PDA

View Full Version : Best fighter, best bomber to serve for the duration



triad773
09-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Was thinking about this today: there are several models that flew successfully for the duration of the war and were still good through the end of hostilities through continuous upgrades.

For the Axis:
the BF-109 (fighter class)
Junkers rip off design of the Ford Tri-motor (Transport class)

For the Allies:
the B-17 (bomber class)
the Hurricane (fighter class)
DC-3 Dakota (Transport Class)

These are just my musings on the longevity of certain airframes that were relevent throughout the conflict.

Was wondering what others thought about this? I cannot recall an airframe of a bomber type that was relevant throughout for the Axis- but perhaps I'd overlooked something.

What do you Guys (and Gals) think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BRASSTURTLE
09-11-2007, 04:01 PM
By the end of the war, the -109 was outclassed by Allied fighters. Same for the Hurricane.
The JU-52 was a moving target, even by transport standards when not under fighter cover.

The P-38 & Spitfire both served for the duration & both had room for continued improvement.

Just my 2p

VF-17_Jolly
09-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Ju-88

Kurfurst__
09-11-2007, 04:04 PM
He 111 and the Wellington. Overlooked by many, overshadowed by overhyped 'warwinner' types.
Both were very capable bombers through the war.

VF-17_Jolly
09-11-2007, 04:10 PM
Messerschmitt 110, like the Junkers 88 came into its own as a night fighter

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-11-2007, 04:13 PM
I think that planes in the PTO earn a "workhose" title a little more.

S!

Xiolablu3
09-11-2007, 04:14 PM
Gotta say that I disagree with your choice of the Hurricane - Adolf Galland felt it was outclassed even in 1939. He writes in his book how his Bf109E was so far superior to the Hurricanes he shot down, that he felt no elation or sense of accomplishment after shooting two down.

I feel the Spitfire served for the duration of the war and was a competetive fighter from 1939 to 1945, whereas the Hurricane was pretty much a flying target after 1941, pressed into ground attack. I understand some will say the Spitfire is a cheesy choice, but just look at its record and the facts. The only mark I can really find fault with when compared to its contemporaries is the early MkV's, where it was outclassed by both the Bf109 and the FW190, but still competetive and could still be dangerous.

For the Axis, its a tough choice between the Fw190 and the Bf109, as the Fw190 wasnt there in 1939-40. I'd say this was a tie.

For bombers, I would say the Ju88 and the Mosquito. Both incredible aircraft.

Or are the FW190 and the Mosquito disqualified becasue they were not in service until 1941?

triad773
09-11-2007, 04:21 PM
Interesting responses so far... I thought perhaps the Hurri may have been a bit long in the tooth to include; the JU 88 I thought came later (feel free to prove me wrong though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Yeah Xiolablu3 I had overlooked the Spit (apologies on that- I know it is a very loved airframe).

The BF 109 went as far as G was it? So did the B-17. That I guess was what got me going on this track. Yeah the transports don't really count I guess, but they did keep flying, though out of necessity.

Thanks all for your continued input. I love history and was thinking about these things as they relate to what we love here.

Kurfurst__
09-11-2007, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
the JU 88 I thought came later (feel free to prove me wrong though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

The 'Big Stuka' was there at the start of the war, in small numbers though.


The BF 109 went as far as G was it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VF-17_Jolly
09-11-2007, 04:24 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Po-2_jno_rvb.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif1929-1959 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Quote
From the beginning, the U-2 became the basic Soviet civil and military trainer aircraft, mass produced in a factory "Red Flyer" near Moscow. It was also used for transport, and as a military liaison aircraft, due to its STOL capabilities. Also from the beginning it was produced in an agricultural aircraft variant, what earned it its nickname Kukuruznik. Although entirely outclassed by contemporary aircraft, the Kukuruznik served extensively on the Eastern Front in World War II, primarily as a liaison, medevac and general supply aircraft. It was especially useful for supplying Soviet partisans behind front line. Its low cost and easy maintenance led to a production run of over 40,000. Manufacturing of the Po-2 in the USSR ceased in 1949, but until 1959 a number were assembled in Aeroflot repair workshops.

After first trials of arming the machine with bombs in 1941, from 1942 it was adapted as a light night ground attack plane. German Wehrmacht troops nicknamed the craft the Nhmaschine (sewing machine) for its rattling sound. The material effects of these missions was mostly insignificant, but the psychological effect on German troops was much more noticeable. They typically attacked by complete surprise in the dead of night, denying German troops sleep and keeping them constantly on their guard, contributing yet further to the already exceptionally high stress of combat on the Eastern front. Their usual tactics involved flying only a few meters above the ground, rising for the final approach, cutting off the engine and making a gliding bombing run, leaving the targeted troops with only the eerie whistling of the wind in the wings' bracing-wires as an indication of the impending attack. Luftwaffe fighters found it extremely hard to shoot down the Kukuruznik, because the stall speed of both the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 exceeded the Soviet craft's maximum speed. The U-2 became famous especially as the plane used by the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, composed of all-women pilots and ground crew. The unit became notorious for its daring low-altitude night raids on German rear-area positions, veteran pilots Katya Ryabova and Nadya Popova on one occasion flying 18 such missions in a single night. It is also likely that further demoralization to the enemy occurred due to the pilots being female, and causing significant but mostly intangible losses. As such, they earned the nickname Night Witches (German Nachthexen, Russian Ночные Ведьмы). The unit earned numerous Hero of the Soviet Union and dozens of Order of the Red Banner medals; most surviving pilots had flown nearly 1000 combat missions at the end of the war and had taken part in the Battle of Berlin (1945).

North Korean forces used the Po-2 in a similar role in the Korean War (19501953). UN forces named it Bedcheck Charlie and had great difficulty in shooting it down " even though night fighters had radar as standard equipment in the 1950s, the wood-and-fabric-construction of the Po-2 gave only a minimal radar echo, making it hard for a hostile fighter pilot to acquire his target.unquote

Viper2005_
09-11-2007, 04:45 PM
Spitfire for the fighter.

WOLFPLAYER2007
09-11-2007, 04:54 PM
P47, fw190, p38.

faustnik
09-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Spitfire for the fighter.

Yeah, for longevity, Spitfire, Bf109.

triad773
09-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
P47, fw190, p38.

All very good airframes, but IIRC they came later than the onset of hostilities.

And I am a big fan of the P-38; but it came after a number of other successful airframes.

I was looking for active service craft; which I feel the BF 109, Spit fulfill.

I would have also said the Mustang, but from my understanding that grew out of wanting to have a variant of the P-40 for export (as in the P-51A; B).

Xiolablu3
09-11-2007, 05:20 PM
Yes Triad, you are basically correct, although it wasnt really a P40....

Britain wanted North American Aviation to build P40's for them as it was a tried and trusted American design that the British and COmmonwealth forces really liked.

However NA Aviation responded that they could build a far better fighter than the P40 for them, and so the Mustang was born.

I believe the Brits/Canadians/Poles first used P51's from Britain in late 1942? I am sure someone will put me right if that date is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Alison engined Mustangs were fast down low, but not good up high. Thats when the US and Brits both decided to try the Merlin in it, and the most well known Mustang was born. The Merlin Mustang.

triad773
09-11-2007, 06:08 PM
Yes Xiolablu3 I think you are quite correct in the association I seem to have between the P-40 and 51.

Over the years I've read things and have forgotten where to attribute it to but that sounds right.

Jediteo
09-11-2007, 06:11 PM
For the british, I would say the Hurricane, as it may not have won the war, but did prevent them from losing it.

I consider the DC3/C47/dakota a hugely important plane. There is a saying that amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

And, what has happend to this forum, more than 5 post and no "p51 won teh war post"?

GIAP.Shura
09-11-2007, 06:16 PM
IL2 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

triad773
09-11-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Jediteo:
And, what has happend to this forum, more than 5 post and no "p51 won teh war post"?

Not sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah I have an old buddy who used to like Avalon Hill military board games. He was a real enthusiast. I didn't start beating him until I made sure the supply lines were intact and the morale was decent (US Civil War, Napoleon Campaigns), as well as checking the capacity of the roads, etc.

The key for German transport was they lost so many experienced pilots in Norway (I think I can find a source for that- a book I read last year).

Yes the IL series had a great run- but it progressed beyond the IL-2 after 1944? Correct that if wrong.

FourShades
09-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Yes, PO-2, IL-2, Spitfire, BF-109, JU-88.

