If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 3, 3:38 am, Eunometic wrote:
I'm slowly getting convinced that it was essential but retain doubts. How about posting a revision of your list, fixing the couple important typos and any concessions you might have been pursuaded into? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"rob" wrote in message ... "Eunometic" wrote Essential Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been designed. I have to disagree. The Wellington was the best bomber available until the Lancaster and Halifax came along, the fact that over 11,000 were produced speaks for itself. Keith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "rob" wrote in message ... "Eunometic" wrote Essential Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been designed. I have to disagree. The Wellington was the best bomber available until the Lancaster and Halifax came along, the fact that over 11,000 were produced speaks for itself. Not to mention its long service life. Keith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 2, 7:06 am, Eunometic wrote:
Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Series numbers need to be included in your listing, as some marks of each of these aircraft made far more of an impact than others. Eric Brown told us that "by FAR [his emphasis], the Spitfire XIV was the most outstanding British fighter of the war." For "best fighter of the war", he left absolutely no doubt, stating that "...with the Me 262, it was apparent after a few flights that we were... years behind in fighter development." He felt it was a superb fighter with good range for the day, a remarkably heavy armament, and few vices. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. I think the amount of damage it did as an Intruder and marking targets for Main Force heavies cannot be underestimated either. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Strange to see the Wimpy in here but we simply must include something from Mr. Wallis. He 111: early bombing workhorse Redundant, I think, if you are including the Ju on your list, as it was clearly superior in all regards. Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. very few successes in this role. As a night bomber, it was inefficient and could not survive most attacks. I think the Ju 88 was "Essential", and the Do was not. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Strongly disagree. I have known Me 210 / 410 pilots and they thought the 210 was "ghastly" "horrible to fly", and the 410 was "too complex; filled with gadgets" although the Gruppe commander of the Schnellbombers said he really thought the glass panel between the feet was an excellent idea. I don't know what role the 210/410s filled that other aircraft could not have done better. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. I think it was essential, just stupidly ignored. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. By the time it matured into an effective bomber, its bases were under Allied-controlled skies, making good use impossible. Germany needed a heavy bomber in 1940-41; by 1944, they were just targets for roving Allied fighters. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just about it! P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard the heavy bombers. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. Greater warload as well. I think these were both essential. B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course). P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. But faster, which is important if you are in amongst enemy fighters. Helldiver: too many handling problems. Blew. Only "replacement aircraft" that I know of that was taken out of service and "replaced" by the aircraft it was supposed to replace. Crews called it "the Beast", and I have to date never met anyone that liked it in any way. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the 51 excelled. Primarily, the P-51 beat everyone else in its fielded numbers; what is better, five squadrons of P-38s or 25 squadrons of Mustangs, with a much higher sortie rate and far lower price tag? Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U. Hellcat did a good enough job. You have a talent for understatement. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential naaaaa. Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 The last LaGG and the Yak 9 absolutely should be on your list. v/r Gordon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:11 -0700, Gordon
wrote: massive snipping P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard the heavy bombers. My next door neighbor when I lived in Corpus Christi was the CO of the first P-38 squadron to deploy to North Africa. He'd spent the immediate pre-war years as a test piliot Selfridge AAF near Detroit. He had lots of stories about the number of aircraft that spent time on the bottom of Lake St. Claire. He also said the P-38 was a very good aircraft but that tangling with 109s was a tough job. The 38 was faster but the 109 turned better. The 38s he took over had an artificial limitation on the turbocharger compliments of Allison. After he lost five or six planes he said, "to Hell with Allison" and removed the limit. That stopped aircraft losses, but meant overhaul of the engine at about 100 hours. This made the supply guys REAL unhappy as they were not capable (in the beginning) of supplying sufficient engines. He described a meeting where he got into a shouting match with a couple of Allison guys and a couple of "feather merchant" generals. He was not relieved, but after the North African campaign he was sent back home and spent the rest of the time in the test and evaluation program. Went over as a major in '42 and retired as a full bird in the late 50s. His final opinion was that the 38 matured into a really fine aircraft for the Pacific because of two engines and very long range. It was a superb photo bird and decent ground attack aircraft (although, like any any liquid cooled engined aircraft, the cooling system was an Achilles Heel). He thought the P-47 was the AAF premier CAS aircraft. He's been dead some years now. He was a cool guy to drink beer with. B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course). The Avenger was an excellent scout, glide bomber, and gave yeoman (if largely unhearled service) operating off CVEs. If you've ever seen one on the deck of a CVE you'll get some idea of what big airplane on little deck really means!!!!! :-) It was also the first COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. Mail is a REAL morale booster so that, alone, might make it "needed." ;-) Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U. There are countervieling opinions. :-) The Marines made good use of the F4U and it would serve through Korea (long after the F6F was history). Like the P-38 it seemed to mature well. Hellcat did a good enough job. You have a talent for understatement. Indeed. And let's not forget the F4F that carried the battle for about the first two years of the War, then joined the TBM on the CVEs as first rate U-boat killers. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:11 -0700, Gordon
