PDA

View Full Version : Most Important Aircraft of WWII.....



LEBillfish
06-14-2006, 10:07 AM

LEBillfish
06-14-2006, 10:07 AM

mrsiCkstar
06-14-2006, 10:29 AM
I don't know... I'm not familiar with them but I assume they're troop transports or cargo planes carrying equipment/ammo/food?

I's say they're important... but I don't think they're more important than the fighters and the bombers etc... but probably on par. you can't really do anything without both as far as aerial warfare is concerned.

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-14-2006, 11:20 AM
C-47 definitely.

The ol' gooney bird won teh war...

HayateAce
06-14-2006, 11:25 AM
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/sword_3.jpg

Jester_159th
06-14-2006, 11:26 AM
Fully agree with you LeBillfish. The minute I saw the thread title I thought "Dakota."

MrBlueSky1960
06-14-2006, 11:30 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/DC-3.jpg

DC-3 was I think one if not the best or should that be most used Transport Aircraft of the War the allies had at their disposal...

But saying it was the most important A/C of the War...

Hmmm... Well I did you a nice picture, hope you like it LEBill...

No I'd have to go with the Hurricane, followed by the Spitfire... Reason, they both carried the Merlin Engine and the combination of both engine and airframe stopped the Hun... Yes were back to the Battle of Britain again, but without that Victory everything else that followed would have gone awry...

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2006, 11:46 AM
In most situations troops and supplies were moved by ships, trains, trucks, on foot.
I have a tape of 'Mail Call' where it is shown that the deuce-and-a-half motor blocks were made
of chrome steel to reduce wear as they were used heavily.

Anywho, my vote goes to the bombers of all kinds.

anasteksi
06-14-2006, 11:48 AM
Bf-109

Breeze147
06-14-2006, 12:00 PM
p-51 won war be sure

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Not even close. B-29. As already stated, as cargo-lifters ships and trains trumped any aircraft ever built. Only the 20th Air Force's B-29 came close to ending a campaign by airpower alone. No other aircraft came close to its level of technology, not even the jets. Only the XB-36 trumped the 29.

F0_Dark_P
06-14-2006, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/DC-3.jpg

DC-3 was I think one if not the best or should that be most used Transport Aircraft of the War the allies had at their disposal...

But saying it was the most important A/C of the War...

Hmmm... Well I did you a nice picture, hope you like it LEBill...

No I'd have to go with the Hurricane, followed by the Spitfire... Reason, they both carried the Merlin Engine and the combination of both engine and airframe stopped the Hun... Yes were back to the Battle of Britain again, but without that Victory everything else that followed would have gone awry... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Neither the Hurry or Spit won Battle of Britain, it was Germany who did it wrong in the first place, if they never bombed London they would have won the war, i just had to point that out

anyway if i should go on topic. the DC-3 was importent but much more so after the war, to give the german civilians food etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
06-14-2006, 12:30 PM
No, they did outstanding work and all. However, as was already pointed out, sea and rail moved most supplies in WWII. Trucks did their share, but so did horses!

LEBillfish
06-14-2006, 12:37 PM
Good thing paratroopers, troops, equipment and supplies....To those back water islands, and area's inaccessible by rail or road for whatever the reason (often weather) meant nothing or little during the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
06-14-2006, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Neither the Hurry or Spit won Battle of Britain, it was Germany who did it wrong in the first place, if they never bombed London they would have won the war, i just had to point that out </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Oh, what a shame then that they made that fatal mistake... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG52Karaya-X
06-14-2006, 12:50 PM
There are so many important planes in WWII that one hardly can break it down to a single one. Yes the tansport planes were very important but so where the bombers and fighters. An airforce missing one kind of planes is severely crippled.

My most important planes of WWII in no particular order:

Ju87 Stuka: Without this plane the German Blitzkrieg would have been almost impossible. It was the Stuka that paved the way of the Panzer Armies wether it was in the Battle of France or in Operation Barbarossa. Of course it did not age well and was already obsolete by 1942 - never the less a very important plane

Bf109: It was state of the art when it entered service during the Spanish Civil War and provided the Luftwaffe with a fighter that remained competitive throughout the entire war. Easy/cheap to build and maintain, lots of development potential.

FW190: Provided an excellent addition to the Bf109. Very versatile fighter with lots of development potential, though lacking in the high altitude fighter role until late 1944.

Hurricane: Already a little bit outdated when it entered service but nevertheless worth of a mention because of its importance in the Battle of Britain where it racked up a lot more kills than the supposedly superior Spitfire. Easy to fly aircraft, stable and good gunplatform - exactly what Britain needed during BoB.

Spitfire: The mainstay fighter of the RAF during WWII and one of the best short-range defensive fighters of the war. Like the Hurricane easy to fly and forgiving and with potential for further development.

There are of course a lot more like the Ju88, B17/24, P47/51, etc... just dont have the time right now to write it all down

stathem
06-14-2006, 12:50 PM
I agree about the importance of the transport planes; but ultimatly my vote goes to the Spitfire: Not the BoB winning ones, but the strategic PR variants, which allowed target selection and BDA etc.

What's the most important thing in war? To know what your enemy is doing, and where.

ploughman
06-14-2006, 01:22 PM
Trainers, without which they'd all've been n00bs in big scarey planes.

jarink
06-14-2006, 02:40 PM
Don't forget the C-46 and C-54. B-24s and B-29s hauled more fuel and cargo in the CBI than they did bombs.

Cargo planes were not quite as important in Europe as in the Pacific theater due to the far better road and rail networks available. Still, they did perform valuable services in the ETO.

Imagine what the Pacific war would have been like if Japan had a truly effective fleet of cargo planes. All those scattered island garrisons would have been much harder to isolate and bypass. By the same token, the US and Commonwealth forces were easily able to supply their forces. During the first few weeks of the Guadalcanal campaign, a lot of the critical supplies for the Cactus Air Force were flown in as the Navy couldn't protect their transports.

Most of the fighting in Burma simply would not have been possible without aerial supply. China was largely kept in the fighting from '42 on by supplies flown over the 'Hump', tying down immense numbers of Japanese troops which could have caused the Allies lots of problems had they been redeployed elsewhere.

Gold_Monkey
06-14-2006, 02:59 PM
I think that a B-29 named Enola Gay made a pretty good contribution.

Jasko76
06-14-2006, 03:05 PM
God, not this again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

slo_1_2_3
06-14-2006, 04:08 PM
Ok I see it like this :
you cant win a war with just fighters , neither just bombers, or cargo or any other one single thing , it takes alot of coordinated effort from all parties to get the job done, Right?

LEBillfish
06-14-2006, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Ok I see it like this :
you cant win a war with just fighters , neither just bombers, or cargo or any other one single thing , it takes alot of coordinated effort from all parties to get the job done, Right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really slo..........Fighters are only needed to stop recon/bombers/cargo. Recon though by far not as efficient or effective can be done by ground forces. Bombers can be replaced by cannon, yet obviously not having the range...........For any of the above to work, you need men & supplies, sometimes quickly, sometimes behind enemy lines, and sometimes in area's unreachable by truck or rail.

Now you can wage a war just on the ground, yet as in WWI a simple spring thaw can bog it down to a dead halt......Above someone posted the value of the "Red Ball Express".....Which without absolutly there would have been no way the allies could have waged as thorough and as fast a war as they did....and why the Axis could not sustain theirs....Quite simply, the forces out running supply.

All planes were important in the all inclusive scheme of things....and C47's & Ju52 and the like could have had the same work done by B24's & He111's as mentioned above. However, that's just one more bomber not bombing each time....and as a "dedicated" role plane, those cargo/transports were invaluable.

Imagine D-Day with no paratroopers or gliders...Bet the guys that were there would rather not.......Same with the blitz that drove the axis east.

bienenbaer
06-14-2006, 04:52 PM
I'll try a balanced answer.

