Most Influential Aircraft of W W I I

At the end of the day it is just a personal opinion. As things go all of the suggestions so far influenced something. How important that influence is, is a matter of perspective. The earlier the example the more influence it has on what comes latter. It's really the discussion that counts!

As for the Dak. What about the FW Condor???

QUOTE: Originally posted by umiami91 I stand by the Superfortress, but I do see the point on the DC-3/C-47. Without as many of these as we had, no Berlin airlift, no proof of concept for serious airlift in a crisis situation. Hmm...food for thought. md

Agreed.

Some of this is like trying to decide what the most important weapon was for U.S. ground forces in WWII. Was it the M-1 Garand, the Sherman tank, or the 2 1/ 2 ton truck? My money is on the truck, because without gas, bullets, food, and water, no army is going to get much done. The C-46, C-47, and C-87 (cargo version of the B-24) were exceptionally important to the war effort, and gave airline pilots a ton of experience.

Regards,

I stand by the Superfortress, but I do see the point on the DC-3/C-47. Without as many of these as we had, no Berlin airlift, no proof of concept for serious airlift in a crisis situation. Hmm...food for thought.

md

Nice to see another Dak fan there Chris!! Without the DC3/C47 there'd be no cheap package holidays today. Now whether thats a good thing..........................!!

So 4x 30mm cannons just weren't enough! Thanks for the info Pixilater! Learn something new every day!

Tim - these are the R-4 rockets carried by the Me 262A-1b

Thanks Phule! So that puts the Meteor in service before the 262?? Have done some reading on this beastie and they had some real engine problems with them from the outset of development. Couldn't find too much on in service reliability but it was estimated to have killed 200 pilots in test runs alone!

Hi Karl!, Knew about it being bombed up but never seen anything on being air missile equipped?

Upnorth, Thanks for the info on RAAF usage. Have to confess that I haven't studied much of the Pacific war side of things, so all info is welcome! I accept the idea that you are trying to put over and at the time it really was every victory counts! Have a look at the track record of the BP Defiant and you will soon see!

Hi Cuda!, The me163 had 'swept' wings in a fashion. and I seem to recall that in the race for supersonic flight there was more than a passing interest in delta wing technology. Further, the longest serving commercial supersonic jet used Delta wing technology.

This is one great discussion folks!!

So far, all the discussion seems to be centred around combat aircraft. Consider this, however - might the C-47 have been the most influential a/c of WW2? OK, in no sense did it push back the boundaries of technology, but both the USAAF and the RAF developed large transport networks, mainly using the C-47, and produced numbers of aircrew, technical, ground crew and management staff who went on to found and expand the airlines of the post-war world. Without a relaible mass-produced medium transport aircraft such as the DC-3 / C-47, this might well not have happened.

Von dem Deutscher Lager, der Me 262.

No other aircraft embodied so many new developments, axial flow jets, swept wings, air to air missiles in one operational package.

While the B29 was an excellent and technically advanced aircraft, I don't think that it packed quite so much innovation as the German jet.

Just my zwei Pfennige!

Aufwiederhoren

Karl

Tim,
Me-262s first jet flight on july 18,1942
entered service September 1944, with Erprobungskommando 262 (EK 262)
became operational October 3, 1944

For myself I think it's the ME-262, because look at the bases of all the flying plane today most of which are turbine powered and have swept wings from the largest AN-234 to the littlest BD-5J all have swept wings and the Messerschmitt started it all, yes there where straight winged jet aircraft but they pretty much have fallen to the swept wing concept

all of you seem to have made significant arguments to back your opinions. i see the points but to me if the question is the most influential of ww2 then you limit the a/c to those that truely made a dif. in ww2. the b-29, the 262, the 190, and a few others of note definitely made a huge impact on the future of military and civillian a/c. but as this is an opinion based topic, my "opinion" is that the b-17 is the most influential. even to the end of hostilities this bird made significant contributions to the war effort.

joe

Excellent choice there Chris, the Stormovik is trully one of the greats and I agree with you totally about its influence on subsequent "flying tank" type aircraft.

Tim:
I was strongly considering the Mossie for my vote, on the same MRCA premise as led to my vote for the Wellington. My choice was governed largely by the Wellinton's place in the WWII timeline, just as the Hurricane pre dated the Spitfire, the Wellington pre dated more noted versatile types such as the Mossie and Beaufighter.

I see it as being more influential because when it was the first line of attack against Germany at the beginning of the war, it proved that victories could be had even with less than perfect equipment. There is no greater device than optimism for attaining victory. The Wellington scored those first and ever so crucial allied hits within German territory and proved to the Brtish folks at home that it was worth putting up the fight and working toward better aircraft such as the Lancaster and Halifaxes that took over from the Wellingtons in the heavy bombing roles.

The allied grasp on victory was much more uncertain and tenuous at the time the Wellington was the front line bomber, it became more certain when Lancasters and Halifaxes entered th picture and American forces started day bombings. What would things have been like if it was decided to give up on the Wellington before trying to use it in actual battle despite its short comings? The world would be a much different place I'm sure.

If I'm not mistaken, the first heavy air assaults against the Japanese were carried out by RAAF Wellingtons well before the B-29 entered the picture.

Despite its short comings, it influenced something far greater than what any technology can achieve: guts, optimisim and a "never say die" attitude amoungst people that would seem to be in an impossible situation.

Nothing is achieved without a want in the people to achieve it. The Wellington held the line nearly alone and at very high cost, but the victories it did score were enough to keep the want and hope of a final and decisive victory in the hearts and minds of the people of Allied nations and influenced them that it was worth their time developing better and more modern planes to keep the fight up with.

What about the Il-2? We in the West tend to forget that if it was not for Hitler's colossal stategic mistake of invadiing Russia, and the Soviet people's heroic response, WW2 might well have had a very different outcome. Il-2 missions were so dangerous that anyone who survived 10 missions was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union, even if he hadn't hit a thing! We still have aircraft whose design and concept shows the influence of the Il-2; think of the AH-64 and the A-10. Any thoughts?

having read all the posts in this debate, and considered what overall seems to be mainly B29 v ME262, I would like to throw in an alternative viewpoint. How about the C47? Prior to the war air travel was still largely a luxury, but as a result of the huge number of troops and equipment carried by air during the war and the familiarity with air travel this brought about, and the huge number of surplus Dakotas which were snapped up after the war by fledgling airlines, we had the beginnings of the cheap air travel we enjoy today. The Dak brought relatively cheap air travel to the masses

I stand corrected Phule! Having done a cursory search of the subject you are indeed correct that the He 178 was the first flying jet. The first jet ground run was by Power Jets on 12th April 1937. Jet engine technology was also not considered secret by the British Air Ministry at the time so anyone with an interest in it could have accessed both Whittle and his work! Can anyone tell us the date into service of the Me262 as my sources couldn't give an exact date. The Gloster Meteor entered service on 21st July 1944 and was deployed to shoot down V1's. When it did get to the European front it was banned from crossing into enemy territory because it kept getting shot at by Allied forces!!

Hi Upnorth! Wellington is a really strange choice of aircraft. It's structure is probably its most outstanding feature. However, it didn't exactly cover itself with glory in the early war years at first. Apparently one thing they forgot to add were self sealing fuel tanks! There are some real horror stories about these aircraft turning into flying torches! Once they solved this it managed to survive some of the most hair raising encounters of the early war years. Reason I went for the Mossie was that it started life as a bomber, then a fighter bomber, then a night fighter, Anti shipping, day light raider (tanks, trains etc!) ,Special operations, Pathfinder, Recon, and special projects bomber. I'm sure there's more! Ju 88's were pressed into many roles and is worthy of consideration but didn't get used for as many duties as the Mossie.

The B29 is a historic a/c in its own right but can only be considered to be a major influence if you ignore the world from the fall of the Berlin wall. If you restrict the consideration of an aircrafts impact on world history to its effects on the cold war period then you have to consider the Hawker Hurricane as being the most influential a/c of WW2. After the fall of France in 1940 the only European country still in the fight was Britain. The Battle of Britain needs no intro to you guys so I won't bother. All I ask you to do is consider how WW2 would have concluded had Britain been defeated. Hitler would have been able to secure his Western front and turned all of his attention on Russia. Fuel resouces from a defeated UK and probable withdrawl of Commonwealth resistance in Europe, to the Middle East would have been fully open. No support for resistance forces, no Murmansk run. Quite possibly Japan may even have pitched in on the attack on Russia with whom it had more than a few bones to pick! Remember, the Germans were less than a hairs breadth away from having the A bomb themselves and already had ballistic missile capability. Look forward to seeing the discussion continue!

Good for you, willuride. I have been waiting for an apology as well. I wish yf23 would step up to the plate and take responsibility for his comment. I hope it was just an ill-conceived comment, and not a statement of his non-acceptance of others different from himself. Without a comment from him, however, we are free to make up our own minds as to what he meant by his remarks.

all of this is too far over my head. I read every post so far and man you guys are full of information. I agree this is a great debate, if you know the aircraft. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE COMMENT MADE BY YF23, in which I still see no apology made. That bothers me. I had family members that were in the concentration camps and suffered as many did, and i do not feel remorse toward the germans. I love ya'll. therefore I will not participate in this or any other topic placed by yf23 until i see an apology made to all those on this post (specifically named) and to all those of german decent who may happen to view this post. as for tigerman i believe it was the n9a or something like that by northrop that led to the development of the b-2. I saw something on the history channel about it. he had that idea long before ww2.

There were several proposals submitted that spawned the B-29. One of those flew before the 29, the B-32. Now, the AF liked the 29 but, the 32 was ordered as insurance. It was pressurized just as the 29 was. the other submissions did not make it into bomber form. The B-30 was a Lockheed model 49 derivative (Constellation) and was to be fully pressuized. The B-31 was a development of the DC4and many of its' design features found there way into the C-74 transport. Strategic bombing, proven in Europe. Long haul, proven by the PB4Y/B-24, Martin and Consolidated patrol bombers. Pressurization, ordered in "39" in the B-27 and B-28. The 27 was a follow on to the B-26 but was not produced. The 28 was a high altitude supplement to the 25 and was flying in early "42". I don't want to take away from the B-29 but, what did it pioneer? It was modified and those modifications after exstensive testing were shown to work. It was a stable delivery platform for the Bomb. That is what it did and proved.

The He 178 flew August 27, 1939.

On the first flight the HE 178 had a HeS 3 engine with a thrust of 1,100lbs at 13,000RPM, with a weight of 795lbs.

On the second flight the He 178 had a HeS 3b engine with a thrust of 1,300lbs at 13,300RPM, with a weight of 925lbs.

The He 178 flew at an estimated 373mph with expected improvement to the fuselage the speed was estimated to climb to 534mph.

The next jet, the Gloster E.28/39 flew on May 15, 1941, 20 months later with a turbojet born out of Whittle's work.

QUOTE: Originally posted by RSaddlemire Those with the best toys win. Great topic as it causes us all to think and especially remember our past.

The Germans had better tanks, but lost the war.

I would say the ME 262, because of the great influence of the aircraft on later designs. Of course the Horton flying wing led to the present day B-2

This is all very interesting commentary on what we all think defines a combat aircraft.

I'm of a mind to agree with Tim that we're concentrating far too much on bombers especially when the current trend in combat aircraft seems to revolve largely around the MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft) philosophy, that being a generalized combat type built to be adaptable to a variety of missions.

To that point I refer back to my vote of the Wellington. It was what there was at the time when it was pretty much Britain alone against Germany in the early days of the war. It was largely replaced in the bomber role after the first year or so of the war, but soldiered on in coastal patrol, transport, training and various other roles throughout the war. As I said in my initial post, I believe it was probably one of the first (if perhaps unintentionally so) MRCAs developed, most other combat types of the day were quite specialized to certain tasks and not so versatile.

The multi tasked combat aircraft idea has continued to this day and is a key concept to modern air combat, the concept saves money and resources by incorporating the roles of several into the airframe of one. To get us out of this bomber heavy debate, I offer a few other birds reputed and respected for their versatility:

DeHavilland Mosquito
Junkers JU-88
Petlyakov PE-2
B-25 Mitchell
English Electric Canberra
F-4 Phantom II
C-130 Hercules
Panavia Tornado
Mirage series fighters
F/A-18 Hornet

The list could go on, but the point is that when you have to do what you do with what you've got; then what you've got better not be a one trick pony aircraft or else you're screwed.

Britain had to do something, and as far as aircraft for deep attack missions went at the begining of hostilities, the Wellington was it and it didn't fail them.

I would say that for the Russian front it would be the IL-2 Stormovik, and for the American aircraft it would be the B-17 because it really helped out in the wars progress by dropping so many, many bombs!

To yf23 and the comment, and I quote " KRAUT SUPPORTERS'. The question was asked and if I remember it did not specify country of origin. If the truth hurts, well. My question to you, how long do you think it would have taken good ole USA, England and yes the Soviets to incorporate swept wing technology. All three would have hit on it eventually but, because it was available at the end of the war the Soviets scared heck out of us in Korea and we countered with the F-86. The vote goes to the 262 and/or 163 both with swept wings and operational at the end of WWII. Had the war continued there were bombers being designed to carry the nukes the 29 was modified to do so.

Great point eagle334, while I agree that the B-29 was a great a/c I totally agree with your point. It led to the B-36 which was a great a/c and deterent. But the next step was the B-47 which was the first step towards speed over size... and then eventually to the B-58 which I feel is the predecesor the the penatrator type bomber. (B-1, F-111, etc.) Just my I don't think there is really a right or wrong answer to an opinion question.

Eagle334,

By the time you get to the mid to late '60s, it's tough to show much influence at all from WWII planes. One of the most impressive fighters of that era, the F-4, owed little to WWII German designs (i.e. no swept wings, different engine technology, all-missile armament at first). I'm not sure the MiG-21 owes much to German WWII research either.

All,

As for the weapon being more important than the plane, I disagree. The key to the B-29 was its long range and advanced technology. Of all the planes at the end of WWII, only it and its Soviet knock-off were truly capable of dropping atomic bombs in enemies' home lands (albeit as a one-way trip). You could put a nuke in a B-25 (maybe, if you could make it fit), but you couldn't go that far with it. With the development of the A-bomb, the B-29's became the ultimate delivery system for a few years.

(As a side note, you could put a nuke on a Skyraider and fly it into the Soviet Union from a carrier -- again, a one-way trip. See: http://www.danford.net/spadguy.htm)

The B-29 paved the way for the B-36, B-47, B-52, B-1, and B-2. Bombers offered a freedom to policy makers that ICBMs and missile subs didn't -- the ability to recall them at the last minute.

This is not to denigrate the German technology developed during WWII, but most of that research, after it got into Allied (including Soviet) hands, had more impact on fighters. Swept wings and jets ended up on bombers too, but, as stated before, the Germans did not have a monopoly on those concepts. German rocket technology, on the other hand, was incredibly influential; the space race and the arms race both used it for a springboard.

Anyway, the main thread after World War II, at least as most citizens in the U.S., Europe, and the Soviet Union saw it, was nuclear weapons being dropped on us. The bombers were the main threat right after the war, and the biggest threat of all was the B-29.

By the way, this is a neat debate.

Regards,

Tim,

I do not dismiss the efforts of the RAF in development of bombing theory. Trenchard was one of the holy trinity of strategic bombing (along with Douhet and Mitchell, although it is hard to ignore LeMay's cold, calculating reason.) I do think the Luftwaffe was more focused on the CAS mission and would argue that strategic bombing (with the exception of terror bombing) was not a major part of their doctrine and that they didn't really understand it in the same context as the Americans or the British. (Many historians would argue that the Battle of Britain was doomed for the Germans when they changed the focus from breaking the back of the RAF to terror bombing London.) Finally, Luftwaffe never developed the megabombers that defined the genre.

My focus on the Pacific theater is not based on importance - the war in Europe was far more important - but on the fact that the huge distances there resulted in a great many of the technical innovations that led to cold war weapons focused on taking on an enemy halfway across the globe. And I would also opine that the Cold War was the most important event on the second half of the 20th century! Thus the focus on the B-29 heavy bomber.

B-2 is just the most recent of the bloodline, that is why I focused on it. B-1s and B-52s are well capable of long range missions. B-2 did fight in Kosovo which had a low air to air threat but a high SAM threat.

Mike Dahlstrom

yf23's original post did not restrict things to cold war influence only chaps. Had it done so I would have been a great deal more specific! I know I'm going to have to amend my details on this thing so you know a bit more about me when posting, but I'm sat in the West Midlands of England. Your assumptions seem to be that there wasn't a war going on over here, which I'm very puzzled about! In fact they seem dedicated soley to the Pacific war. I think you do the RAF, USAAF and Luftwaffe a dis service by not acknowledging the ground breaking work in bombing they performed.

To digress a moment here, is the B2 the only bomber you can cite? Today's 'bomber only' aircraft are indeed a dying breed. I wonder if the B2 would be deployed in a fighter defended territory with as much confidence? To date, as far as I am aware, it has only been deployed where high confidence of friendly air superiority was assured. By far the vast majority of todays 'precision' bombing missions are carried out by aircraft of multi role capability

Tim,

I don't disagree with you on the fact that carpetbombing is not current doctrine. I actually posit that it never was; the method was based on the technology available at the time. Now an exception is the firebombing campaigns which were - no bones about it - terror bombings designed to devastate the morale of the enemy and cause him to lose his will to fight. But long range, devastating attacks are where things are headed. The great majority of B-2 employments have been from Whiteman and back. (now some ARE from Diego Gracia, but I don't think many - but I could be wrong) Long range bombers, although declining somewhat in importance, were a defining factor in the cold war. The B-29 was really the first of the breed, IMHO, that is why I can't see another aircraft that is more influential coming out of WWII.

Mike Dahlstrom