WWII air war history question

[BBerguson]

I’ve done some searches but not coming up with what I want so I’m wondering if someone here can help. I’d like to know what were the most successful fighter planes of WWII. Would really like to see some tables that would have # of planes built, # that saw combat, # of planes shot down, type of the planes shot down, stuff like that. Any of you guys know of any history books that cover stuff like that?

In my “down” time, I’ve been watching lots of videos about WWII, mainly about tanks and planes because there is an abundance of those. Most of the planes are the best in the video that is about them. Were they the best because they were going up against antiquated air forces (like on the Germans vs the Russians on the Eastern front) or were they truly the best against all the planes they came up against.

Maybe this isn’t a fair question to ask what plane was the best as there are so many variables. And maybe, the real answer lies in the question of ”What fighter plane brought more of their pilots back safely?”

For the record, I’ve sworn off Facebook (only use it when I have to for our work page) and never used Twitter (never will) so you guys are my only online conversation outlet. Hope you don’t mind these off the wall subjects...

 

[Ian]

Kill/loss ratios per engagement in the pacific theater are relatively easy to find and would be a good indicator of "best", at least against the Zero. The Battle of Britain was pretty telling, but no P-51 or ME-262. The European engagements were so numerous that I don't know how one would even begin to research the statistics. Later in both fronts our technology and training was getting better while the other sides were running out of pilots and didn't have any significant showing of new designs, so it's tough to compare a fresh kid in a Zero to a seasoned one in, say, a Corsair. Of course the Corsair probably killed more pilots on takeoff and landing during its brief service than all the Zeros combined....so, it's complicated.

The P47 probably brought more pilots home after being shot to pieces than any other World War II fighter plane, but I can't prove it statistically, only from the combined impressions of a lot of reading.

 

[JustJim]

The most successful, ie., the most produced, highest numbers of enemy planes shotdown, would probably be the Bf109. Almost 35,000 produced (highest production of any fighter plane ever). Three pilots are the highest scoring aces in history, having shot down a total of ~925 planes. Introduced 1937 or '38 for the Spanish Civil War, still in use til the end of 1945 by Germany. Used by other countries into the 1950 (Spain used them until the '60s).

It was an impressive piece of design. As much as the Nazis screwed up other aspects of their war effort, they did a good job of constant updates/upgrades/improvements of the Bf109.

Not sure there is a book that will have the info you want, in the format you want. You might take a look at Fighter Aircraft Performance of WWII by Pilawski. The info might be in there, but I suspect you'll still have to compile it.

Interesting question. if you wind up compiling the tables, please share them!

 

[Brad]

F6F Hellcat did pretty well in the Pacific.

Overall it is hard to say. The Bf109 had the top German aces flying it.

 

[popper]

P47 thunderbolt. Fw190, zero. 109was ok not enough of them. 262 too late.

 

[RicinYakima]

IMHO, having to two close relatives who were fighter pilots in WW2, in my conversations with them it always came down to the pilot. The pilot who could exploit the aircrafts' strengths against the enemy's weakness. One flew P-40's in 1942 in New Guinea and said that if the three stayed together, they had nothing to fear from Zero's. If you tried to dog-fight, you were dead. Another flew P-47's till 1945 and said that they would escort the bombers home from Belgium. They Bf109's and 190's would turn around and leave when they showed up. High Altitude P-47's ruled the 25,000 foot skies, until they ran out of fuel. They were the only things that could keep up with a B-17 at high altitude after they dropped their bombs.

 

[Joshua]

It isn’t a statistical analysis. But I would look at what the top “Aces” flew during the war. They were all Germans with 100 or more kills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

I’m a big fan of the P-38. It was my grandfathers favorite, so therefore it became mine also. One of his last jobs before he retired for good was working for a company that retrofitted and maintained aircraft for fighting forest fires. I remember him pointing out old WWII fighters that were still in use, for fighting fires. That would have been around 1977-78. I was pretty small when he quit working there. Those planes could have been Korean era fixed wing prop fighter bombers. But I swear that he said they were WWII surplus planes.

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Fun Fact From Wikipedia:
“The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to collect the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict.”

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BBerguson]

One plane you hear very little about is the British Typhoon. I think it had more in common with our P-47 than their Spitfire. I read a really good story about a French pilot flying a Typhoon for the RAF titled “The Big Show” by Pierre Clostermann. It’s a good story. I’ve only read about it in this book and ”DDay Through German Eyes”, the Germans hated it!

