The best of the best and Worst of the worst

Recently, during my readings, and some discussions here, I've begun to ponder if a large factor in the allied victory in WWII might have been the result of superior weapons systems. The Germans get a lot of love for their "supposedly" superior engineering. There is much speculation as to what Germany's planned super tanks and ships might have accomplished had they reached the production vs the planning stage.
The subject, once I began to ponder it, proved to be more complex than it at first appeared. The capabilities of the equipment and weapons systems drove the tactics and doctrine. Weaknesses in a system, required compromises in its employment that reduced potential efficiency that could have been a factor in operational failure in a close fight.

Some criteria. The equipment/weapon system had to be clearly superior and be available in sufficient quantities to be a factor in wartime operations.
Examples:
1.) The F8F Bearcat was a very fast, very agile fighter with an incredible (for a piston aircraft) rate of climb. It arrived at the end of the war and was not deployed in sufficient numbers to be a factor.
2.) Midway class aircraft carriers, launched towards the end of the war but not commissioned until eight days after the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri. Too late, even though technically it was war built and launched.
3.) Hanomag Sdkfz. 251 vs US M3 halftracks. The Hanomag's shape offered superior ballistic protection to the M3, and it is often credited as the first Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). Good power to weight ratio 12.8hp per metric ton, 15,252 produced (all variants). Negatives, complicated track, interleaved road wheels susceptible to immobilization from mud and ice/snow, front wheels not driven.
M3-18.5hp per metric ton, 53,000 (15,000 APC version). Driven front wheels plus greater hp/weight ratio gave superior cross-country mobility and towing capacity. Rubber steel band track gave greater road speed (45mph vs 32.5mph) and ease of maintenance.
The M3 was more vulnerable to MG fire than the SDKFZ 251 due to non-sloped armor. The Hanomag mounted the MG34/42, the M3 the M2 HMG, so the US had an advantage in range and penetration, the German in ROF.
The result, while the Hanomag looked cool, and has a lot of Germanophile fan boys, neither vehicle had sufficient technical/performance advantages to make it clearly superior to its opponent. Much of the 251's reputation came from the early days of the war when they displayed superior tactics and their enemies lacked a comparable vehicle, the US not yet in the war. Rating-neutral, a wash.

So, here are some of my selections for best of the best. Agree or disagree, I'm looking for discussion.


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)

Vehicles
United States
Truck, 1/4 ton, 4x4 Willys MB/Ford GW
LVT Amphibious tractors LVT-1, LVT-2, LVT(a2), LVT-3 and LVT-4

Equipment/Weapons
United States
Service Rifle-.30 M1 Garand
Carbine-Carbine, .30 M1
Browning M2 .50 HMG
5"/38 Mk 12 DP naval gun with Mk 37 director
16"/50 Mk 7 naval gun
16" Mk 8 super-heavy 2700lb APCBC shell
40mm/L60 Mk1 and M2 Bofors with Mk 51 director (*1)


Britain/UK
Bren LMG (licensed copy of Czechoslovak ZGB 33)



Ships/Boats
United States
Fletcher class Destroyers
Cleveland class Light Cruisers
Baltimore class Heavy Cruisers
Essex class Aircraft Carriers
Iowa, South Dakota and North Carolina class BB's (*2)
LCVP

*1-The 40mm/L60 was a Swedish design licensed by a number of countries including the US. The Swedish design was found to be unacceptable for mass production and the US totally redesigned the weapon and its ammunition.
From NavWeapons: "US manufacturers made radical changes to the Swedish design in order to minimize these. problems and as a result the guns and mountings produced in the USA bore little resemblance their Swedish ancestors."
Not the least of the modifications was the addition of water-cooling and powered mounts for the US Navy. The US version was the most numerous and most capable of all the Bofors built and used during the war.
USA Bofors 40 mm L/60 Model 1936 - NavWeaps

