fly, but wasn't neccessarily "easy" to fly. They felt this kept the student alert and educated them quickly in what it took to keep the airplane in the air.
It's my understanding that the British trainee moved straight from the Tiger Moth into a "training version" of whatever aircraft they were to fly into battle.

Which way is better?
I don't think there is a "better" way, just two different ways of achieving the same goal.
It seems to me that the British skipped a couple of steps in their training (or the Americans added a couple?), combining steps into each step.
I've taught, what seems like, a million people in the "rigors" of doing my job (don't ask ) and my opinion is, you show 'em what its all about and let 'em fly.
Either they get it or they don't.

How the axis powers trained their pilots, I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen anything on that.




Elvis

[Elvis]

Graeme,

Thanks for the lists.
Man, it looks like the Germans had more trainers than anything else!
Quite the impressive list.
Thanks also for clarifying the classifications of Douglas transport aircraft.
I swear I'd recently seen something that aluded to what I posted before, but you've got the list, so there ya' go.


Elvis

[evangilder]

Close Elvis. The sleeper transport version of the DC-2 was originally called the "wide body DC-2" which became the Douglas Sleeper Transport. The DST carried 14 passengers in the sleeper transport mode. The non-sleeper transport version, which had seating for 28 was called the DC-3.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by evangilder

Close Elvis. The sleeper transport version of the DC-2 was originally called the "wide body DC-2" which became the Douglas Sleeper Transport. The DST carried 14 passengers in the sleeper transport mode. The non-sleeper transport version, which had seating for 28 was called the DC-3.

Right. The "regular" airliner version of the DST (i.e., sans sleeping berths) was the DC-3 (maybe "became" is a better word to use?).
This was basically a stretched version of the DC-2.


Elvis