Anyways, I think we were blessed with the most very good fighters, maybe one of them was the best... P51, P47, P38, Hellcat and Corsair. It’s hard to argue against any of them. I believe all of these planes were equal or had an edge to every axis fighter in the war. I know Germany had the ME262 which was fast and had lots of cannon but had a lot of negatives too and Japan had some fighters like the Tony and Oscar but there were few of them and I don’t know if our fighters ever engaged them so I don’t think they would make it to the top of this list.

And of course the discussion needs to mention armaments. Standard issue for our fighters was 6-8 50 bmg’s and I don’t think our pilots ever felt under gunned with them. And, as far as I know, all of our pilots were protected with armor plated seats. With that said, the Japanese Zero is the only modern fighter in the war that didn’t have armor plated seats that I know of, there could be others that I don‘t know about.

 

[Ian]

...and had lots of cannon...

Small point but not many today would get the pleural of "cannon" correct as you have.

 

[BBerguson]

Small point but not many today would get the pleural of "cannon" correct as you have.

I live with an English major and professional secretary who takes great pride in her mastery of the English language. I get corrected often so I have lots of practice...

 

[Ian]

My parents have three master's degrees and two teaching certifications between them...and I was educated entirely at home until high school, so I feel your....pain? I didn't have electricity until college or television until I bought my first house, so many books and many gallons of kerosene were a pastime. At one time I had cards to three libraries.

Speaking of lots of cannon, I'm gonna just put my favorite out there for the record: the DeHaviland Mosquito. Fighter today, ground support tomorrow, bomber the day after.

 

[BBerguson]

F6F Hellcat did pretty well in the Pacific.

Overall it is hard to say. The Bf109 had the top German aces flying it.

Yeah, hard to argue with the Mariannes Turkey Shoot!

Yeah, and they fought in the African campaign, Western and Eastern front and the Battle of Britain! “The First and the Last” is a book about the German fighter pilots in the war. They don’t talk about it in this book but in other stories I’ve read, meth amphetamine and heroin are often used by the Germans. I wonder if some of the pilots used it too. One in particular in the African campaign comes to mind but I can’t remember his name right now. He just sound like the stereotype drug user often heard about now. I’ve never read this about any other countries fighting men In WWII.

 

[BBerguson]

My parents have three master's degrees and two teaching certifications between them...and I was educated entirely at home until high school, so I feel your....pain? I didn't have electricity until college or television until I bought my first house, so many books and many gallons of kerosene were a pastime. At one time I had cards to three libraries.

Speaking of lots of cannon, I'm gonna just put my favorite out there for the record: the DeHaviland Mosquito. Fighter today, ground support tomorrow, bomber the day after.

Wow, that’s a lot to live up to! My wife (by herself) has homeschooled our two kids and is a really amazing women! I couldn’t do what she does... We did make the decision 24 years ago to not have a TV signal at our house. It was nice to go shopping with the kids because there was nothing they were looking for or had to have. Everything was new to them and it was just pure joy to watch them see things for the first time.

I agree with you on the Mosquito, another plane the Germans absolutely hated and despised. The Beaufighter also has a place as a night fighter and if I remember correctly, was very heavily armed!

 

[RicinYakima]

While my father was working at Aeronca, and I was pre-apprentice tool and die maker, one of our engineers was Kenny Betts. He flew Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain. He shot down 34 bombers and V-1's during the war, but no fighters. The Spitfires would engage the fighters, and Hurricanes would attack the bombers.

All US aircraft had self-sealing gas tanks, regardless of the weight penalty.

 

[RBHarter]

Here's where you get jammed up in this .
Seek out a book , Flight into Conquest , it was written by a Japanese ace that flew his first combat mission in March of 42' and wasn't captured until after Pappy Boyington went to the POW camp near Tokyo , he was the guy that shot him down that time . So he spent 55 months of 6-8 sorties per week with some 70 air to air kills .

Next book , Stuka pilot , this writer flew his first combat mission in September 1939 and surrendered the morning after VE in Italy . He averaged 9 sorties per week for 6 yr . He was an ace and scored a P47 kill with a JU88 Stuka with the dual 20mm anti tank cannon . He also had a couple kills in the FW190 .

The F6F and F8F were impressive the last Corsair the F2G had a 470 mph 20,000 ft cruise but the Bearcat could out climb it .

The P47 actually outperformed the P51 until the D model .

The Brits Hawkers both the Hurricane and Typhoon were impressive but excelled in only what they were specifically built for hard core full tilt scramble interceptors . Here too the though the F8F and F4U were faster and more capable in combat .