Really, if you look at total numbers and duration, the PO-2 and IL-2 probably have it. Both were highly performed, versatile and astoundingly important in the biggest and most hard-fought theatre of the war.

The IL-2 was still used heavily in the battle for Berlin. The IL-10 hardly saw any action in WW2 at all.

dangerlaef
09-11-2007, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
...
Junkers rip off design of the Ford Tri-motor..

You think Junkers ripped off Ford?

..you're funny.


ROFL

triad773
09-11-2007, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by dangerlaef:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triad773:
...
Junkers rip off design of the Ford Tri-motor..

You think Junkers ripped off Ford?

..you're funny.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey if you have a decent source that may change my opinion, I'm open.

dangerlaef
09-11-2007, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by triad773:

Hey if you have a decent source that may change my opinion, I'm open.

Well opinions differ on Wikipedia being a good source, but:

"In the early 1920s Henry Ford, along with a list of 19 other investors including his son Edsel, invested in the Stout Metal Airplane Company. In 1925 Ford bought Stout and its Hugo Junkersinfluenced aircraft designs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor

both the Ford Trimotor & Ju-52 have there origins in the Junkers F-13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_F_13

triad773
09-11-2007, 09:11 PM
Hmmm... OK so I think that justifies some reconsideration. I was hoping to learn something here, and I did.

The likenesses are sure there.

jarink
09-11-2007, 09:18 PM
Best bomber?

Absolutely the B-17!!! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Best fighter?

I would have to say the Spitfire by a hair over the 109. They were pretty close all the way through the war, but the Spit just looks prettier.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-11-2007, 09:46 PM
Best fighter in my opinion goes to the Hellcat. But I take it you all are not considering the PTO in this discussion.

S!

Skoshi Tiger
09-11-2007, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Jediteo:
For the british, I would say the Hurricane, as it may not have won the war, but did prevent them from losing it.


Although in service till the end of the war the Hurricane was out of production by the end of the war(1944). Still a great aircraft.

triad773
09-11-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Best fighter in my opinion goes to the Hellcat. But I take it you all are not considering the PTO in this discussion.

S!

I like the Hellcat, but think it entered the service after the Wildcat in 1943. A tubby little fighter that I enjoy on occasion, and from what I consider the beginning of hostilities. The Wildcat, while an excellent fighter which enter service in 1940 qualifies for that but didn't finish out the war in any useful permutation.

<EDIT> P.S. the B-17 was large in the PTO as well </EDIT>

Cheers

Triad

leitmotiv
09-11-2007, 11:55 PM
Served throughout the war as first line equipment? So easy a 10 year old can judge: Allied fighter: Spitfire (of course), Allied bomber: B-17 (of course, it first flew in 1935, no other bomber can match it for length of time as a first-line bomber, Allied or Axis---the Wellington was obsolete by summer 1943---that's why Harris withdrew it from the main offensive against the German heartland at that time---it was used in secondary theatres longer because it did not have to face first-class opposition), Axis fighter: Bf 109 (what else?), Axis bomber: Ju 88/188 (of course---the He 111 was withdrawn from ops over the UK in 1941 because it was too vulnerable leaving the Ju 88 and Do 217 to carry on, the SM 79 certainly soldiered on as a nocturnal torpedo bomber but it was not a first-class aircraft by the end---the Ju 88S and Ju 188 were the only relatively "hot" prop bombers that the Germans had left that traced lineage to 1939---the Japanese G3M was obsolete before Dec 1941).

Kurfurst__
09-12-2007, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Axis bomber: Ju 88/188 (of course---the He 111 was withdrawn from ops over the UK in 1941 because it was too vulnerable leaving the Ju 88 and Do 217 to carry on..

??? In 1941 almost all LW bombers (and the bulk was formed by He 111s) simply moved to the Eastern Front. So imho the comment is unfair. From that onwards, the traditional LW level bomber was rather absent on the Western Front (Frace/UK region), but dropping immense amounts of bombs on the Eastern Front, their main operational area.

Grand_Armee
09-12-2007, 01:28 AM
This is another crazy thread subject to much speculation and verbosity. We have one of these about every 45 days, don't we?

So...my opinion you ask?