wrote: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just about it! Well, there was the P-39..... P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. But not long-range capable to the same extent nor with the same performance; and the timing is easy to overstate the first combat-capable P-47C's were operating in April 1943, the first combat-capable P-51B's in November 1943. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the 51 excelled. More importantly, the P-51 was an altitude-capable long range fighter escort in the ETO at a time when the P-38 wasn't, despite its long range. Gavin Bailey -- Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 3, 9:49 am, Gordon wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:06 am, Eunometic wrote: Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Series numbers need to be included in your listing, as some marks of each of these aircraft made far more of an impact than others. Eric Brown told us that "by FAR [his emphasis], the Spitfire XIV was the most outstanding British fighter of the war." I believe Galland made the comment that the best thing about the Mk XIV was that there were so few of them. I think about 860 produced for servive and perhaps jut over half that number in use at one time. Most had clipped wings since it was feared that stresses were to great. The Mk XIV was an interim type: till the Mk XVIII introduced a tapered stainless steel spar for extra strenght while the parrallel Mk 20 received a completely new wing of much stiffer structure to reduce aeroeleasticity and thereby increase roll rate. For "best fighter of the war", he left absolutely no doubt, stating that "...with the Me 262, it was apparent after a few flights that we were... years behind in fighter development." He felt it was a superb fighter with good range for the day, a remarkably heavy armament, and few vices. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. I think the amount of damage it did as an Intruder and marking targets for Main Force heavies cannot be underestimated either. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Strange to see the Wimpy in here but we simply must include something from Mr. Wallis. He 111: early bombing workhorse Redundant, I think, if you are including the Ju on your list, as it was clearly superior in all regards. Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. very few successes in this role. As a night bomber, it was inefficient and could not survive most attacks. I think the Ju 88 was "Essential", and the Do was not. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Strongly disagree. I have known Me 210 / 410 pilots and they thought the 210 was "ghastly" "horrible to fly", and the 410 was "too complex; filled with gadgets" although the Gruppe commander of the Schnellbombers said he really thought the glass panel between the feet was an excellent idea. I don't know what role the 210/410s filled that other aircraft could not have done better. Complexity was the way to go; the remote control guns needed even more complexity; computers to calculate lead I think. However I note that LeMay insisted that his escorts fly ahead of the B-29 to prevent head on an side attacks. The computers dealt well with tail attacks only. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. I think it was essential, just stupidly ignored. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. By the time it matured into an effective bomber, its bases were under Allied-controlled skies, making good use impossible. Germany needed a heavy bomber in 1940-41; by 1944, they were just targets for roving Allied fighters. Perhaps some use against convoys where the Fw 200 was inadquete and against the Soviet unions ural factories. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just about it! Clive Caldwell showed it could be deadly against the Me 109. P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard the heavy bombers. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. Greater warload as well. I think these were both essential. B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course). P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. But faster, which is important if you are in amongst enemy fighters. I think the versions with the extended span, the b-26G was no faster. What if a PW2800 was placed aboard the B-25 instead of the CW2600. Helldiver: too many handling problems. Blew. Only "replacement aircraft" that I know of that was taken out of service and "replaced" by the aircraft it was supposed to replace. Crews called it "the Beast", and I have to date never met anyone that liked it in any way. Yet it eventually sank the Yamato using vertical 90 degree dives P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the 51 excelled. Primarily, the P-51 beat everyone else in its fielded numbers; what is better, five squadrons of P-38s or 25 squadrons of Mustangs, with a much higher sortie rate and far lower price tag? Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U. Hellcat did a good enough job. You have a talent for understatement. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential naaaaa. Ki 84 did 430 mph when run on US f100/130 fuel. Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 The last LaGG and the Yak 9 absolutely should be on your list. v/r Gordon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Eunometic wrote:
