Best World War II Aircraft?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

-Ju 87; get's very little credit today, but was one of a kind when first deployed and the most devastating single type of plane in the campaigns of '39-'40 and early in Barbarossa. A lot battles were only won because of well placed Stuka bombs.

IMHO the Ju87 was never very devastating in the early years. For instance, Dutch soldiers in 1940 were frequently attacked by these a/c, but hardly any died or were wounded while damage to equipment was minimal. The psychological effect of the stuka was another factor, though. When being confronted with the a/c for the first time, soldiers tend to panic. When soldiers got more experienced, the effectiveness of the stuka diminished rapidly and many were shot down.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello KrazyKraut
excellent list
I'd agree almost complety. Maybe A6M wasn't first but probably first built in significant numbers and with significant combat participation. For ex A5M was a pretty good when it arrived and some earlier biplane carrier fighters too. But as I wrote excellent list and well balanced opinion.

Juha

Thank you, Juha. I would agree with you that my statement on the A6M was maybe a bit too extreme, but it deserves to be in the list anyways.

Originally Posted by Marcel

IMHO the Ju87 was never very devastating in the early years. For instance, Dutch soldiers in 1940 were frequently attacked by these a/c, but hardly any died or were wounded while damage to equipment was minimal. The psychological effect of the stuka was another factor, though. When being confronted with the a/c for the first time, soldiers tend to panic. When soldiers got more experienced, the effectiveness of the stuka diminished rapidly and many were shot down.

Grebbeberg was one instance where Stukas played a significant role, routing a Dutch counter attack (or at least playing a significant role in that). During the invasion of Eben Emael they essentially filled the role that field guns normally would, knocking out several artillery emplacements and repelling a counter attack by Belgian forces. Their effort was essential and would be again so in France, giving pseudo-artillery support for quickly advancing troops. How many were shot down? I have no numbers at hand, but I remember losses were acceptable, especially considering they very often attacking without any escort.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

Grebbeberg was one instance where Stukas played a significant role, routing a Dutch counter attack (or at least playing a significant role in that). During the invasion of Eben Emael they essentially filled the role that field guns normally would, knocking out several artillery emplacements and repelling a counter attack by Belgian forces. Their effort was essential and would be again so in France, giving pseudo-artillery support for quickly advancing troops. How many were shot down? I have no numbers at hand, but I remember losses were acceptable, especially considering they very often attacking without any escort.

The main weapon on the Grebbeberg that the Ju-87 had was terror. Most inexperienced troops freezed during attack (as most Dutch soldiers were to be honest). There weren't many deaths counted for by the Ju-87 on the Grebbe or anywhere els in the Netherlands. AFAIK there was only one attack by the Ju-87 where they did do serious damage to equipment/men in the Netherlands and that was their attack on the French tanks near Zevenbergen. But it was a key victory, though. Without it, the german para's in Dordrecht would have never held their position.
The Stuka's didn't need any escort as the ML was virtually non-existant after May 10th.
As for numbers of losses, I'll have to get back to you on that. I recall a number of 26, but I'll have to check on that.

[Boss Calamari]

Since this is just an open question I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think. Anyway, sure it had didn't have as many guns as the hellcat but nevertheless it's two 12.7mm guns was sufficient. It's canopy is much more modern than that of the Zero's glassy greenhouse. It all comes down to experience. If one was inexperienced then the Hayabusa would be a falling flame but an expert pilot would be victorious and the king of the sky. Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Boss Calamari

Since this is just an open question I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think. Anyway, sure it had didn't have as many guns as the hellcat but nevertheless it's two 12.7mm guns was sufficient. It's canopy is much more modern than that of the Zero's glassy greenhouse. It all comes down to experience. If one was inexperienced then the Hayabusa would be a falling flame but an expert pilot would be victorious and the king of the sky. Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.

Oscar best fighter? It was eventually shot down in droves. While it was extremely maneuverable and could be a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot, it was light and unarmored and basically became cannon fodder. Even the most veteran pilots flying the Oscar eventually found themselves either few in numbers or dead. Sorry but I think the final outcome speaks for it self.

As far as all-round best aircraft - the Oscar wouldn't be in the top 50 from WW2.

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.

Juha

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Marcel
IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.

Juha

Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Boss Calamari

1. I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think.

2 Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.

1. Best of the war, questionable IMO, though I doubt there is any single 'best', not sure what it even means. The best a/c from purely technical viewpoint were 1945 types, naturally, but many earlier types had good success in their own time.

