The best of the best and Worst of the worst

Provided we are not limiting this to operational aircraft, The XB-36 was arguably the best bomber to come out of WW2. With most of the work having been completed on the design prior to the end of the war, and the completed airframe was 82.5% complete.

 

I'm going with operational in the war, which seems to be the thrust of the OP. Otherwise, maybe the DeHavilland Vampire is best fighter of "the war"?

The B-36 actually had design work going before the war started. If we're playing fast-and-loose with the definition of "wartime", would you call it the best "pre-war" bomber? It's the same principle on the other end of wartime.

If it didn't fight in the war, I don't regard it as "wartime", myself.

 

Yes operational only…

 

I had it listed in the original post as a super-heavy because it really was in a different class than the other heavies that were fielded. If Germany had fielded the Amerikabomber or the US had produced more than 118 B-32's, it might have had some competition. As Carronade noted the USAAF had them classified as "Very Heavy Bombers"

I'm gonna use Opana's "Thump" when referring to you if it's OK. So, Thump if you were to use the light, medium, heavy, super-heavy (very heavy) classifications, what would your choices be? I didn't see enough of a difference in the heavy category to choose a clear winner among the top contenders. As for medium, I'm leaning towards the B-25 Mitchell, an excellent medium bomber, but was it clearly the best? Light, I was leaning towards the "Mossie" but I placed it in multi-role aircraft per Ricky's suggestion, which is probably more accurate as to the aircraft's utility.

Aircraft
United States
Super Heavy Bomber-B-29 Superfortress
Carrier Fighter-F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat
Torpedo Bomber-TBF/TBM Avenger
Transport-C-47 Skytrain (Dakota)

Yes sir, I was using the following as the standard, "Some criteria. The equipment/weapon system had to be clearly superior and be available in sufficient quantities to be a factor in wartime operations." (from the original post), I thought that to be best, the weapon needed to have an actual effect on operations.

All three of you gentlemen are correct in what I wanted.

I would certainly think and believe I've stated so that it is one of the top contenders. We don't seem to have consensus on the best in early or mid/late war for fighters yet, some discussion (all good) but nothing that clearly picks a winner. It may be one of those cases where there isn't a clear best. As excellent as the P-51 was, I guess personally I lean towards the P-47 because of when they served. When comparing the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat, both were very close in performance, most tests giving the comparable Corsair model a slight edge, but the F6F destroyed more enemy aircraft. The reason I'd choose the Corsair is that a good portion of its "kills" were before Japan lost its qualitative advantage in pilots. It was partially responsible for the attrition that allowed the F6F to have a "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". Same-same with the P-51, the P-47 had produced a lot of attrition to the Luftwaffe's experienced pilots by the time the P-51 got into the long-range escort game where it shone. I also see the merits of the Spitfire, it was superb when introduced and the later models made it one of the top performance aircraft at the very end. On the other hand, early war, it was equaled by the BF-109 and dominated in the east by the A6M. In mid-war the FW-190 dominated it upon introduction. So, I don't know.
But the discussion and the intellectual exercise is the best part anyway, even if a consensus isn't reached..

 

I don't mind if Thumpalumpacus doesn't

VHB I'll go with, oh, I dunno, the B-29

Heavy bomber, my sentimental favorite is the B-17, but the basic concept of the self-defending "flying fortress" was flawed; so I'll go with the bomber with the most bombs, the Lancaster. The capacious bomb bay was an excellent feature, and the Lanc could handle a wide variety of weapons and missions.

Medium I'll agree with you on the B-25, and that there might not have been much difference in performance between mediums. I like the -25 for its versatility, able to operate in rough conditions in environments from desert to jungle to Arctic and carry out missions from conventional bombing to low-level strafing.

Interesting that our top light bomber contenders - Mosquito and Ju-88 - are valued largely for their ability to conduct other missions like night fighter. AFAIK the Mossie was the only light bomber to dispense with defensive armament - does that put it in a different category?.

Fighter I'll go with the P-47N, if we can be that specific. The culmination of the -47 line was a match for any of its competitors; it was even taking over the long-range escort mission as 8th Air Force deployed to Okinawa for the war against Japan.

Transport I'll make an unconventional choice, the Me 323 with design characteristics of most military transports since: high wing, multi-tired landing gear sponsoned outside the cargo bay, front and rear ramps, etc. Of course it was vulnerable to air opposition, but so was any transport.

 

And once the B-52 came into service, B-29s/B-50s were classified as medium bombers, which implies that these categories were relative. Now, the B-29 carried 20,000 lbs of bombs on a given mission ... and if you traded fuel weight for ordnance, a B-17 could carry almost 18,000 lbs of bombs. So is the difference in between those two loadouts?

As a result, I think the "VHB" designation was a little specious. Note as well that the B-29 was not called the VB-29, which implies to me that USAAF saw it as another bomber and tacked on the "Very" because it was so far superior -- but not meriting a new classification.

No sweat, bud.

Light: Mosquito
Medium: A-26
Heavy: Lancaster
V-Heavy: B-29

The Mosquito was superlative, and I think it would be fair to list it as both light bomber candidate as well as multi-role. It's that damned good.

 

This WW2 lady looks futuristic...Ho 229

 

I think there are bests and worsts, on a technical level. I'd rather fly a TBF than a TBD, rather fly a Spitfire than a Gladiator, rather fly a Ju-88 than a Do-17.

As for the B-29 being "propaganda", check out the firebombing campaign. Even without the A-bombs, the B-29 sealed its place as the best heavy bomber, not only with its capabilities, but also with its accomplishments in such a short wartime service. The deadliest bombing raid in history was not nuclear. It didn't take 1000+ Lancs or Forts, either. 334 B-29s burned 16 sq mi of Tokyo and killed over 84,000 people in one go on 9 Mar 45.

 

The “worst” could be something that was “best” a few years earlier. The TBD was state of the art when it was introduced. The process of replacing it was underway when it met its crucial test.

 

Boulton Paul Defiant has got to be up there for worst...

 

Agreed. Ideally?? a worst would be something flawed from the start, not a good concept overtaken by time.

 

Anything French then... : )

 

Rule of thumb: If it's weird, it's British. If it's ugly, it's Russian. If it's weird and ugly, it's French.

 

That was apparently removed by the time I got there. The B-36 I picnicked under in 1989 has also been relocated, to Castle AFB if I remember right.

 

And if it makes your knees weak - Its German
If its Muscly its American
If its basic and pragmatic its Australian.