Fighter: Spit vs. 109 argument? Cannot say. Both had models, altitudes, and scenarios where one was better to have than the other. One thing is for certain: The Spitfire was useless to the Allied bombing campaign until airfields were cleared in Normandy. It loses my vote.

B-17: Cannot fault this beast. There's no wonder it has more kills than any other warplane. You'd have to have stones the size of Texas to fly against it in a box formation. Still, in 1943 they were close to being driven from European skies. Did the Allied day bombing campaign crush German industry? The numbers say 'NOPE'.

Now we get to supply aircraft. Hands down we have the C-47. Many of which still fly today. Where supplies and paratroopers were needed, the c-47 was there. Could it fend off fighters...of course not. Where were the Spitfires during Operation Market Garden? Socked in. Ooops!

For those PTO fans, I have no answers. The Zero being the only beginning until end contender. And it grades a failure because it's pilot was poorly protected. The B-17 couldn't reach the Japanese home Islands, that was left to another Boeing creation.

Nobody should blame defeat or claim victory because of a piece of machinery. One should blame leaders and poor policies for defeat. Or the inverse for victory.

Victory is given to the side that has the most supply trucks, supply aircraft, and supply weenies. The best war-winning craft to serve thoughout the war were created by GM and Ford. If you can't truck it, **** it.

Whirlin_merlin
09-12-2007, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Best fighter in my opinion goes to the Hellcat. But I take it you all are not considering the PTO in this discussion.

S!

I think the issue is the use of the word 'duration' from a Eurocentric point of view that's '39-45 which kind of rules out your Hellcat (in fact it wasn't fighting the duration from a PTO stand point either). I'm also sure a Chinese view point wouldn't accept my '39-'45 duration either.

All that aside though Hellcat what plane! Got to love it! Just not a contender for best fighter for the duration of the War.

Mind you I don't really think the question in the OP is answerable, 'best' is too subjective. That said some airframes/concepts/planes/whatever turned out to be amazingly longlived and adaptable e.g spit,109,ju88,p38.

JG52Karaya-X
09-12-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by BRASSTURTLE:
By the end of the war, the -109 was outclassed by Allied fighters.

Yes indeed, the last versions of the Bf109 "only" reached over 720km/h, climbed at over 5000ft/min and although heavier than previous versions could still outturn their USAAF adversaries at slow speeds with relative ease, plus it received the extremly powerful Mk108 30mm automatic cannon which could down 4 engined heavy bombers with an average of 4-5 hits. Truely a worthless piece of equipment...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On the other hand the Hurricane was already heavily outclassed in 1942 and was taken out of frontline fighter services at about the same time. It was a good fighter early in the war and exactly what the British needed in BoB but it didnt age well compared to its Spitfire, Bf109 and FW190 competition.

Exchange Hurricane with Spitfire and we can talk about that.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-12-2007, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by triad773:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Best fighter in my opinion goes to the Hellcat. But I take it you all are not considering the PTO in this discussion.

S!

I like the Hellcat, but think it entered the service after the Wildcat in 1943. A tubby little fighter that I enjoy on occasion, and from what I consider the beginning of hostilities. The Wildcat, while an excellent fighter which enter service in 1940 qualifies for that but didn't finish out the war in any useful permutation.

<EDIT> P.S. the B-17 was large in the PTO as well </EDIT>

Cheers

Triad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got ya. I forgot you meant from beginning to end. Hellcat for what it accomplished in the amount of time it had was nothing short of excellent. A truly terrific fighter.

S!

leitmotiv
09-12-2007, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Axis bomber: Ju 88/188 (of course---the He 111 was withdrawn from ops over the UK in 1941 because it was too vulnerable leaving the Ju 88 and Do 217 to carry on..

