In terms of actually having an effect on the air war, what was the greatest aircraft of WWII?
>>28661426
ur mum's underwear after the elastic broke and they went flying.
>>28661426
likely a cargo plane. just like on land, the big truck moving shit to the front lines is what keeps the war machine going
C47.
Not only was it a great CAS aircraft and BTFO'd Zeros, it was also the original baneposter.
Also prolly the Bf-109 since it practically was the Luftwaffe or the Hurricane since it saved the brits.
>>28661426
Only one plane of WWII can actually be said to have stopped the war.
>>28661462
>likely a cargo plane
eh, here's the thing though, airlifts weren't that important as far as actually keeping the war going or affecting its outcome was concerned so the comparison to trucks isn't equivalent.
>>28661426
B-17
I would have to say the me410 and its brothers. The assault aircraft the germans were doing a good enough job not to need the jets. Or so they thought until it was too late. The way i see it. If that plane wasnt around the war would have been much different. Cant say that about any other plane by itself honestly. All the other aircraft worked in unison with other aircraft to get the job done.
>>28661692
Yer a tard.
I think it pertains more to the front/country it was fighting in
Hurricane for being the backbone of the RAF during the blitz, Hellcat/Corsair for trumping zeroes,P-51s for giving the 8th airforce actual fighter protection and so on
Comes down to the front it was fighting on imo
On a side note
Why are Me-109s sometimes called BF-109s? I grew up playing IL-2 and always wondered why they were classified as BF/Me
I know why they were called Me's since they were made by Merschermit but never knew why Bf was also a designation
Someone enlighten me please
>>28661692
dont you talk shit about my planefu
>>28661783
Me109 is an anachronism. They were made by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, or Bf. Willie Messereschmitt just designed it. His company had nothing to do with it.
>>28661783
I don't really know. All I know is that Me109 was never actually a correct name for it, BF109 was the officially used one.
>>28661471
I'm going to have to agree, the Corsair did an excellent job of making the fire rise.
>>28661783
>>28661811
All the "Bf" series planes came into service when Messerschmitt was still called Bayerische Flug. After the company changed names, you did have Messerschmitt designs carrying the "Me" designator, but "Bf" remained for the older planes.
It did depend on where you were, though. Swiss Bf 109s were designated Me 109.
>>28661426
My bet would be on the B17 or any other significant strategic bomber.
>>28661654
This.
>>28661654
/thread
Hurricane & Spitfire get the nod for denying Germany the ability to invade Britain. The outcome of the Battle of Britain determined whether or not Sealion could proceed.
P-51 was iconic but it's contribution(enabling deep bomber raids into Central Europe to resume) doesn't amount to as much as what the Spit/Hurri combo did
>>28661426
DeHavilland Mosquito. Aside from dropping biggest individual bombs like Tall Boys or Upkeep that Mosquito couldn't carry 4 engine bombers were just waste resources.
Mosquito carried more than half bombload of 4 engine heavy bombers and was too fast for Germans to be intercepted effectively.
Not to mention that it also had fighter versions and excelled in irrelevant stuff like photo recon.
>>28661654
>>28663885
>>28664022
>>28664030
It carried less bombs than B-24 and that too was shat upon by Lancaster.... and Lancaster was just less cost effective than Mosquito.
B-17 looked good and that is why it's remembered. With better engines it would have looked even better.
>>28661426
Spitfire, with a close second to the Hurricane.
Without them, Britain would have fallen in 1940, and the allies would have had no airbases to stage into Europe, and there wouldn't have been an air war at all.
>>28665215
this scenario just means the US is gonna bomb europe iwth B-36s instead
>>28661426
>bf109
In service from the start to the end of the war in every theater, at every altitude and always a plane, that was competetive.
There are faster, better turning or better armed planes but none that comes close to it, apart from the Spitfire.
>>28661426
BF109 without the slightest doubt. It's the single key plane of WW2.
>Hurricanes: entire life is fighting BF109
>Spitfires: entire purpose and life fighting BF109
>B17: slapping as many gunners on in hopes of stopping 109s (unsuccesfully)
>P51: whole existence is because no number of machine gunners can protect B17s from BF109s and a long-range escort is needed
If the BF109 hadn't been invented, none of these would be necessary.
BF109 ended the age of biplanes soon as they were used in the Spanish civil war. It's the fighter that had the most air kills of any plane in history (and maybe until the end of time as no fighter now ever gets near the 50 or 100 mark), BF109 had the most ace pilots in history, BF109 is the most produced fighter plane in history and its effectiveness and its limits were the entirety of how the air war went in the west front and the east front, above africa and even above italy.
>>28661467
>>28661486
/thread
>>28666711
>being worse than any american or british front line aircraft after 43
>>28664251
The B-17 is remembered because even though it was inferior to the B-24 on paper, it could take hits and bring its crew home. Meanwhile the B-24 was known for being a screaming metal death trap.
>>28664251
B-17 was a pre-war design that remained competitive until the end of the war. It was the signature plane of American air power and rightly so.
>>28666711
Wait... are you seriously suggesting that Bf109 was the first monoplane and that without it no one would have invented the monoplane?
>>28666815
In what way?
>>28666890
>agility, due to high wing loading
>range
>firepower
>G and later were hard to fly
>canopy gives very bad all round vision
>weak landing gear
besides, the KD is hugely inflated due to clubbing shitty soviet planes for two years
Tempest is where shits at
>>28666874
No dude, he didnt write that. But what he wrote is pretty accurate tbhfam
>>28666932
Not sure if just acting edgy, or being naive but ill bite
>>agility, due to high wing loading
Agility is more than just turning. Bf109s, while not on par with spitfires or yaks were still very much capable in keeping up. Most numerous post war complaint was the lack or boosted controls.
>>range
Solved with droptanks and the lack of having to fly across the channel
>>firepower
Mk108s, mg151/20 cannonpods disagree, as do propably many allied bombercrews.
>>G and later were hard to fly
The werent any harder to fly than other fighters with a narrow landing gear
>>canopy gives very bad all round vision
Solved with the erla hood and armoured glass instead of the until 43 used metal plate
>>weak landing gear
Granted.
>besides, the KD is hugely inflated due to clubbing shitty soviet planes for two years
changing goalposts. The eastern front was the far more demandking theater of war
>Tempest is where shits at
Too bad tempests werent as widely spread and produced. The spitfire is the only alled counterpart that saw as much service, although in smaller numbers.
>>28667012
Yeah like how the B-17 was invented to counter Bf109 despite being introduced one year earlier than it.
>>28667029
>Bf109 was the greatest because Germany could jerryrig solutions to its myriad weaknesses to make it somewhat competitive
This is what I'm getting from your post.
In terms of actually having a strategic impact, it important to make the distinction between objectively better aircraft verses those that were fielded in relevant numbers and good enough to get the job done. Obviously if the Luftwaffe had managed to crank out about 10,000 ME 262's things probably would have gone differently for the Allies, but despite it being a superior aircraft of revolutionary design, its impact on the war was negligible. World War II was a war of supply and logistics. Aircraft such as the Tempest and, say the P38 (in the European Theater) had much less of an impact than the heavy bombers coming from America, or the Yak fighters coming from the Soviets.
its probably one of the following:
IL-2 -- Not that Im a Soviet fanboy or anything, these things got shot down all the fucking time, but the raw number produced inevitably tied up much of the German Air Force on the Eastern front, effectively bleeding them out over there by attrition.
B-17/B-24 - Same thing. We made a lot of them, and the fact we could send them into Germany proper again made a huge impact on the European air war.
P-51 - was able to escort said heavy bombers, and was used to great effect.
>>28667029
>agility is more than just turning
Bf-109 was mediocre in any way. It was fast, not that agile.
>solved with droptanks
That's not ''solved''.
