Hardest plane to take down in WW2? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hunter368

Tech Sergeant
2,145
17
Nov 5, 2005
Winnipeg
Simply what is the hardest plane to take down (that can absorb the most damage) in each category:

Fighter ?
Ground Attack a/c?
Bomber?
Carrier Plane?

Don't get me wrong I do not want best fighter or fastest fighter etc I want the toughest one in each category.
 
Ground attack- IL-2
Fighter - P47
Bomber - B17
Carrier - mmmm not really sure here, Hellcat or Corsair, I have heard good things about both as being tough.

3 out of 4 for USA lol :D They did have tough planes. When in doubt add alittle armor plating. lol
 
Fighter- Tempest,
Ground Attack - Henschel 129
Bomber- Wellington
Carrier- F4U
 
Fighter - P47
Rugged was its middle name.
Ground Attack - Henschel 129
Sometimes overlooked but tough and well armed. I like having two engines as a GA plane is almost certain to take hits.
Bomber B29
Higher, Faster and better armed than the B17.
Carrier - F4U
Simply the best carrier aricraft
 
I read somewhere that the Japanese considered P-47 and the P-40 the toughest fighters to kill and the B-17 gave them fits. I think it was in Gene Gurney's Five Down and Glory.

:{)
 
I'd also say the B-29. I don't know if it could take a beating like a B-17, but it would be way harder to bring down by virtue of speed and firepower.

CurzonDax said:
I read somewhere that the Japanese considered P-47 and the P-40 the toughest fighters to kill and the B-17 gave them fits. I think it was in Gene Gurney's Five Down and Glory.

:{)

Saburo Saki also staed the same.
 
I want toughest not fastest planes. What is the toughest planes.
 
Hunter368 said:
Nice pics guys. Just a question how rugged was the Hellcat? Could it take alot of damage or average only.

It was pretty durable. You really have to see one to appreciate it's armor, armament and sheer size. I have had the pleasure of seeing the Zero and the Hellcat side by side. There is a big difference in size. The specs will show the difference of being not that great, but until you see them side by side, it's another story.

From what I have read, the Hellcat was responsible for 4,947 enemy aircraft destroyed in air to air combat. I have spoken with a few Hellcat veterans and they stand by their Grumman Iron Works bird. They said it was surprisingly manueverable for such a large fighter.
 
evangilder said:
Hunter368 said:
Nice pics guys. Just a question how rugged was the Hellcat? Could it take alot of damage or average only.

It was pretty durable. You really have to see one to appreciate it's armor, armament and sheer size. I have had the pleasure of seeing the Zero and the Hellcat side by side. There is a big difference in size. The specs will show the difference of being not that great, but until you see them side by side, it's another story.

From what I have read, the Hellcat was responsible for 4,947 enemy aircraft destroyed in air to air combat. I have spoken with a few Hellcat veterans and they stand by their Grumman Iron Works bird. They said it was surprisingly manueverable for such a large fighter.

Thanks Evan thats sort of what I have read also.
 
I would like to know how the main carrier planes for USA, Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair would of done vs German fighters of the same time period. mmmm
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back