??? In 1941 almost all LW bombers (and the bulk was formed by He 111s) simply moved to the Eastern Front. So imho the comment is unfair. From that onwards, the traditional LW level bomber was rather absent on the Western Front (Frace/UK region), but dropping immense amounts of bombs on the Eastern Front, their main operational area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More untutored idiocy from the veritable king of idiocy: read your Werner Baumbach, the Luftwaffe's greatest bomber pilot, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE LUFTWAFFE. The He 111H Gruppen were getting minced over the UK in the spring of 1941 so the decision was made to withdraw the He 111H from operations over the UK, the most demanding arena, and only use the Ju 88 and Do 217 over the UK. You will note, dunce, that only the Ju 88 and Do 217 are used by the remaining Gruppen in France from summer 1941 through the end of the German bomber Gruppen in the west in the summer of 1944 (with only the Me 410 Schnellbomber and He 177 as reinforcements). The Heinkel was deemed fit only for secondary theatres like the Med, Eastern Front, and Norway. The Heinkel only appeared in Northern Europe again as a launch platform for the Fi 103.

p1ngu666
09-12-2007, 03:04 AM
Fighter: Spit vs. 109 argument? Cannot say. Both had models, altitudes, and scenarios where one was better to have than the other. One thing is for certain: The Spitfire was useless to the Allied bombing campaign until airfields were cleared in Normandy. It loses my vote.

depends if you consider photo recon useful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

western allies, spit/wellington, axis, 109/ju88

Whirlin_merlin
09-12-2007, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Heinkel was deemed fit only for secondary theatres like the Med, Eastern Front, and Norway.

As much as i dislike (and find laughable) Kurfs' utter disregared for the involvment of Britian in WW2 I wouldn't class the Eastern Front as secondary.

However I agree (from what I've read etc) that the 111 was withdrawn from UK skies as it was getting minced, and moved to the EF because Soviet interception was less effective.

Before Kurf' kicks in, yes I know the EF was a priority and bombers were going to be sent there anyway but they didn't send 'the best bombers' as it were (IMO of corse.)

leitmotiv
09-12-2007, 03:16 AM
The Eastern Front was considered by the Luftwaffe to be a secondary theatre of operations in terms of the demands made on aircraft performance. This is common knowledge. The Beaufighter had made the night skies over the UK very perilous for German bombers by the late spring of 1941. The He 111H was considered a sitting duck by German aircrew in this arena.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-12-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Axis bomber: Ju 88/188 (of course---the He 111 was withdrawn from ops over the UK in 1941 because it was too vulnerable leaving the Ju 88 and Do 217 to carry on..

??? In 1941 almost all LW bombers (and the bulk was formed by He 111s) simply moved to the Eastern Front. So imho the comment is unfair. From that onwards, the traditional LW level bomber was rather absent on the Western Front (Frace/UK region), but dropping immense amounts of bombs on the Eastern Front, their main operational area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More untutored idiocy from the veritable king of idiocy: read your Werner Baumbach, the Luftwaffe's greatest bomber pilot, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE LUFTWAFFE. The He 111H Gruppen were getting minced over the UK in the spring of 1941 so the decision was made to withdraw the He 111H from operations over the UK, the most demanding arena, and only use the Ju 88 and Do 217 over the UK. You will note, dunce, that only the Ju 88 and Do 217 are used by the remaining Gruppen in France from summer 1941 through the end of the German bomber Gruppen in the west in the summer of 1944 (with only the Me 410 Schnellbomber and He 177 as reinforcements). The Heinkel was deemed fit only for secondary theatres like the Med, Eastern Front, and Norway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could not make your point without calling him a dunce or an idiot? I believe people tend to view ones opinions more rational and more serious without the insults. I can certainly understand it when its done in defense to a typical troll looking to stir up **** or something in that nature. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

S!

leitmotiv
09-12-2007, 03:22 AM
I am utterly weary of K's unschooled nonsense, as I imagine everybody else is. I, frankly, care not for your intrusions HaVok.

BGs_Ricky
09-12-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
B-17: Cannot fault this beast. There's no wonder it has more kills than any other warplane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Sorry but I think that there are many WWII warplanes that have more "kills" than the B-17...
The Bf-109 is probably the warplane that downed more aircrafts than any other...

M_Gunz
09-12-2007, 07:56 AM
Only one country I know of was in for the complete duration and that was Japan............

leitmotiv
09-12-2007, 08:07 AM
If you are going to count from 1937, then the USSR was in, too, by proxy in China, and in Spain, and directly in several sharp, short conflicts with Japan up to 1939. The USSR was fighting Finland in the winter of 1939-40, and, of course, in the European war proper from 1941-45. Too bad everything they had was obsolete by 1941. Nothing they fielded after was truly a world-beater.

zardozid
09-12-2007, 08:56 AM
A military airplane that did its job just as well at the end of the war as the beginning was the "Fi 156"

Bewolf
09-12-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I am utterly weary of K's unschooled nonsense, as I imagine everybody else is. I, frankly, care not for your intrusions HaVok.