>MK-108's
Not that great, low projectile velocity, so hard to aim. Useful against bombers, less so against fighters.
Gun pods just made it even less agile.
>solved with erla hood
Not really, just improved.
>the EF was far more demanding
No it wasn't. By what measure?
Soviet Air Force was lacking until late-war, and Germans also inflated records like crazy.
Spitfire was a far better plane in all characteristics.
Only thing that Bf-109 has is the fact it served long and was okay. By late war it was rather outdated. Germans had good pilots and tactics, their planes were nothing special in reality.
>>28667072
OPs question was:
>In terms of actually having an effect on the air war, what was the greatest aircraft of WWII?
So what plane had a greater effect on the airwar in europe, the the most built and most used? Cant the the tempest because it didnt enter service before 44. Cant be the mustang because it was shit before 43. Cant be the yak9 because was mostly outclassed until late 44.
You dont have to be a naziboo to just see the numbers and being able to compare them.
>>28667141
>IL-2
being most destroyed airplane in all world history, getting a horrible amount of successful runs and wasting 20,000+ russian airmen does not equate to "Greatest" in any metric.
>>28667168
You'd have to be a moron to think that impact is measured by a single metric, namely number of units produced.
>>28667166
>Only thing that Bf-109 has is the fact it served long and was okay. By late war it was rather outdated. Germans had good pilots and tactics, their planes were nothing special in reality.
I never said it was special. Just able to fight enemys with a reasonable chance of coming out on top across the whole war in every theater. There is no wonderweapon like that.
>>28667185
Bf109 would've beaten IL-2 as the most destroyed plane of all time if the war went on for a few months longer.
>>28666846
Well that and the wings were in a better position on the 17. That said, not having a tail gun until the E model was a massive design oversight.
>>28661426
B-17 Flying Fortress
>>28666711
The 17 was designed before the 109 saw combat and the P-51 was a ground attack aircraft prior to the D model. P-47s spanked their asses in open combat pretty regularly, they just couldn't do long ranged escort runs, so were relegated to shorter range Ops.
>>28667186
single metric:
>numbers build
>theaters of service
>servicelife
>airkills/losses (inb4 muh slavs)
>performance compared to the planes met in the different theaters andd periods of the war
Would you add or remove anything?
>>28667240
>The 17 was designed before the 109 saw combat and the P-51 was a ground attack aircraft prior to the D model.
Who let in the 15 year old?
>>28667257
>Who let in the 15 year old?
Good question, but somehow you're here nonetheless.
>>28667257
>tfw you realize after making a snarky comment that you made an extremely retarded mistake
so awkward
>>28666711
Fw-190s were actually the main anti-bomber craft, 109s were mostly there to protect them from escort craft.
>>28661749
>Rock
>paper
>FLAMETHROWER!
>BAZOOKA!
>AIRCRAFT!
>>28661426
What ever Germany flew over France before they invaded it. It really was a core concept of the Blitzkrieg tactics they used to have an airplane scout everything out ahead of time. It was pretty important because Germany wiped France out in World War 2 because of it.
>>28661455
Checked and kekd
>>28667411
Germany lost half of their air force in the BoF. It was not an easy fight at all.
Hey guys don't mind me just winning the war in the Pacific
>>28661462
>>28661467
This.
Without the c-47. We would not have won war. This is a fact stated by General Patton. The c-47 was 1 of 5 things that without, would have lead to the loss of the war.
The aircraft continues to fly today and will always be the most iconic aircraft ever made.
>>28668252
>will always be the most iconic aircraft ever made
maybe its just me, but thats not how you spell UH-1.
maybe it aint me.
>>28661654
This.
Numbers win wars.
>>28668668
SOME FOLKS ARE BORN
>>28668882
MAAAAAAAADE TO WAVE THE FLAG
Bf109 was pretty much that aircraft in WWII.