The Type 1 Fighter (as Japanese Army operating units almost invariably referred to it, later codenamed Oscar, operating units almost never used the Kitai numbers, eg. Ki-43) had considerably success early in the Pacific War. At that time Allied units didn't distinguish it at all from the Navy's Zero; later references to Allied success v the Type 1 are mainly from mid-1943 onward. In early 1942 the Type 1 achieved a several to one kill ratio (based on each side's loss accounts, not relying on claims) against Brit/CW/Dutch Buffaloes and Hurricanes, although it didn't do as well against AVG P-40's in fewer engagements. And the Type 1 in reality held its own against USN/USMC and USAAF a/c in the Solomons in early '43 and in New Guinea from late '42 respectively, again until well into 1943. The JAAF did really like the Type 1's manueverability, even when the Type 3 ('Tony') first came along in New Guinea, contrary to some Western accounts saying the Type 3 was immediately preferred. Experienced Type 1 pilots felt they could not be defeated by 'boom and zoom' tactics because they'd see the Allied fighter coming and turn into its attack, and sooner or later the Allied fighter would have to slow down and come into their preferred element (eg. how the US P-47 ace Neal Kirby was shot down in 1943). Now, did this always pan out? no, eventually Type 1's were typically bested by Allied fighters, but it performed well to at least fairly well in late 1941-mid '43.

Most Type 1's encountered until mid '43 had a single 12.7mm and a single 7.7mm. Francillon's description of Ki-43-I a, b and c with 2*7.7, one each, and 2*12.7 respectively isn't correct, almost all -I's had the mixed armament.

2. Type 97's ('Nate', Ki-27) shot down a number of P-40's. The AVG mostly met Type 97's and downed around 35 of them (per Japanese accounts) to around a dozen P-40's downed by Type 97's (AVG's accounts). However that lack of Type 97 success was the exception. Against the USAAF in the Philippines and DEI in 1941-42 Type 97's downed around 6 US fighters (P-35/P-40) and while the exact Type 97 losses aren't known in that case the P-40's didn't even claim 6 Type 97's. Likewise v the Hurricane in early months of the war the Type 97 downed 8 for the loss of 5, and v the Buffalo downed over a dozen for the loss of 1 or 2. IOW except against the AVG, the Type 97 units were competitive with the Allied opposition they encountered early in the war, and by mid '42 it was mainly phased out of front line service, though there were some later encounters (eg. P-38's engaged some Thai AF Type 97's in '44, USN F6F's encountered some Japanese ones in '44 also).

Joe

[Juha]

I agree with Joe
and IIRC Ki-43s occasionally gave hard time even to Spit VIIIs over Burma in 44.

Juha

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
Quote:"Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished."

Yes I agree. And of course it was effective against ships and bridges.

Juha

[Boss Calamari]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Oscar best fighter? It was eventually shot down in droves. While it was extremely maneuverable and could be a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot, it was light and unarmored and basically became cannon fodder. Even the most veteran pilots flying the Oscar eventually found themselves either few in numbers or dead. Sorry but I think the final outcome speaks for it self.

As far as all-round best aircraft - the Oscar wouldn't be in the top 50 from WW2.

I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.

[kool kitty89]

An interesting note on the opinion JAAF pilots had of the Ki-43 was discussed here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pol...y-15786-3.html (Japanese Army vs Navy)

On this interview: YouTube - Mr. Yohei HInoki Japanese Ace Pilot (English Sub)

HoHun posted a transcript of it on post #32 of that thread.


It seems they weren't very confident of the Ki-43-I, but the Ki-43-II was a vast improvement.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Boss Calamari

I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the faster and higher energy US fighters like the F4U, P-38 and F6F did not have to 'slow down' if they had an initial altitude advantage - and they had a lot more firepower in the head on pass... continue through the head on pass, zoom climb back to altitude advantage and repeat step one.

Spotting the enemy is MANDATORY but not by and of itself an ACM benefit until the heavier fighters slow down and engage in the horizontal - same issue against Zero.

Last but not least is that the opponent in a dive has you in his 12 o clock position whereas the evading fighter breaking 180 degrees to meet head on is exposed to deflection shooting before engaging.

Lat question - which a/c do you suppose the IJA would prefer as a 'gift' if they could choose - 1000 F4U-4 or Ki-43II's??

[kool kitty89]

There would also be manufacturing and cost considerations when comparing the F4U to the Ki-43, differences in industrial capabilities.

However, given another Japanese aircraft (Ki-44 or Ki-61) to the Ki-43 would make more sense. (in which case I'd take the Ki-44 over the Ki-43 with its superior speed, firepower, and durability -and similar climb)

One point I do agree with is the canopy design. (also on the Ki-44 and Ki-84 and similar to the earlier Ki-27) Very good all around view with minimal framing and fairly sleek shape. (compared to the Zero's -which was pretty good by contemporary standards as well)
Nakajima managed to design a very good "bubble" like canopy using the flat and slightly curved glass/plexiglass available at the time. (highly curved examples that were available were prone to defects, limiting visibility worse than framing -as experienced on some British examples -ie Spitfire)

The closest western counterpart would be the Gloster Gladiator's canopy and the Brewster F2A.

[wingnuts]

I thought Yasuo Kuwahara's book "Kamikaze" was mostly fiction? ... I may be wrong.