For the allied, the most important plane is the Spitfire, because it turned the tide.

For the axis, most important plane is the Me-262, because Adolf Galland put his bet on that plane for turning the tide again and it failed.

domenlovrec
06-14-2006, 05:44 PM
I thought P51 had won teh war.

slo_1_2_3
06-14-2006, 05:56 PM
Ok lets just go with guys won the war.

Daiichidoku
06-14-2006, 05:56 PM
ive always said in "won the war" threads/fishing expeditions that it was clearly the C-47s and C-54s that did it

the C-54s carried more, and further than the Gooneys, but the C-47s were there from the start, in US, Kanadian, British, Russian, Aussie/NZ and even in limited numbers licence-built in Japan

plus it's valuable service as para transport/glider tugs

of course, honourable mention goes to B24 transports, C-46s and C-69s (luv dem Connies!)



truth be told tho

Herman Goering won the war, NO DOUBT

SkyChimp
06-14-2006, 06:14 PM
I think the intent of this thread is to try and establish that it wasn't the fighter that figured as the most important aircraft of WWII. What I've come to realize is that there may have been no single most important type of aircraft. The C-47 was probably the most important Allied transport type, mainly because if was the most widely used. I'm sure the Germans hated it. But as important as it was, it couldn't have done all that it did without the establishment and maintenance of air superiority. The establishment and maintenance of air superiority, established by the fighter, is necessary for any other type to perform its role to its fullest. So, while I hesitate to declare any one type more important than another, it's clear that, given the nature of the war, the establishment of air superiority was absolutely necessary. As such, I would have to declare the fighter the most important type. Which fighter was most important is up for argument, but to me its clear the transport wasn't the most important because it had to rely on the fighter to establish an environment in which it could operate to its fullest.

Can you imagine the field day the Germans would have had had they had a really credible fighter force in France on D-Day, especially if Allied fighters had not already asserted dominance over them? It would have been a slaughter of transports that would have made the "Palm Sunday Massacre" pale by comparison.

Daiichidoku
06-14-2006, 06:32 PM
too true, the Germans got the short end of the stick in this regard with Ju52s at Stalingrad and Me 323s in Med

there are in reality far too many factors that contribute both to winning and losing a war, militarily and and the "home front"

vocatx
06-14-2006, 06:39 PM
Billfish, if it's any consolation, Eisenhower once stated the three items he considered the most important for winning the war. The C-47 was on that list, along with the Duece and a Half truck (I honestly can't recall the third at the moment). I think I'd take Ike's word over anyone posting here.

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 07:44 PM
Ike, of course, would say the C-47, jeep, and the truck won the war---all U.S. Army. What won the war? GM, Ford, Chrysler, the southern U.S. oilfields, Tankograd, the Baku oilfields, the Persian Gulf oilfields, the navies of the U.S. and U.K., Robert Oppenheimer, the gigantic Soviet and American armies, the P-51 for destroying the Luftwaffe, the B-29 for finishing Japan, and the people of the Allied nations for having the will to stay the course. What lost the war? Pearl Harbor, Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S., and Hitler's decision to run his war on the cheap 'til '43. They were all three strategic errors of such a huge magnitude there was no recovering from them.

LEBillfish
06-14-2006, 08:26 PM
Well, let me add this......Without transports either side would have had a much rougher go of it.....Other aircraft though used simply did not match the simplicity of these dedicated planes (remember, the C47/DC3 & Ju52 litterally expanded the globe of reach and ability from the 30's on till even the 70's)......and to produce say as many B24's as you had C47's & B24's simply never could have happened.

So what's the point?...........Though lonely ol' mules trecking off in distant area's, don't forget their great value.......As frankly, I know of nothing that could have replaced them easily based on volume or ruggedness.

LStarosta
06-14-2006, 08:29 PM
Bf-109

It won the war for the Allies.