*2-The US Fast Battleships when taken as a complete weapons system were head and shoulders above any other nations battleships. The 16" gun when using the Mk 8 "super-heavy" shell was a match for any gun afloat. That married to the radar-controlled directors and ballistic computers made the system as a whole superior. Good armor, high speed, long range, superior AA battery, and good torpedo protection made them the epitome of the battleship as a weapons system.
Battleship Comparison (combinedfleet.com)
The Iowa's come out on top (as they should being post-treaty) followed closely by the SoDak's, the North Carolina's are not rated.
They should be comparable to the SoDak's or rate slightly higher. They have the same main and secondary battery with the same directors, fire-control equipment/system and radars (SoDak had four less 5/38's, two twin turrets, because she was modified to be a flagship, than her sister's Alabama, Massachusetts, and Indiana.) The North Carolina's had more AA armament with better arcs of fire because of their greater deck area. The North Carolina's had slightly better torpedo protection and a slightly inferior armored belt, similar top speed and slightly greater range. The US Navy considered the North Carolina's more suitable to post-war use than the SoDak's, because their greater size made them more upgradeable with better habitability. Otherwise, they were considered equal in capabilities.

 

Mosquito - the best multi-role aircraft of the war

Other aircraft may have been better in individual roles, or possibly even have performed more roles (Ju88 maybe?) but none performed as many as well.

 

I added it, Ricky. I have to agree with you it was a superior aircraft, filling many roles superbly.

 

My knowledge would really just cover aircraft but i would add the Owen Sub Machine gun for Australia - "It was one of the most reliable submachine guns of the war, with a track record that includes conflict in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam". - And include the Australian as the best light infantryman. (This is arguable of course).
Best light fighter MUST go to the Me109 - Punched well above its weight.

Medium fighter award should go to the Spitfire - Way over engineered (like the 109) so was able to take upgrade after upgrade whilst still performing. Special mention to the Mustang as it was designed with lessons learnt.

Best Heavy fighter i would give to the TA152 over the likes of the P-47 or P-38 (Sorry Biak)
TA152


Best Jet fighter goes to the Me262

 

I see it differently. The Me 109 was a typical high performance fighter in 1940. By 1944 it was totally outclassed. Why?

In 1944 the state-of-the-art was a bubble canopy fighter with higher G performance, with better high-altitude performance, and could operate in the mid to high range of speeds. The late model 109's were relying on performance 'tricks' like nitrous boost and radical cams to give good upper end performance at the expense of mid-range and un-boosted performance.
At high speed most of the 109's Western opponents could out roll it, turn with it or inside it, and generally stay with it through any other maneuver. It was just outclassed.

The Ta 152 was one of a number of "super" fighters to come along towards the close of the war. It was no better, and in many ways outclassed, by designs of other nations. The US for example had the XP-72 "Superbolt." The production version would have climbed a mile-a-minute and hit 520 mph. The P-51H that reached production could do 470 mph and had every bit the performance of the Ta 152. The Supermarine Spiteful, DeHavilland Hornet, and many other planes had performances that matched the Ta 152.

The Allies simply chose not to pursue these designs because they knew they could win the war without them and jets were the next big thing.

Even in jets, it is really questionable that the Me 262 would have been much of a match for say, a P-80C. The P-80 had roughly equal performance, but had a lead computing radar gunsight making its ability to shoot down a target far better than an Me 262 with low velocity, slug throwing, bomber killer guns. The P-80 also had a reliable engine whereas the 262 could lose one in a sharp turn, or just to failure due to the poor state of manufacturing in Germany.

The advantage of the P-51 and P-47 (particularly the late war N model) was they could take the fight to the enemy. Nothing the Germans had could do that.

In all-weather / nightfighting aircraft the Germans had nothing to compare with the P-61 or Mosquito. The Ju 88 was let down by grossly inferior electronics.

I would also declare a tie between the Ju 88 and Mosquito for best multirole aircraft of the war. And, yes, the Ju 88 served in more roles and was adaptable enough to be turned into a four-engine bomber...

 

The 109 was chosen as a “light fighter”, it was tiny…which is why I didn’t compare it to medium and heavy fighters. The 109 was also hamstrung by heavier and heavier loads for which it was not designed. The latter part of the war saw many green pilots and reduced parts and fuel and met Americans hungry for a kill…One simply cannot compare one for the other at the time, but rather look at the aircraft in isolation without it being overloaded or in the hands of amateurs. I say it WAS the best ‘light fighter’ of the war.
I wouldn’t call the TA152 a super fighter, rather a niche fighter. You cannot IMO compare the TA152 to drawings or prototypes, that’s not fair or right.
Even the 262 was a jet fighter, nothing super about it…The Germans came up with the swept wing LONG before the allies, and even when they found out about it, lacked the knowledge to adapt it…
The P80 looked like an antique right off the assembly line. Perhaps the Komet could be classed as a super fighter.
Had the 262 been given its rightful development and had the materials that it needed (high temperature metals- which were being given to the rocket industry) the 262 would have carved the allies up…nothing close to it.
I didn’t mention the night fighters (very few dedicated night fighters) and you dismiss the HE 219?
She was quite sophisticated…

 

Which ME 109 are you talking about here? The G-6 model was a dog. The K-2 variant, with its water/alcohol mix and nitrous oxide boosts, (which compensated for their fuel's low octane rating) was faster than the P-51D.

For transport aircraft, I nominate the German's Gigant by Messerschmidt, which carried a much heavier load. Also, it used materials (fabric) so didn't cut into metals needed by other aircraft. Another plus: they used French Gnome-Rhone engines, so didn't compete for BMW and Daimler Benz engines. (ALL transport aircraft were vulnerable to enemy fighters.)

For individual infantry weapons, the sturmgewehr, of course.

 

The light fighter supreme was (IMO) the Yak-3.

I'm interested in where your boundaries are for light & medium fighters (109 vs Spit) as their weights were pretty similar
A quick Google (waits to be corrected) shows the G-6 vs Vb (both in service early 1943)

G-6 / Vb
Empty: 2,247 kg / 2,297 kg
Gross: 3,148 kg / 3,004 kg
Max Take-off: 3,400 kg / 3,039 kg

Yak-3, from a year later
Empty: 2,105 kg
Max Take-off: 2,697 kg

 

I'd suggest the Arado Ar232 - in design terms it was basically the forerunner of all modern military transports

 

Alright, make your case. Why was the Owen clearly superior to contemporary SMG's?

-The Thompson M1928,M1,M1A1 were reliable, hard hitting (.45 ACP), and was produced in large numbers, 1,387,134. Negative, heavy and expensive.
-The Soviet PPSH-41 was produced in large numbers, 6,000,000+, had an impressive rate of fire, 1250 rpm, which coupled with the 71 round drum magazine made it formidable in close range fighting. It served from 1941 to the late '60's with the Soviet Union (similar service to Owen) but is still in use during the current Russo-Ukrainian War. It was widely used by North Korea and Chinese Communist forces in Korea and NVA/VC in Vietnam. also, Korea produced a copy the Type 49, China the Type 50, and Vietnam the K-50M. Negatives, somewhat inaccurate, early drum had some feed problems, totally resolved with 32 and 35 round box magazines. It fired the 7.62x25 Tokarev.
-Suomi KP/-31-Finnish SMG that the Soviet PPSH-41 was based upon was reliable, accurate, had a changeable barrel, and was chambered in 9mm parabellum. Negatives was not produced in huge numbers, expensive.
-MP40-German SMG, 1,100,000 built, chambered in 9mm parabellum. Lower ROF than others, which improves accuracy. Negatives, not as robust as others, more susceptible to environmental detritus, feed issues.
-M3/M3A1-US SMG. Cheaper and lighter than the Thompson SMG, (also less accurate), 655,363 manufactured. Chambered in .45 ACP but had conversion kits for 9mm parabellum, also the lightest of the contenders. Served 1943 through 1970's (limited issue until 1991). When first introduced the weapon had some reliability issues that were all corrected by August 1944. Very resistant to environmental factors. It was the weapon chosen by Delta Force when they formed in 1977, eventually replaced by the MP5.

I think the Owen was an excellent weapon. I just don't see that it was superior enough over all its competitors, to be ranked as best. The Suomi was a better, more refined weapon than the PPSH-41, but at 6 million copies, plus variants the PPSH made its presence felt (the German's even adopted captured PPSH's as they did with the Owen). The Thompson was a good, accurate SMG, with a punch. It served the allies well during the early dark days. Too refined and expensive, it couldn't keep up with demand even though almost 1.4 million were produced. The M3/M3A1, after overcoming its initial "teething" problems was a very good gun but was it superior enough to the PPSH to rate the top spot. I don't think so.

 

As for fighter aircraft, it is a rather broad subject. Let's go with early war 1939-1942 and mid-late war 1943-1945. That would be a more equitable standard, I don't see the value in light/medium/heavy, though I think revisiting Night-Fighter might be advantageous.

Thank you all for your nominations. I personally don't think the BF-109 (34,248 built) makes the final cut due to its short legs (lack of range). During the BoB the BF-109D was fairly evenly matched with the Hawker Hurricane I & II, (14,487 built all marks), BF-109E and Supermarine Spitfire were fairly evenly matched, but the 109D/E was unable to gain air superiority due largely to a lack of loiter time. The Supermarine Spitfire (20,351 built) had the numbers, like the BF-109 was produced throughout the war, and due to upgrades remained competitive. In the Pacific the Spitfire was eclipsed by the Japanese A6M Zero (10,939 produced) early in the war. This was partly due to tactics, partly due to superior pilots, partly due to characteristics the Zero had that had yet to be identified and counters developed for. Unfortunately, Japanese pilot training didn't keep pace with attrition and new or improved allied aircraft began to be fielded and improvements to the Zero or an effective follow-on type was not produced.
One reason given for nominating the BF-109 is the enormous number of victories scored. However, the vast majority were early war, on the Eastern Front against poor and mediocre Soviet pilots, flying outdated or ineffective aircraft using ineffective tactics. Kinda' like the US Navy vs Japan during the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", the only thing that stopped more kills was the enemy ran out of planes. The US P-40 (17,378 built) also turned in a yeoman like performance against Axis aircraft and was important in stemming the tide early on. It like the Hurricane was a solid though uninspired performer.
This leads us to the final contestant the FW-190 (20,000 built). When it appeared in France in August of 1941, it was superior to all its opponents.

So, to poll those that have thus far given their input, which one, if any, gets your vote as best early war fighter, only considering through December 1942?
CAC, T.A., Biak, Harolds, Ricky?

 

I'd have to say that in 1942 the FW 190 wins, hands down!

 

If I were forced to pick one, that would be what I would choose, but the top contenders are all so close. I think other factors and not the superiority of the machine was the determining factor in most engagements. You had several very good, BF-109, FW-190, A6M, Spitfire, then a couple of good, Hurricane, P-40 and a bunch of average or sub-par. All those listed appeared in sufficient numbers to be a factor.
I'd posit that early war, there was no "best" fighter, just several very good aircraft that, dominated the pack of also rans.

 

The 190…Close cousin to the TA152…Hehe…

 

Actually, the 190 gave the Spit. Vs a very hard go. It wasn't until the Spit IX came out that the RAF had a fighter that would compete. The 109-Fs also dominated the Spit V. Of course, a very good spit pilot in a V model would take a so-so pilot in either German plane.

 

There are stories of bi-planes giving modern WW2 aircraft a headache...Too manouverbale to get a bead on...Its easy to get "best" mixed up with "most successful" - The two don't necessarily match.
Lets say that all aircraft had the same pilot. The worst aircraft? Hhmmm...So many takers putting their hand up...
What was the most beautiful fighter aircraft of WW2?
Veltro
Folgore
Spitfire
He112