But how can you overlook the bad Axis aircraft?
I Do not overlook the bad Axis aircraft, but I guess you are right mostly on the large, double-engine bomber argument, But again I'm talking about the tactical bombers. D3A, JU-87, D4Y, I Know how bad the JU-88 was.
Every German bomber of the war, minus the Ar-234, Ju-88 and the Do-217, was poorly armed and inferior to their allied counterpart. I could include the Ju-188, Ju-388S all day but how can you include aircraft that made no impact? The Roma sinking does not make the He-111 a better aircraft, as you stated, but remember, after that sinking, the Allies threw up more fighters in the air, making sure no German bombers came within range of using their smart weapons.
"Poorly armed" is as I stated not a valid argument, the JU-88 Was'n a four engine superbomber, it could'n carry 11 50.cal barrels, theres no "poorly armed" in most bombers, anything below a 2 engine fixed wing usually had one or two barrels in the rear (occasionally a second turret under the plane, but that was fairly rare) anything above that would have the general layout, tail gunners, waist gunners, nose gunners, etc, "Poor armament" means a 2 engine bomber with one or two poorly placed turrets, its really just does'n make sense to call a bomber poorly armed, they were'n intended to be armed to engage enemy aircraft, all their armament was placed throughout the plane as a defensive measure.
as much as the TBD Devestators were decisively defeated by interceptors when making bombing runs on IJN Cvs in midway, the German bombers would've been in a fairly similar situation with enemy interceptors. this is'n surprising stuff.
Note similar stats, the Ju-88 has a much better range, but much worse defensive armament. Now mind you that is the best German medium bomber the Germans fielded in a numerical number, the best as the He-111, Do-17Z, and Ju-86 were markedly inferior. The B-26 had the lowest combat losses out of all American bombers, but for the Allies, the better bomber would be the Mosquito, and I don't think you need the stats on that one.
because it was'n extensively used? the B-26 had teething problems which made it a scary beast to use, the B-25 mitchell was used more than the B-26 & the B-32 and was more produced.
Here are the stats on the B-25.
Crew: six (one pilot, one co-pilot, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner)
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.13 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 7 in (20.60 m)
Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
Wing area: 610 sq ft (56.7 m²)
Empty weight: 19,480 lb (8,855 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-2600-92 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 1,700 hp (1,267 kW) each
Maximum speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)
Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)
Range: 1,350 mi (1,174 nmi, 2,174 km)
Service ceiling: 24,200 ft (7,378 m)
Every Japanese bomber USED during the war, minus the Ki-67 Peggy, was vastly inferior to their Allied counterpart. All of them were poorly armed, poorly armored and carried a small bomb load. The Betty was nicknamed the 'one shot lighter!' Not a good name to pick up.
Again, not seeing where you're going with poorly armed, the D3A val carried two 7.7mms synchronized MG's and a single Type 1 MG in the rear. what more is it supposed to carry? would you look at what the SBD carried and compare? nothing much different. but than again, The only way you could improve a tactical bomber's livability was agility and speed and most importantly escort protection. could the SBD or helldiver or TBF hold out on their own without escorts? they'd get eaten like breakfast, they need escorts to survive, now what about the japanese bombers, D4Y, D3A, B7A, They are all dogfighters unlike the general-purpose USN bombers.
The Ju-87 was completely outclassed. The Battle of Britain showed that. How do a couple of Ju-87G's make up for the rest of the Ju-87's poor showing after the Blitz? Could they take out tanks, yes very much so. Were they hacked out of the sky right and left, you bet.
you are stating that the bomber is a poor bomber for being shot down like any bomber would be shot down? I'm talking accuracy, later models, tech advents, the JU87 possessed an early crude form of autopilot and dive brakes, it was gold for its age but it was slow and like the SBD or helldiver cant turn or waltz around the skies, it'll drive home and take the bullets, now lets re-mention armament here, it has a single MG in the rear and two in the front, wheres the poor armament?
Now I use bad in a general sense. Yes the Zero and Bf-109G could be flown by great aces against better aircraft and come out on top, but by 1943 and esp 1944 there was a dwindling pool of good pilots for the Axis. Even if say they matched the Allies in pilots, the Axis pilots are still flying aircraft that reached their airframes limits by 1944. The Zero A6M5's max speed is 360mph, the Hellcat is 380mph, but the Hellcat had better armor, could dive faster, and was more of a pilots aircraft. The Bf-109G had a similar if not better climb rate then the Mustang, but a mustang could turn inside it, and certainly outrun it, and on the western front, the Mustang was superior at altitude, where most of the battles took place.
And the KI-84? There was no such thing as "Armor" on aircraft, just thick metal, naval aircraft would generally posses the thickest metal plating of most aircraft, the hellcat enjoyed the typical USA 14mm thick metal, what is it supposed to do? bounce of every bullet? sure, it would bounce a few bullets but based on my own assumption one in every 10 7.7mm bullets will pass through, the hellcat was an all metal fighter like the F4F, its turn rate was improved but it still had nothing on most japanese fighter's turn-rate.
You bring up late war Axis aircraft that were rushed, or barely off the drawing board while if the Allies had to rush their aircraft into battle (which when you are winning, there is no point) look at what they were bringing to the table:
aircraft I Brought up: JU-87, D4Y, D3A, