Most Versatile Aircraft of WW2?

[Ack-Ack]

I think that many planes fit the bill, definitely the P-47 ranks up there as the plane that broke the back of the Luftwaffe and wiped the ground with the IJA in the pacific. I think the P-51 counts if you include its post-war record but during WW2 it was mostly just used for long range escort (unless you count the limited allison ground attack versions?). Then there was the bomber used extensively for fighter sweeps, the P-38 (*ducks, runs, hides*).

"Breaking the back of the Luftwaffe" doesn't mean the Jug was versatile, nor did it 'wipe the ground with the IJA in the Pacific.  The P-38 was by far the dominant USAAF fighter in the PTO and it was the USAAF fighter in that theater that broke the IJAF's back and wiped the ground with the IJA, not the Jug or the Mustang.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

Forgive me for overstating it. However the Jug did essentially break the LW's back for the ponies later on to mop up. They did a lot of ground pounding throughout the PTO as well. Probably more than any other land-based plane.

It was able to do almost any job at any range (see P-47Ns escoring B-29s to Tokyo and back), and at extreme altitudes.

[Karnak]

P-47s would not make effective bombers.  I don't know that any single engined aircraft would.

[Ack-Ack]

Probably more than any other land-based plane.

Nope.

It was able to do almost any job at any range (see P-47Ns escoring B-29s to Tokyo and back), and at extreme altitudes.

So was the P-38 in the PTO in addition to serving many other roles the Jug wasn't able to.


ack-ack

[Krusty]

Wasn't able to? Or didn't need to? You only need so many types of night fighter. You only need so many types of photo recon. The US military in WW2 had every type it needed.

The ability of the P-38 doesn't imply an inability in the P-47.

Just sayin'....

[Ack-Ack]

I think it comes down to this.

If you had to fight a WWII era war, but were only allowed to have a single airframe, which would you take?

Lets look at the suggested aircraft in this thread and the roles they could do:

Spitfire:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: no
Carrier fighter: yes
Night fighter: no
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: yes
Torpedo bomber: no

P-47:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: no
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: no
Torpedo bomber: no

Hurricane:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: no
Carrier fighter: yes
Night fighter: no
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: no
Torpedo bomber: no

P-51:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: no
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: no
Torpedo bomber: no

F4U
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: no
Carrier fighter: yes
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: no
Torpedo bomber: no

P-38:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: yes
PR aircraft: yes
Torpedo bomber: no

Beaufighter
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: no
PR aircraft: no
Torpedo bomber: yes

Ju88
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: yes
PR aircraft: yes
Torpedo bomber: yes

Mosquito
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: yes
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: yes
PR aircraft: yes
Torpedo bomber: yes


Only one airframe could answer "yes" to all of the core duties needed for a WWII conflict.  None of these will be best at all the categories they can fill, there is no way a Beaufighter or Ju88 fighter will match a Spitfire as an interceptor for example, but they could be used in all the roles listed and marked "yes".

There was a carrier version of the Mosquito?

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Wasn't able to? Or didn't need to? You only need so many types of night fighter. You only need so many types of photo recon. The US military in WW2 had every type it needed.

The ability of the P-38 doesn't imply an inability in the P-47.

Just sayin'....

The P-38 was capable of doing at least one role the P-47 was not, level bombing.

[Karnak]

There was a carrier version of the Mosquito?

ack-ack

Yes, post war, there were three carrier versions of the Mosquito.

[Soulyss]

I think it comes down to this.

If you had to fight a WWII era war, but were only allowed to have a single airframe, which would you take?

Lets look at the suggested aircraft in this thread and the roles they could do:

.......

P-38:
Interceptor: yes
Strike aircraft: yes
Long range fighter: yes
Carrier fighter: no
Night fighter: yes
Bomber: yes
PR aircraft: yes
Torpedo bomber: no

.....




Only one airframe could answer "yes" to all of the core duties needed for a WWII conflict.  None of these will be best at all the categories they can fill, there is no way a Beaufighter or Ju88 fighter will match a Spitfire as an interceptor for example, but they could be used in all the roles listed and marked "yes".

I cut down the quote a little to save space but I had a question/ possible correction to make. Are you counting capability? or actual use?  For instance the P-38 could carry and deploy a torpedo (two actually) but it never actually operated in that capacity in a war zone.

[Baumer]

Karnak,
It's interesting that your no for carrier operations stated earlier, is now a yes since you have rephrased the the question.

Lusche,
I guess I am mistaken about the Ju88's launching Hs293's. I'm going back through my books to find it, I thought I remembered reading about Ju 88's using them in the Mediterranean. I guess it must have been a case of mistaken identity.


I guess it really is a matter of personal perspective, the Mosquito played no part in the biggest aerial battle Britain faced during the war. It has the advantage of it's first flight being almost 4 years later than the Ju88. I have no problem saying the Mosquito was a better plane then the Ju88 in their designed roles. However, I feel that the Ju88 was more versatile then the Mosquito, it truly fought from beginning to end. It was capable of carrying a bomb load that no other twin engine plane could even come close to in 1937. I may have over stated it's ability to carry and use guided rockets or bombs but removing that from the list doesn't change it's position in my view as the most versatile aircraft used during world war two. 
 

[Krusty]

The P-38 was capable of doing at least one role the P-47 was not, level bombing.

For the sake of simply being combatitive (  ), "Any plane can level bomb" and a P-47 could carry as much as a B-25 with less risk of life and limb if shot down, more capability of defending itself if intercepted, and could fly a lot faster and higher than one.

Fact of the matter is they had level bombers. When they didn't they would just lead a formation with a single bomber and have other planes drop on its command. Even the bombers they had often didn't need level bombsights in the PTO (solid nose strafers, parafrags, low alt bombs or dive bombing or skip bombing, etc). That's why those glass nose P-38s were so rare. Just not really needed.

[Guppy35]

Forgive me for overstating it. However the Jug did essentially break the LW's back for the ponies later on to mop up. They did a lot of ground pounding throughout the PTO as well. Probably more than any other land-based plane.

It was able to do almost any job at any range (see P-47Ns escoring B-29s to Tokyo and back), and at extreme altitudes.

In my opinion that's too simplified.  The war of attrition with the LW started prior to the Jug too.  And if you look at when the LW in essence was finally dominated it was the early 44 time frame after the 51B got into the fight.  Once the Allies could take the fight all the way into Germany, the game was over.  That being said, the Spits in particular had been taking it to the LW long before the Jug.  For that matter the P40s, Hurri's etc in the Desert were doing the same thing long before the Jug too.

As for PTO use.  Again the 40s, 39s 38s did the heavy lifting.  The Jug certainly got into the game, but in numbers it wasn't right away

[Grendel]

Hard to use a late 1943 aircraft in 1940 though...

Also, what did German pathfinders do?  I have never heard of German raids using target markers like British raids did.

For what you'd need a 1943 aircraft for 1940 pathfinder job?

Luftwaffe used what they and and the crews they had trained for the job, meaning especially the Heinkel 111s from KG 100. Plenty of stuff at the net about them and there's quite a few books of German pathfinder operations too, for example:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/German-Elite-Pathfinders-Action-Luftwaffe/dp/1853674249

A pretty nice summary of one operation is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz

The raid that began on the evening of 14 November 1940 was the most severe to hit Coventry during the war. It was carried out by 515 German bombers, from Luftflotte 3 and from the pathfinders of Kampfgruppe 100. The attack, code-named Operation Mondscheinsonate (Moonlight Sonata), was intended to destroy Coventry's factories and industrial infrastructure, although it was clear that damage to the rest of the city, including monuments and residential areas, would be considerable. The initial wave of 13 specially modified Heinkel He 111 aircraft of Kampfgruppe 100, were equipped with X-Gerät navigational devices, accurately dropping marker flares at 19:20.

At best, the German pathfinders were able to pinpoint the targets, drop flares accurately and create excellent target for the following night bomber fleet. And at worst, countryside was full of craters. Just like the later Allied pathfinder led operations. Sometimes excellent, sometimes crappy results. Neverthless, KG 100 seems to be the first pathfinder squadron of WW2, of all sides.

The night battle between RAF and Luftwaffe, the technological side, is worth several books on its own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams

[Krusty]

The spits hadn't been "taking it to the LW" so much as "holding their own." The LW was more than a match for the RAF after the BOB. Losses were sustained on both sides, but looking at JG2's performance over the channel, they were downing Spit5s by the dozens every month. 109F2, F4, G2, and 190A2/A3/A4 in 1942/43 were superior to most of the RAF planes in overall combat effectiveness. The RAF was not responsible for breaking the back of the LW IMO. They repulsed them. They stopped their plans during BOB. They didn't break it. It was still more than strong enough to fight on a 2 front war for years afterwards.

Staying over the UK wasn't going to stop the war, and wasn't going to break the LW. The spits lacked the real range to do much other than nuisance raids and circuses over France. The early P-47s over Europe saw widespread use beginning in late 1942 and early 1943, and kept pounding on the LW until it was broken by the time P-51s showed up. The P-47 has more kills than the P-51 in europe, by several times last I recall. They were the ones pushing into the continent because P-38s were shunned (won't get into that) and P-51s weren't ready, and the RAF compliment couldn't make the range.

Later on when the LW was being pushed back and the ponies were showing up to escort, the P-47s would often go hunting for the LW and even attack them on the ground, further depleting their numbers.

Like the hurricane in the BOB, the P-47 over Europe did most of the work and the P-51 gets all the adoration. They both did well, but one had a larger hand in the overall success.

[Karnak]

Karnak,
It's interesting that your no for carrier operations stated earlier, is now a yes since you have rephrased the the question.

I included post war capabilities in the second one whereas in the first comment I limited it to capabilities deployed during WWII.  The carrier version was developed at the end of WWII, but not deployed until after WWII.