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 08:40 PM
Nice one, LStarosta, really nice , and, even better---true. If one thing lost the B of Brit for the Germans, it was the short legs of the 109. Prepare to be hit with an onslaught of calumny!

LStarosta
06-14-2006, 08:47 PM
I resent your implication that my comment was an attempt at slander http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 08:51 PM
You have questioned the authenticity of The Holy Grail!

SpartanHoplite
06-14-2006, 08:51 PM
No plane was the most important plane. If certain planes were not available, other planes would have taken their place and battles and tactics would have changed to reflect the different strengths and weaknesses of what was available.

The most important thing for a war like World War 2 is population and production capacity, which the Allies had over the Axis by many magnitudes. The war would have ended with the same results if the Allies produced mediocre planes (ie, as US planes are modelled in game - I couldn't resist), it just would have taken a bit longer.

And transports were important, of course, just like bombers, fighters, seaplanes, recce, and everything else was important in their own roles.

SH

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 08:56 PM
Right

leitmotiv
06-14-2006, 09:06 PM
Betty Grable's legs won WWII---the Germans and Japanese were undone by a "pin-up gap."

http://tinyurl.com/qrpc7

Siwarrior
06-14-2006, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/sword_3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you know

that plane had quite a say in pearl harbour happening http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

MO_JOJO
06-15-2006, 12:53 AM
I wouldn't say that a transport plane won the war. They did their job, but airborne operations didn't win the war. The transports did their role well and were vital in the aerial supply missions.

Air power won the war. If Britain had not stopped the German aerial assault with its own air force, who knows how different the war and the world would have turned out. Regardless of what mistakes Germany made in the battle, it was air power that stopped them.

Japan would have had a tough time destroying most of the Pacific fleet without attack aircraft. And had our birds been able to get in the air in time, the results would have been less severe. The loss of 4 Japanese carriers at Midway were the result of damage from aircraft-launched weapons, and not from C-47's or DC-3's.

The war was won by the Allies once the air forces of the Axis powers suffered so much attrition in numbers and skilled pilots that we could dominate with fighter-escorted bombers to pound the remaining forces on the ground.

Transports were a support, not the backbone of the air power that won the war. If I had to narrow it down to a single plane on either side, I would estimate the P47 or P51 in US ET. The F6F Hellcat in PT. But the B24 was the backbone of heavy bombers in both theaters. The IJ had the Zero and the Betty, both of which were key in their aerial weaponry. Nazi's had the ME-109 and HE-111 early on...the ME109 ruled the skies for 2 years and scored so many kills, it's possibly the most important in a fighter role in the war. But this discussion could go on forever, and we'll never know the ONE ac that was most important. It's like deciding legs are more important than the a--, or the a-- more important than the t-ts, etc.

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 01:08 AM
The 8th AF effort could have been done by artillery? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

From Britain into Germany, so many tons of firepower wrecking industries, damns and yes
I am sorry to say Cities by cannon?

And OTOH trucks get stuck in mud?

Gee, and all I did was compare total tons moved to tons by cargo planes. I am so dumb!
When I look at the amount of time that major efforts were supplied by air, I must be
missing something. Transports did a lot for sure but overall, I even have a thick book
on just glider operations and paratroops. It was expensive to supply by air and all
the big troop moves I know of went by sea and land. I must be missing a big load of
information for transports to have made a bigger difference than the 8th AF alone.

WOLFMondo
06-15-2006, 02:52 AM
Gliders on D-day? Most important vehical on D-day is the landing craft. Make no mistake about it, its the only real sticking point the British had with the Americans in WW2.

C47 is undeniably one of the most important aircraft.

Another unsung hero is the Lysander.

whiteladder
06-15-2006, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Make no mistake about it, its the only real sticking point the British had with the Americans in WW2.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean Wolf?

WOLFMondo
06-15-2006, 03:23 AM
There were several planned amphibious assaults to take place before and after D-day and the US was apprehensive about it because of the need for landing craft at Normandy and then the south of France. Britain and the US had different ideas on this and subsequent landings were postponed or cancelled outright so others could be prioritised.

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 03:46 AM
Gliders were used by the Allies a few times with mixed results. The worst I remember was
in Italy, Sicily which was a total mess for the glider borne troops. There were gliders at
Market-Garden. In Burma I do concede they were much more efficient than the regular walk the
trails way of getting men onto the scene. Those were The Flying Chindits.

Silent Wings by Gerard M. Devlin is a very good read on the subject. He has chapters on
Sicily, Burma, Market-Garden, Operation Dragoon, Holland, Ardennes, Crossing the Rhine,
Lae and the last mission at Luzon.

Devlin also wrote Paratrooper!

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2006, 10:24 AM
The most important aircraft of WW II were the B-29's that delivered "the bomb(s)" that ENDED WW II. Saving god knows how many allied lives and casualty's. Until that point the superior pilots of the allies were winning the war.

Vipez-
06-15-2006, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Saving god knows how many allied lives and casualty's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is something we will never know for sure.. Be sure.

ploughman
06-15-2006, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Gliders were used by the Allies a few times with mixed results. The worst I remember was
in Italy, Sicily which was a total mess for the glider borne troops. There were gliders at
Market-Garden. In Burma I do concede they were much more efficient than the regular walk the
trails way of getting men onto the scene. Those were The Flying Chindits.

Silent Wings by Gerard M. Devlin is a very good read on the subject. He has chapters on
Sicily, Burma, Market-Garden, Operation Dragoon, Holland, Ardennes, Crossing the Rhine,
Lae and the last mission at Luzon.

Devlin also wrote Paratrooper! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overlord - Pegasus Bridge. You could've gobbed on the objective from the cockpit of the lead glider once it had come to a halt.

Tribunus
06-15-2006, 03:38 PM
LEBillfish is being her normal, insightful self.
There is an old saying at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics".

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 04:52 PM
Then talk logistics. How much supply was run by air? How much troops and equipment?
What amount of overall?

Why dote on pennies when hundreds of dollars are spent?

Here is supply: how many tons of bombs were delivered on targets?

joeap
06-15-2006, 04:59 PM
Yes I agree, just was saying and one or two others agreed that in terms of total logistics planes came in number 3 after ships and rail. With the one or two exceptions noted (Burma etc.)

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 05:15 PM
You forgot trucks and for Germans and Russians the wagons that moved when so much else did not.
Where the US moved there was always lines of trucks both directions. Hence the chrome steel
engines on the 2 1/2 ton trucks.

The trucks were also multi-fuel diesels. They could run on beer, even perfume which I was
told did happen once in WWII. What came from the ships went mostly by truck to the front.
Towed arms (arty, aa, at) went by truck, mortars, mgs and troops went by truck, and trailers
went by truck.

But in Burma, I think mules were used more and there the supply planes were super useful
as in a number of other isolated's so I don't blow them off just don't say numba one either.

joeap
06-15-2006, 05:34 PM
Anything that could be used was to move stuff. I am of Greek origin, and the region my mother comes from was famous for tough women who carried supplies on their backs for the men fighting Mussolini's invasion. Probably did the same during the war of independence against the Turks.

luftluuver
06-15-2006, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You forgot trucks and for Germans and Russians the wagons that moved when so much else did not.
Where the US moved there was always lines of trucks both directions. Hence the chrome steel
engines on the 2 1/2 ton trucks.

The trucks were also multi-fuel diesels. They could run on beer, even perfume which I was
told did happen once in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Every reference I have seen for the WW2 duece and a half says they were petrol/gasoline engined.

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 06:40 PM
I am wrong, the multifuel was a later development which means our mechanic was full of it.

But I did love that truck. I'd love to throw a van body sized to fit on one of those.
It'd be great and they will run on almost anything liquid that has burnable content.

Oh, just for Bearcat... search on the Red Ball Express.

fordfan25
06-15-2006, 06:41 PM
there was no single most improtant or best plane.