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft. *********************************************** I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so ineffective that they were not needed at all. A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains in production. United Kingdom Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Non Essential: Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy. Hampden; Halifax; a good aircraft but Lancaster was better. Stirling; a waste of time although a saluatory lesson. Tempest and Typhoon: These aicraft had very poor high altitude performance and the typhoon had handling difficulties, was not particularly fast due to its thick wing and its airframe tended to snap of at the tail By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better. It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a two stage Griffon. Germany: Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in non essential so I've added the column 'might have' Essential: Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98 atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph. The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed better with superior fuel. Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses. ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber, maritime patrol etc. Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates of any Luftwaffe aircraft. He 111: early bombing workhorse Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable during this process. They were both shot down by their own German FLAK. Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied resources. Non essential: Do 17 Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns but I don't think these were decisive. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. Helldiver: too many handling problems. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 Unsure; Yakalove, LaGG, MiG series of fighters seemed to overlap in function. The MiG 3 only failing to secure production because its engine was needed. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing to possess! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 2, 3:49?pm, "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
Eunometic wrote: Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft. *********************************************** I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so ineffective that they were not needed at all. A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains in production. United Kingdom Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Non Essential: Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy. Hampden; Halifax; a good aircraft but Lancaster was better. Stirling; a waste of time although a saluatory lesson. Tempest and Typhoon: These aicraft had very poor high altitude performance and the typhoon had handling difficulties, was not particularly fast due to its thick wing and its airframe tended to snap of at the tail By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better. It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a two stage Griffon. Germany: Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in non essential so I've added the column 'might have' Essential: Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98 atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph. The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed better with superior fuel. Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses. ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber, maritime patrol etc. Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates of any Luftwaffe aircraft. He 111: early bombing workhorse Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable during this process. They were both shot down by their own German FLAK. Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied resources. Non essential: Do 17 Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns but I don't think these were decisive. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. Helldiver: too many handling problems. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 Unsure; Yakalove, LaGG, MiG series of fighters seemed to overlap in function. The MiG 3 only failing to secure production because its engine was needed. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing to possess!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - OK, how about foresight, then? 21st century US Non-Essentials: F-22 Raptor V-22 Osprey Rob |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
There are some real whoppers in your list, and critical omissions too. I'll
concentrate on the USA, which I know best: USA On 2-Oct-2007, Eunometic wrote: P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. TOTALLY WRONG. The P-38 was a FAILURE in the ETO, due to poor high altitude performance from defective engines and unreliable turbosuperchargers. Its unheated cockpits were another significant liability because of their effect on pilot performance. It was a long-range wonder in the Pacific, where it fought at lower altitudes, but was a failure in the ETO. In parallel with this is your assertion that the P-51 was "not essential." Only the P-51 had the necessary escort range. Without it the daylight bombing campaign would have failed in late 1943. Moreover, the 51 outperformed virtually all-prop driven Axis fighters. This aircraft won the air war for the Allies in the ETO. One statistic says it all. In 1945 the only 8th AF fighter group still flying the P-47 was the 56th FG. All others flew the 51. This wasn't an accident. BTW, the "wet wing" P-47Ms you tout had huge engine reliability problems, which kept them grounded most of the time. A truly essential aircraft you overlook was the C-47 transport. "General Dwight Eisenhower described the C-47 as one of the four machines that won World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft." http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html In the Pacific the early "essentials" were the Wildcat and the Dauntless. JAPAN In addition to the A6M Zero, I think you also need to include the two other carrier aircraft Japan possessed at the outset: the "Val" dive bomber and the "Kate" torpedo/level bomber. All three were essential to Japanese naval air power, even after defeat at Midway. I'm not sure any Japanese twin engine bomber was "essential." They all had fatal design flaws (lack of armor and flammability) that made them little more than flying targets. The Japanese air war was first won, then lost, by their single engine aircraft. Speaking of which, I don't see the Army Ki-84 as essential. IMHO that plaudit goes the the Nakajima Hayabusa Ki-43, which like the Zero served throughout the entire war. USSR I don't think you can exclude the Yak fighters, especially the Yak-9. I will also include a surprising choice for an "essential" Soviet A/C: the Bell P-39. It is remarkable how many Soviet aces not only flew that aircraft, but greatly favored it. My comments, FWIW. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two essential items... | john smith | Piloting | 19 | December 26th 06 02:48 AM |
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft | ChrisEllis | Piloting | 6 | January 17th 06 03:47 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |