PDA

View Full Version : How many friggin' aircraft WERE there in WWII?



karamazov
02-05-2004, 08:42 PM
I keep seeing "20 new planes" in the new products, and I'm starting to wonder just how many planes there were in the WWII conflict? Was there that much diversity in aircraft flight after just 10 or 20 years of fighting planes?

karamazov
02-05-2004, 08:42 PM
I keep seeing "20 new planes" in the new products, and I'm starting to wonder just how many planes there were in the WWII conflict? Was there that much diversity in aircraft flight after just 10 or 20 years of fighting planes?

horseback
02-05-2004, 08:55 PM
Well, I suspect that the sales guys may have something to do with it, but if every upgrade in each aircraft model is treated as a seperate plane, you can get an idea of the multiplication effect. There are seven or eight types of YaK, a similar number of Me-109 models, a couple of different LaGGs, and they haven't even gotten to the Spitfire, which had a good 10 wartime Marks...

You get the idea.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

VW-IceFire
02-05-2004, 08:57 PM
Well they are probably counting different versions of aircraft in some cases but after oh about 10 years of my life (thats quite a while for me - just a university aged youngin still http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) reading as many books as I could get ahold of I'm still finding out about new planes, new versions, and new prototypes. If you count all the Russian, American, British, German, Italian, Japanese, French and all of the other warbirds that were built by various other countries (for instance I was never aware of the IAR-80 until FB) then you have ALOT of planes. Its certainly more combat aircraft and support craft than what exist now. Indigenous aircraft are rare to find and pretty much limited to the US, France, Sweden, and Russia now. The rest usually are building aircraft in a coalition (ie. the Eurofighter) or they are buying from one of the aformentioned groups/countries. Its too expensive now...it used to be cheaper http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Bearcat99
02-05-2004, 09:14 PM
Well you figure...even in FB if you went by individual palne types there would be 24 planes... however if you take into consideration each varient as represented in FB there are 84. Anyway you slice it there were loads of actual AC in WW2 and to me FB is slammin for it's diversity. When you consider that each plane flies differently...... it is truly amazing.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

JR_Greenhorn
02-05-2004, 09:31 PM
One reason for such diversity is that aircraft had to be so specialized compared to aircraft now days. Modern figters replace many classes of aircraft previously.

A single fighter type may have several variants to allow it to perform in different roles. Such as: Long range escort, low-alt interceptor, bomber destroyer, photographic recconnaisance, fighter-bomber, advanced trainer, target tug, etc.

Even more diversity can be found among medium bombers.

Also, some heavy bombers had cargo variants based on their airframes, such as Consolidated B-24 and B-32.

Then, most countries had different factories producing different planes for the same role, such as Lavochkin and Yakovlev, Supermarine and Hawker, Messershmitt and Focke-Wulf, Mitsubishi and Nakajima, etc.

Also, the US had 2 air corps that were almost completely different! The USAAC and USN didn't share too many types (save for the B-24, B-25, C-54, & others).

Another thing to keep in mind is the leaps and bounds aircraft development was making in those years. Nearly everything in service when the war began was obsolete by mid-war, and by the end of the war most planes developed during the war were becoming obsolete.

In addition, there were usually one or two prototypes or experimental planes for every plane awarded production orders. Often these planes were good in their own right, hence folks clamour for their inclusion ingame.

Finally there were several promising projects cut short by lack of resources in a war of attrition. Ho IX or J7W1 for instance.

You can see how large the numbers of different aircraft types were.

[This message was edited by JR_Greenhorn on Thu February 05 2004 at 08:43 PM.]

SKULLS_LZ
02-05-2004, 10:58 PM
If you click on the link below and click "next page" a few times, you will see the complete list. There are over 300:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1875671358/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-3640569-5214248#reader-page

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

JR_Greenhorn
02-05-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
you will see the complete list. There are over 300<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There seems to be a few missing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SKULLS_LZ
02-05-2004, 11:26 PM
Really? Which ones?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

JR_Greenhorn
02-05-2004, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
Really? Which ones?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>F2G-2, He 112B-2, B-34/PV-1, J21, U-2VS, maybe a few others. Clearly its mostly just those that saw combat, some planes that were operational seem to be omitted--mostly just late war stuff.

Oh, and glaringly, the Bi-1, YP-80, Bf 109Z, and Go 229 are all missing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Skarphol
02-06-2004, 12:00 AM
I read an article in the FlyPast magazine, about a guy who where in his childhood during WWII in England. He was very interrested in planes, and had a notebook where he notet every single type of RAF airplane he could identify flying over him. He had more than 75 different types he could discriminate as a child!
He further wrote that now a days the RAF have only 25 different types, wich is far more than I expected.
I think the Norwegian Airforce only have 5 types of planes and 3 types of helicopters these days...

Skarphol

[This message was edited by Skarphol on Fri February 06 2004 at 04:06 AM.]

BfHeFwMe
02-06-2004, 12:09 AM
Mid to late thirties, the average lifespan for US Navy type was somewhere between a year to two if it was a better design. The advances were so rapid, and there was very little money to be awarded, depression still on, was very common to buy small batches. Actually worked out well in the end, once war hit the best proven base designs were rapidly brought on line. Amazing how many of the primary combat types were already in developement prior to the war. There were not that many new designs introduced until very late once the lead started flying.

Urist
02-06-2004, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
One reason for such diversity is that aircraft had to be so specialized compared to aircraft now days. Modern figters replace many classes of aircraft previously.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that if there was another war with two evenly matched opponents scrapping the different types of aircraft would multiply extremely fast.

During peacetime multirole aircraft are firstly cheaper to build then many types of specialized aircraft but aren't neccesarily good at all those roles. An F16 wouldn't last long with bombs strapped to it in a modern battlefeild against a capable opponent for example, something the Hornet is better suited for. A purpose built interceptor (even an old F106) is a better platform for blowing up bombers then most modern fighters as well. In fact, that old deltawinged plane would walk all over most teen fighters at high altitude and is the biggest reason it stuck around for so many years.

During total war there is generally the production capacity (and the will) to build specialized and superior (then your opponents) aircraft quickly adapting to what happens on the battlefeild. And you end up with a LOT of aircraft types as a result.

That and if the damn things get blown up as fast as you can build them, its rather easy to create 50 revisions of essentially the same plane trying to fix the problems in it that get exploited by the enemy every day. Rather then building a batch of 1500 planes and forgetting about them like they do in peacetime.

F16A
F16B
F16C
*Russia invades*
F16C-2 (extra armour for pilot, feild modification)
F16D-1 (lightened airframe, more powerful engine and improved aerodynamics allowing for better transonic performance)
F16D-2 (Air to Air IR tracking system installed)
F16D-3 (limited production model with no radar)
F16D-4 (same as D2 with better ejection seat)
F16D-5 (Front line defense fighter with no Radar, new 30mm cannon installed, lower fuel reserve)
F16E-1 (new cranked arrow wing and 30mm cannon, new GE "supercruise" thrust vectored engine installed allowing Mach 2+ flight and better supersonic manouverabilty)

on and on and on....

Yes, I have no life and felt like making up imaginary revisions of F16's for 5 minutes...

JR_Greenhorn
02-06-2004, 01:09 AM
Urist, you've got a good point there, life or no. The revisions are definately beleivable.

LEXX_Luthor
02-06-2004, 01:17 AM
I was reading something new:: Iraqi MiG~25s gave USAF a bad time in the first US/Iraq WAR.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight

Skarphol
02-06-2004, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
Urist, you've got a good point there, life or no. The revisions are definately beleivable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is not right for 99% of all conflicts nowadays. Unless an airforce has an extremely well developed early-warning concept, it's entire airfleet will be effectively wiped out within weeks. In all recent conflicts where the US has been involved, they have had complete air-supremacy, thus eliminating the need for implementation of new types during the conflict. Where the US has not been present, like Iran vs Iraq, India vs Pakistan, their airfleet has only played major roles during the inital states of the conflict. No new planes have ever reached the battlefield during the conflict, other than maybe something bought off the shelf from some foregin supplier.

Skarphol

fluke39
02-06-2004, 01:58 AM
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the desire to win a war is probably the largest factor in pushing forward the development of technology. - it would be strange to think where we might be, in terms of technological advancement, if there had been no WWII.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/angels_one_five/flukelogo.jpg

Fehler
02-06-2004, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fluke39:
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the desire to win a war is probably the largest factor in pushing forward the development of technology. - it would be strange to think where we might be, in terms of technological advancement, if there had been no WWII.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/angels_one_five/flukelogo.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just technological advances either. There were medical advances, and most importantly economical and social advances that came about as a result of the war.

Without the war, the world as we know it would not exist... well, not in the same manner as it does today.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2004, 03:33 AM
its more like 8 planes 3 different models for each, as for how many different planes in wwii from 1940s-45 definatly over 300 types

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

SKULLS_LZ
02-06-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
Really? Which ones?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>F2G-2, He 112B-2, B-34/PV-1, J21, U-2VS, maybe a few others. Clearly its mostly just those that saw combat, some planes that were operational seem to be omitted--mostly just late war stuff.

Oh, and glaringly, the Bi-1, YP-80, Bf 109Z, and Go 229 are all missing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PV-1 Ventura and U-2VS/Po-2 are in that index. He 112B-2 is not, though. Good catch!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

Jippo01
02-06-2004, 09:10 AM
Heinkel 59, Blackburn Ripon, Junkers W 34, just to mention few. I think that the list may have 99% of all aircraft that flew in WWII, but could have only 25% of the different types! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

FbusterMk3
02-06-2004, 12:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If you count all the Russian, American, British, German, Italian, Japanese, French and all of the other warbirds that were built by various other countries then you have ALOT of planes.

This boy's a genius.

Its certainly more combat aircraft and support craft than what exist now.

University grammar too.

BfHeFwMe
02-06-2004, 03:12 PM
In our day, a fighter squadron is given two years to convert from one type to another. One year for training of people and one for operational run up. That's an already experianced unit just converting from one type fighter to a different type. Now thinking your going to just slap out a new airplane and round up some noobs to man it in a war is rediculous. The war is going to be long over before they're ever ready.

Takes one day to shut a modern fighter squadron down, and about four to five years to get a new one combat ready from scratch.

Urist
02-06-2004, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
In our day, a fighter squadron is given two years to convert from one type to another. One year for training of people and one for operational run up. That's an already experianced unit just converting from one type fighter to a different type. Now thinking your going to just slap out a new airplane and round up some noobs to man it in a war is rediculous. The war is going to be long over before they're ever ready.

Takes one day to shut a modern fighter squadron down, and about four to five years to get a new one combat ready from scratch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safety, training, preperation, and quality are all things that dissapear quickly when bombs start falling on ones homeland. They would be looking at server logs from Il2 Sturmovik trying to find potential pilots that kind of know how to fly.

Nowadays they could build a complete crap aircraft that won't last six weeks, put some guy behind the stick with only a cursory introduction to the aircraft (computers could do most of the hard work of piloting a high performance fighter, even if it only kinda works), and then stick the most reliable and well built and safe armoured ejection seat you can into it and use it for defensive fighting and you have yourself a kind of effective airforce with pilots that might actually live. Its not like the pilot will have to a whole lot of landing. Install those airbag sensors from cars into the fighter to fire off the ejection seat incase something bad happens unexpectedly.

Engine quits? eject
MFD gives you a BSOD? eject
Bad guy fires missle at you? eject
Feel nervous? eject

Get picked up and brought back to base and given another shiney new bic F26 Disposable Fighter. Personally I think the chinese already have such a fighter somewhere waiting to go into full scale production.

But... I am somehwat intoxited right now so...