Over all our aircraft soaked up more hits and took more damage to actually disable than many of the others . The big radial engines had enough blower and dry sump lubrication that short of an engine fire or actually taking out the oil tank or scavenger pump they just kept running . 3-4 cylinders completely gone and they ran all the way home or until they ran out of oil .

Our pilots were only required to do 12 months of combat so unless like the crew of the Memphis Bell and Pappy Boyington , probably many more , volunteered or demanded to stay in theater they were rotated out and sent home . Also the Axis forces aces had 32 kills of 1 on 1 to make ace while Allied pilots needed only 16 and got credit for assists .

Other aircraft of note were the Spitfires in the 5th model , the Me109 thru H , JU88 , Mosquito , Zeke , Yak 5 and 7 , P38 , P39 , and the TBM while slightly ungainly accounted for a lot of damage with a high survival rate for pilots and crew . There were several light bombers with excellent records as well , the B25 and 26 stand out but there was another between them and the P38 . Maybe it was the Mosquito ......

The Germans had 40 or so double and triple aces .
While we got a lot of heavy bombers back with a lot of parts missing those crews had a pretty low survival rate . There were something like 25,000 B17s built with something like 12,000 lost over enemy territory and 3000 more on air fields on return .

 

[RicinYakima]

The P-39 (Aircobra) and P-63 (Kingcobra) were the unsung work horses of the USSR. The P-39, or the "iron dog", did good work in the SW Pacific as long as it could stay below 13,000 feet with the Allison single turbo engine. By the time the King Cobra came out with the Continental and twin turbos and P51's lamiler flow wings, it reputation was gone. Soviets loved the cannon and twin .50's in the nose.

Won lots of air races in Reno until they ran out of airframes.

 

[popper]

Lots of decent aircraft with good records. Big problem is we didn't have many good ones, most innovations came DURING wartime. Each had specific 'good' applications. Had a few teachers who were thunderbolt pilots, one actually survived the supersonic dive and his data helped to solve the problem (go back to 3 blade prop). Grade school principal got a reprimand for flying his under the telephone (power) lines on practice strafing runs.. When I saw him I thought it was neat - out in farm land, to see a WWII plane flying. And it was loud! Just plain cool but the moms didn't think so. I did get reprimanded for walking up to (the boss man's) F86. Never seen a real one before.
Rus got the cobra as it was the 'least' requested by US. 109 was effective due to the twin (quad) nose CANNON. FW flew better but had less powerful guns. They still chewed up FIL's B24. And were cheaper than the 109. 262 was like a rocket but only had one or two passes before they had to land for fuel. Most were lost on the landing as we learned to hit them THEN.

 

[BBerguson]

Here's where you get jammed up in this .
Seek out a book , Flight into Conquest , it was written by a Japanese ace that flew his first combat mission in March of 42' and wasn't captured until after Pappy Boyington went to the POW camp near Tokyo , he was the guy that shot him down that time . So he spent 55 months of 6-8 sorties per week with some 70 air to air kills .

Next book , Stuka pilot , this writer flew his first combat mission in September 1939 and surrendered the morning after VE in Italy . He averaged 9 sorties per week for 6 yr . He was an ace and scored a P47 kill with a JU88 Stuka with the dual 20mm anti tank cannon . He also had a couple kills in the FW190 .

The F6F and F8F were impressive the last Corsair the F2G had a 470 mph 20,000 ft cruise but the Bearcat could out climb it .

The P47 actually outperformed the P51 until the D model .

The Brits Hawkers both the Hurricane and Typhoon were impressive but excelled in only what they were specifically built for hard core full tilt scramble interceptors . Here too the though the F8F and F4U were faster and more capable in combat .

Over all our aircraft soaked up more hits and took more damage to actually disable than many of the others . The big radial engines had enough blower and dry sump lubrication that short of an engine fire or actually taking out the oil tank or scavenger pump they just kept running . 3-4 cylinders completely gone and they ran all the way home or until they ran out of oil .

Our pilots were only required to do 12 months of combat so unless like the crew of the Memphis Bell and Pappy Boyington , probably many more , volunteered or demanded to stay in theater they were rotated out and sent home . Also the Axis forces aces had 32 kills of 1 on 1 to make ace while Allied pilots needed only 16 and got credit for assists .

Other aircraft of note were the Spitfires in the 5th model , the Me109 thru H , JU88 , Mosquito , Zeke , Yak 5 and 7 , P38 , P39 , and the TBM while slightly ungainly accounted for a lot of damage with a high survival rate for pilots and crew . There were several light bombers with excellent records as well , the B25 and 26 stand out but there was another between them and the P38 . Maybe it was the Mosquito ......

The Germans had 40 or so double and triple aces .
While we got a lot of heavy bombers back with a lot of parts missing those crews had a pretty low survival rate . There were something like 25,000 B17s built with something like 12,000 lost over enemy territory and 3000 more on air fields on return .

I will certainly look into those books, thanks you for the recommendation! I knew this was a question with a large number of changing variables. It’s hard to come up with a definitive answer per country, let alone for all the countries involved. It would be much easier to ask: What was the best fighter in the Battle of Britain, the African War, the Eastern Front, the Western Front (when the air war moved to France) and the Pacific theater which would have to also be broken up into timeframes or maybe areas.

The first book I owned as a kid was Samurai by Saburo Sakai. I think I was about 12 and found it on the bookshelf at our local grocery store and my mom bought it for me. I was memorized by his story!

You have to wonder how the war would have been different if the Japanese soldier wasn’t so willing to die for their emperor and also if their leaders would have cared enough about their fighting men to actually try to keep them alive. Little things like armor plate in the cockpits and self sealing fuel tanks. But of course, the Zero wouldn’t have been the Zero with that extra weight... But I know this is getting off subject of ”best fighter plane in WWII”.

Some things I like to think about too: How would certain fighters have performed in other theaters? The Spitfire and Mustang in the Pacific against the Zero. (I think very well) The Corsair and Hellcat in the European theater against the Luftwaffe. And how about the 50 BMG vs the 20mm Cannon and did one type make them a better or worse fighter? All good conversation!!

 

[Rick H]

The US was mainly hunting fighters.....and the 50 was plenty. The German's were shooting down bombers and wanted the canon to bust them up at extreme range and avoid some of those 50's on the "Flying Fortress. The RAF spent the Battle of Britain with rifle caliber machine guns and had to get right on top of whatever they were shooting at. The Japanese Zero had an odd arrangement of two rifle caliber machine guns and two 20mm canon. They usually tried to use the MG's when engaging fighters, much to the allies good fortune. The canon had very limited ammo capacity. The Oscars were initially armed with two rifle caliber MG's only, then one 7.7mm and one 50.....late in the war 2 50's.

The AVG (Flying Tigers) did good work against Japanese fighters with P-40's that were considered weak obsolete NON front line fighters by everyone but the Japanese. Those P-40's racked up a 40-1 kill ratio. Not too shabby! Once they learned slash and run tactics and stopped trying to dogfight the more nimble but fragile Japanese aircraft they did very well.

If the Japanese had not adopted the "fight to the last man" attitude the war would have ended a year and a half earlier. After Midway, Guadalcanal, and the destruction of Truk they were done......they could not win the war, could only prolong it.

I had a Jr HS teacher who flew P-51's in the second WW. He hated the plane, said it was an oil guzzling piece of .....(you get the idea). One hit in the oil tank and you ended up a POW or worse ditched at sea. It performed well but he thought it was a mechanical disaster. It is just my guess that he had to jump out of one of them and it left a permanent impression on him.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Lot of variables to consider.
What is a fighter plane? Does that include ground attack aircraft?
Over what time period? The Japanese were fighting in China long before America was in the war. The Germans had a shake down cruise in the Spanish Civil war where they tested a lot of equipment. The Germans invaded Poland in September of 1939 but it was significantly later when they came up against American fighters. The Soviets and Germans were allies before Operation Barbarossa.

What's your criteria for "the best"? Kill ratio? Pilot survival rate? Numbers produced verses numbers lost? Aerial kills only?

Then there's the problem of inaccurate kill counts. All sides lie about kills and it's only after the conflict that true numbers can be derived from careful study. Even then, it's always a bit fuzzy.

It is however, A very worthwhile endeavor to study the air war component of WWII.
One of the better books dealing with the air war in the Pacific theater is "Fire in the Sky, The air war in the South Pacific" by Eric M. Bergerud.
It is a long and highly technical book BUT it is also very well researched and truthful.

There are a few passages from that book that made a huge impression on me and stay solidly in my memory.
The author speaks about pilots going down over the ocean or over jungle. Of those two bad situations, the pilots far preferred ending up in the water. This seems incorrect and counter-intuitive at first glance but the jungle was a near death sentence.