Untrue. Kurfursts points may be debateable, but his behaviour changed "much" to the better lately. No whatsoever reason to drag the level of this dicsussion down again here, with all due respect. In this regard I completly agree to Havok.



Now to topic, I'd say the Spit and 109 win this hands down for the fighters.

bombers are debatable. The B 17 certainly is up there at the top with the bombers, but so is the Ju88, which was able to carry a similar bombload, but was much, much more versatile in its operation options.

About transports, it must be the DC3. The Ju 52 was neat, and a true classic, but the DC3 just beat it in nearly every regard.

Dive Bombers, the Ju87. Sure, it was in big big trouble when caught by fighters, but so was every other dive bomber. I lack knowldge, though, if it indeed was used to the very last days of the war. Were they all finally replaced by 190Fs?

Then we also still have float- and reconaissance planes. I lack knowledge in this area to judge.

luftluuver
09-12-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Untrue. Kurfurst's points may be debateable, but his behaviour changed "much" to the better lately. No whatsoever reason to drag the level of this dicsussion down again here, with all due respect. In this regard I completly agree to Havok.
+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The Ju88 barely made it. In Aug 1939, elements of Erpobungscommando 88 had been re-organized into I./KG 25 and received the 1st production Ju88A-1s. This new unit flew a mix of Ju88A-0s and A-1s.

The Spit and 109 are the only fighter contenders. For flying boats, the PBY and the Bv138.

M_Gunz
09-12-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Nothing they fielded after was truly a world-beater.

You mean besides the Yak 9DD at that international fighter competition at the end of WWII?

triad773
09-12-2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Ju88 barely made it.

That's what I remembered. One really good book I read last year was The Luftwaffe War Diaries by Cajus Bekker that indicated this was a later entrant (though not by much) into the conflict. Also it is my understanding that the Spitfire just made it in too, although not from any delays in being ordered, but getting them out to the field- from the added labour needed to construct the new elliptical wings. IIRC, even as late as 1941 when the BoB raged, Hurris were more plentiful because they were easier to manufacture.

I just think it's fascinating that, given the evolution of aeronautics during the war, that there were a few examples of airframes that were well enough designed to permit continuous upgrades that stood the test of time and conditions.

And I felt I have learnt more about some of the Russian examples as well in this thread.

triad773
09-12-2007, 01:33 PM
To clarify the position on Spits (great plane BTW) and when they entered service
The first Spitfire to enter service with the RAF arrived at 19 Squadron, Duxford, on 4 August 1938, and over the next few weeks aircraft were delivered at the rate of one a week to both 19 and 66 Squadrons (also based at Duxford). The next to be equipped with Spitfires was 41 Squadron at Catterick, followed by a succession of squadrons stationed at Hornchurch in Essex. The public's first sight of the Spitfire in RAF colours was on Empire Air Day, 20 May 1939 during a display at Duxford in which the pilot "belly-landed" his aircraft having forgotten to lower his undercarriage and was consequently fined 5 by the Air Ministry. By the outbreak of the Second World War, there were around 400 Spitfires in service with the RAF, and a further 2,000 on order.[8]

In an incident known as the Battle of Barking Creek on 6 September 1939, Spitfires were first blooded on a pair of unfortunate Hawker Hurricanes from no. 56 RAF Squadron. The Hurricanes were shot down by Spitfires of no. 74 RAF Squadron in a friendly fire incident over the Medway, leading to the death of P/O Montague Leslie Hulton-Harrop, the first British pilot fatality of the Second World War.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

RE: that last bit- unfortunate but also some consolation to know IRL they'd have difficulties ID'ing friendlies too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

VF-17_Jolly
09-12-2007, 01:49 PM
Short Sunderland 1937-1967

PBY 1936-1957

North American Harvard 1935+ (Everyone needs trainers)

Fox_3
09-12-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:

Dive Bombers, the Ju87. Sure, it was in big big trouble when caught by fighters, but so was every other dive bomber. I lack knowldge, though, if it indeed was used to the very last days of the war. Were they all finally replaced by 190Fs?


It flew in the night harrasment role to the last day of the war in Europe.