>>28661486
>>28661692
>greatest plane
>Picks a plane used by the losing side
By the nature of the outcome of the war, anything the germans used did not have THE GREATEST afffect on the air war
The answer is actually not a plane, the greatest effect on the air war was American industry
>>28667029
>changing goalposts
nigga please, it's a worthwhile point when German fighter units are claiming several times the number of total aircraft in theatre as fighter kills
>>28669071
This is wrong. In fact Germany has the highest accurancy in their kill claims baed on post-war research.
They put quite the effort to get it right because even the German high command couldn't believe the high number of kills.
If you want to hear bullshit claims that ask how many tanks were destroyed by American and British aircraft.
>>28668948
Wrong: the post.
>>28669284
No they didn't.
>>28661491
>B-29
Probably this
>>28669388
>>28669446
>>28669071
butthurt Ivan
this
>>28664118
>The outcome of the Battle of Britain determined whether or not Sealion could proceed.
It was bloody important, but even with air superiority, the German 'invasion fleet' would have ended up at the bottom of the Channel. The Germans had demonstrated in Norway that they were near useless at sinking ships with aircraft.
>>28664211
>irrelevant stuff like photo recon
Are you taking the piss? Please tell me you're taking the piss.
>>28667194
> Just able to fight enemys with a reasonable chance of coming out on top across the whole war in every theater. There is no wonderweapon like that.
Fine and at what point could you not apply that to a Spitfire?
>>28667411
>Germany wiped France out
No, France surrendered due to crappy, fractured politicians and a desire to avoid that four year long hell that fucked mainly their country for four years.
>>28669576
>a plane that was pretty good, then ok during the BoB, then consistantly (due to upgrades) inferior then on a level with, contempory western fighters
>a plane that was used long past the point at which it should have been retired
The Germans kept using it because it was what they had and they couldn't replace them all with something better.
>>28669284
[citation needed]
>>28667029
laThr ter 109's were terrible for taking off since the small track and huge torque with the late engines
>>28667240
The B and C model p-51's kicked ass.
>>28669771
They used it because the maker of the plane was in bed with with RLM it's what kept the ta-152s and FW's from taking seniority.
I would go with the P-51 it allowed the US to cover the bombers all the way in Germany and had excellent characteristics minus the shit stall since it had the laminar wing which helped it. For the PTO I'd go with the hellcat or the B-29
>>28669731
Numbers. And while it saw service in the same theaters, some under other nations, they simply werent as widely spread.
This isnt about which was the better plane, which is hard enough to determine as it is since we would have to agree on the when and where, but about which was the most influential in the war.
>>28669841
But B and C models arent fighter bombers, like that anon you quoted claimed. They also had feeding problems to due bad placement of the feeding belts for the machineguns
>>28669071
Who was it again giving pilots 1/4 and 1/2 kills? Remind me please, i must have forgotten.
>>28669771
>>a plane that was pretty good, then ok during the BoB, then consistantly (due to upgrades) inferior then on a level with, contempory western fighters
What are you referring to?
>>28670833
>And while it saw service in the same theaters, some under other nations, they simply werent as widely spread.
Spitfire was used in Western Europe, Eastern front, Africa, Asia and Australia.
>>28664251
It...It has Allison engines....
>>28671027
I was referring to pure numbers outside of western europe and the mediterranian.
L&L for russia were few in numbers and by the timr they arrived, russins were able to supply themselfes.
I'll be honest, i dont have numbers for the PTO although i know about operations over china and infochina.
>>28671091
>watercooled engines on a bomber
Into the trash
>>28670833
I am pretty sure all p-51's has bombs racks available if need be. Most planes had feeling issues at some point, hispanos were terrible early in the war since when you turned it fucked up the feed.
>>28671128
I agree, but you have to admit that it looks sexy as hell.
>>28671149
I was actually referring to the M2 browning armed B and C variants. It was later solved by twisting the guns which also made space for 1 more gun in each wing.
Still, malcomhood p51 are my favourite american fighters.
