In your opinion Jow Forums what were the top 5 most effective aircraft during ww2?

Hi guys. I dropped half the bombs that ever fell on Nazi Germany. Does that count as 'effective' to you?

Attached: b17 hi rez.jpg (1800x1181, 1.39M)

it was and it wasnt. it was because it was the best military fighter to exist ever, fastest and most well armed plane of the day, it wasnt because there werent enough of them to make a difference, tactics were hamstrung by a retarded hitler who insisted it be used only for bombing the UK with tiny cuckbombs, and hampered by the fact there were no experienced pilots left at the end of the war to fly them

>Me 262
>The best military fighter ever
You arn't being serious

Attached: Opinion_discarded.jpg (914x693, 311K)

Of WW2 I think he means. And I guess he's right. however I think it was more suited to anti-bomber roles.

Mosquito was the best in so many roles, it just blew the pants off every other airframe

Your bigger brother dropped 2 bombs and ended the war. Why can't you be like him?

B-17 was sexy as fuck, but B-24 and B-29 were more useful

Anti-submarine/shipping version, the ground attack version w/8 5" rockets had the fire power of a small cruiser

Attached: Mosquito_In_Action_Part_II_2[1].jpg (976x738, 81K)

HMRN version

Attached: Mosquito_In_Action_Part_I_2[1].jpg (883x666, 79K)

the finns lost

Here's my list for different reasons in no particular order, of the European theater, some are shared:

B-24/17: Were the only heavy bombers to be produced in such massive numbers during the war, seriously damaged German industry and infrastructure, and bled out the Luftwaffe. The B-24 was also responsible for closing the air gap in the Atlantic, denying U-boats any safe patrol areas.

Ju-88/Mosquito: These aircraft could do just about anything with virtually no major changes to the air frame. They were both extremely effective as medium bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, path finders, and night fighters.

Fw-190: More easy to build, maintain, and fly than a 109. The Luftwaffe got loads of use out of these aircraft as fighters and ground attack aircraft. It was extremely useful when Germany was dealing with production constraints, poor conditions in the field, and shortages of experienced pilots.

P-51: Stupid fast and capable of long range escort missions. Responsible for the majority of late war Luftwaffe losses.

C-47/ Dakota/ Li-2/ L2D (I know its Japanese): Everyone was using this plane.

Attached: B-17 Radar Jammer.jpg (800x570, 136K)

P-51 Mustang
B-29 Superfortress or B-24 Liberator
BF-109
P-47 Thunderbolt
Supermarine Spitfire or Hawker Hurricane

In order
>B-17
>B-29
>FW-190
>Il-2 (shitty but numerous)
>B-25

Its actually kind of hard to narrow it down to 5 because there were an immense amount of aircraft that made a definite impact on the war or that were almost if not perfect for the role they were intended for and more

Top 5
Spitfire
B-17
P-51
Fw-109
P-47

Honorable mentions
Il-2
F6F Hellcat
Mosquito
Bf-109
Ju-88
A6M
B-26

>it was more suited to anti-bomber roles
That's all it ever could've done by that point. A high enough speed makes you basically invulnerable in air combat, but if you don't have air superiority it doesn't really matter, because those planes are on borrowed time anyway. One thing the British would do was wait for an Me 262 to be spotted attacking Allied bombers and then immediately scramble Tempests that would head for the German airbase. They'd get there by the time the jets were returning to base and shoot them down on their takeoff approach.

imo
Super Marine Spitfire
P-51
Corsair
B-29
Mitsubishi Zero A6M

>was the 262 really all that effective though? I heard it wasn't.

It had the potential to be incredibly effective against bomber formations. Though it was never sortieing in the numbers it needed, the airfields weren't safe, and it needed experienced pilots to fly it.

1. The Douglas C-47
Logistics win wars. When you're half way across the globe from both theaters of war, the aircraft that can get you there is the most important aircraft you have. Would also see service long past the end of the war and gave birth to the concept of the areal gunship.

The other four don't matter.

it managed a 4:1 ratio, but by then it was too late
the skies over germany were already lost, and not enough of them were produced to make a difference

so it was efficient, but not effective

That's right baby

Attached: Olive-drab_painted_B-29_superfortress.jpg (2792x2180, 495K)

C-46 carried more over a longer range though

Hi, I had a 70% mortality rate. Does that count as 'effective' to you?

It was scary to go up against them in combat but there were not enough to do any real damage to the US and UK air forces. Also because of the blockades and lost territorys the engines could only be made with steel and not nickel and other precious metals, giving each engine something like 9-12 hours of full flight time before having to be completely replaced. Making them extremely expensive to fly.

>Hi, I had a 70% mortality rate.

Those were acceptable losses.

Because it's Phil, he always will be a disappointment. Just ask his parents.

obviously while it was contemporary you ignorant sasquatch

it did a remarkable job at that, the problem was a numbers game. there were like 200 operational. they were spread way too thin, required way too much maintenance to keep airworthy, and the allies had flooded the skies with cheap mass produced bombers on multiple fronts

Fighters cost effectiveness wise, through all the fielded variants and in no particular order, I think Yak, LaGG/La, Bf 109, P-51 and the Fw 190.

The P-38 was queen of the skies in both theaters...
Range, speed, firepower/ordnance-she had it all!

Attached: Dobbs-Pictures-002.jpg (2153x1500, 2.65M)

And it sees all

Attached: DROOP SNOOT.jpg (768x565, 79K)

well US factories were rolling a B-25 off the assembly line every 10 minutes, what did we expect?

Yak-3/7/9
La-5/7
IL-2
Pe-2
Aircobra

Ju 87 was essential to the initial successes of kraut war effort despite being kinda obsolete right at the start, so atleast an honorable mention
did the VVS unironically do anything worthwhile in the entire war? Swarms of sturmoviks later on sure but anything else?

Shot down most of the Luftwaffe and technologically nearly caught up Western countries by the end. They learned quickly. t anotherfag

>me262
>effective

Lol no

1. Bf109
2. Hurricane
3. B29
4. P51
5. il2

>Ju 87 was essential to the initial successes of kraut war effort despite being kinda obsolete right at the start, so atleast an honorable mention
The same could be said about the A-10 then however.

For be it be
1. SBD Dauntless for sinking most Jap carriers at mid way

2.hellcat had alpt less teething problems than corsair and made more aces than any other allied aircraft.

3. US strategic bombers (b24 b14 b29) for destroying axis nations ability to fight.

4. P51 for being the first single engine fighter to be able to even escort them all the way to Germany and back.

5. Hawked Hurricane for being the real winner of the battle of Britain was available in larger numbers took a lot more damage and was easier to repair and fly than the spit fire. Shot down 60% of axis fighters in the battle. Top scoring squadron and ace both flew the hurricane during the battle

Attached: 20160520_101751.jpg (2560x1536, 789K)

Spitfire
Mosquito
Fw 109
Ju88
IL2

I wonder if there's a slight bias in this post

190 sorry, had a brain fart and said 109

No my favorite aircraft is the 109f4 but op said most effective not highest performance and all of these aircraft played a critical part in winning the war.

Attached: 20160520_112159.jpg (2560x1536, 629K)

Doing stuff

1. II-2, for being the most widespread and effective eastern-front ground attack aicraft

2. Bf 109, for being the core of Germany's fighter force for the entire war and being effective right until the end

3. Various strategic bombers for damage to industrial capacity and redirecting resources

4. Hellcat for being the backbone of the US pacific naval air forces

Loath to pick a #5, Battle of Britain is a meme because aircraft didn't decide anything decisive.
-Sptifire for UK backbone whole war considered
-Zero for Jap backbone
-FW-190 for being better than the 109
-P-51 for being good

>C-47
Good call on this.....most people wouldnt have even thought of a transport

If we talking performance then it would be more like

1. Me 262 first jet fighter almost untouchable if flown by good pilot

2. TA 152 successor to the D series long nose fw190 insane high alt performance and speed.

3.A6M Zero a head and shoulders above all other naval and most land based plane at time of introduction.

4. Fw 190 (at time if introduction) caught allies by surprised was faster than everything else at the time and had highly advanced throttle controls for the time which made it easier and less distracting to operate than allied fighters.

5.P47 mixed heavy firepower, speed, and durability in one package. Was feared by German pilots and at high speeds was very maneuverable thx to elliptical wing. And later variants added a wet wing design that allowed them to escort bombers to Germany and back.

Attached: 20160520_103023.jpg (2560x1536, 754K)

Totally forgot about il2 desu user however the 109s effectiveness late war is hard to debate due to the low quality of there pilots at the time. Also by late war allied planes had caught up to and surpassed it in some respects, but I can definitely see why it could be considered one of the most effective planes of the war. My personal reason for choosing mainly allied planes was the fact that they actually helped win the war where as the 109, zero, and 262 failed to do so and we're unable to deal with high numbers of bombers and escort fighters later in the war.

Attached: 20160520_101911.jpg (2560x1536, 793K)

Il-2 best german killing machine

The 262 was the Panther of the skies.
Unreliable piece of shit that compromised too much and didn't amount to anything.

IL-2
Best plane Soviet plane

>Insert literally any western allied heavy bomber here
>Bf-109
>Mustang
>Zero
>Any german light/medium bomber here

>70% mortality rate
Jesus, are you literally just making up numbers now?

Ju-88
J7W
Yak 9
Tigercat
B-29

They fought most of the Luftwaffe until 1943

The t6 Texan and its other varients also can be considered since it helped in trading a retarded amount of allied pilots

Attached: 20160520_112430.jpg (2560x1536, 780K)

user did you even read the criteria? The tiger cat never even saw any action.

Attached: 1507341607758.jpg (460x345, 35K)

This is the only correct answer.
>11 crew
>firebombed the fuck out of Japan (88-97k civ KIA)
>nuked Hiroshima(70-80k instant KIA, up to 140k residual)
>nuked Nagasaki (35-45k instant KIA, up to 60k residual)
>out of 3970 B29s TWO account for more than 200k kills in less than 10 seconds
>Patton was wrong
Pretty good case for most deadly predator.

Interestingly the first b29s where used as cargo planes sending supplies to bruma

Attached: 20160520_112122.jpg (2560x1536, 837K)

>KIA
Killed civilians are called casualties.

Was it cost effective anyway?

>Was it cost effective anyway?
How could ending the war without an invasion not be cost effective? Purple Hearts made for the casualties expected from the invasion of mainland Japan are still being given out to American soldiers today.

>is critical of Me 262
>post IL2 and Hurricane as effective
Autism at its peak

Japan would have conscripted every last man, woman, and child if need be, and they would have bloodily fought to the last, and everyone knew that.

They weren't civilians, they were soldiers in waiting.

Good opinion on the 190. From what I understand it had a rudimentary power management unit that controlled fuel and propellor pitch adjustments in accordance with the pilot’s throttle movements, and the Soviets considered copying the Dora for use in their own Air Force for its ease of use, but decided against it as the war was nearly over anyway.

The automatic rpm/throttle management was a feature of many German planes.

You think that the only other option to nuking was invasion?
Starving them out and letting soviets die for few islands would have been great.

>Starving them out and letting soviets die for few islands would have been great.

They were already starving and the Soviets weren't capable of launching an invasion of the mainland.

In no order
Ju52
C47 and all of the foreign variants
Ju88
Mosquito
Bf109

>Soviets weren't capable of launching an invasion of the mainland

The Russians were days from landing on Hokkaido.

as an ex-soviet, I`d say all those big bombers americans flew - I don`t know if they were technologically that advanced, but no other plane had so much impact in ww2 as those. Also british had some nice fighters, spitfires I think. Soviets had Yakovlv construction fighters (later variants), thn Lavochkin fighters entered production. Th Il-2 also became sort of a legend of soviet airforce

Which air museum is this?

>did the VVS unironically do anything worthwhile in the entire war? Swarms of sturmoviks later on sure but anything else?

Nigger, most of the war was happening in eastern front and it wasn`t limited to just ground warfare... Just so you know

>The Russians were days from landing on Hokkaido.

Invading through Hokkaido would be a goddamn nightmare even if they were adequately prepared and their merchant marine wasn't preoccupied with lend lease.

>79 Posts
>No love for the Catalina

Shes a sexy plane who could do it all

Attached: PBY_5A_Catalina.jpg (415x468, 124K)

It's mostly planes which were too fast for their pursuers and/or were countering badly trained pilots:
Me 262, B-29, F6F and most what Fins flew.

Attached: Fiat_G.50_(SA-kuva_111706)1.jpg (2481x1742, 2.2M)

1. Enola Gay
2. Bockscar
3. ???
4. ???
5. ???

Actually it was closer to 33%

Don't feel like look up the actual statistics but I consider myself an expert in America's bombing campaign in Europe so take my word for it.

Roughly 13000 B-17s were produced. Roughly 4000 were lost in combat.

The first 5 missions of a crews 25-35 mission tour were generally the most dangerous due to lack of crew experience, maybe that's where the 70% comes from. I wouldn't be surprised to find that 70% of crews lost were before that crew surpassed 5 missions.

She did spot the jap carriers at Midway so it has credibility as a scout. Plus it was great for rescuing downed pilots and sailors in the water. Could also be used as a torpedo bomber and light bomber.

In terms of technology the B-17 was outdated when it was first put to use. The B-24 was on par, even though the only nation with enough similar aircraft to compare was Britain. The B-29 was ahead of it's time. Unfortunately the B-32 was introduced too late to have a measurable impact.

And it did good duty as a night cout and some light air support with the dual 50s and 30s

Black cats used to drop empty beer bottles on nips to keep 'em awake with the whistling...

You mean it would be a nightmare for japs - soviets would have slaughtered their way through japland, logistics would have been just minor annoyances to soviets

The B-32 was inferior to the B-29 in nearly every metric

I can't remember the name it's somewhere in northern California i believe it was a few years back and I moved to Texas soon after so it's a blurr sorry user

Attached: 20160520_105043.jpg (2560x1536, 760K)

>You mean it would be a nightmare for japs

No, a nightmare for the Soviets. After an amphibious operation the likes of which they've never attempted, Soviet forces would be forced into mountain fighting and they're in Japan's backwater region and quite a ways from anything of actual importance. There's a reason Hokkaido was the last place to be invaded in the US invasion plan. Also they'd need to pull their merchant marine from the pacific supply route, which supplies them with a great deal of food which they desperately needed.

>the only single time a Soviet strategic offensive is repelled during WW2 is done by the Finns (and Detachment Kuhlmey)
>Finns avoid Soviet occupation and won't become an Eastern bloc satellite state and a total bitch to the USSR
>lose 10% of territory
If you had to lose against the Soviets, I think this the way to do it.

Attached: 1280px-Kolmen_valtakunnan_rajapyykki_27.4.1945.png (1280x977, 977K)

Hawker Hurricane. Spitfire is overrated. Like seriously overrated. Its impact on the war dwarfs that of the Spitfire.

Ayy That's castle AFB isnt it?

Castle AFB, OP is a faggot and forgot to post the B36 they have there.

Okay, loser.

Yea I really appreciated it after going thru pilot training. Cause having to control my propeller pitch, throttle, and fuel mixture manually was no biggy just going from point a to b but I can definitely see how it can be a problem in combat when you need every ounce of performance. Especially for a newer less experienced pilot having just one lever for all of thise will give them the ability to be 100% focused on the enemy.

Attached: 20160113_213420.jpg (1536x2560, 472K)

I think so can't remember for sure:/

Attached: 20160520_113417.jpg (2560x1536, 598K)

And a good day to you too, Kreml employee.

Attached: vlcsnap-2018-06-27-22h38m23s226.jpg (426x240, 26K)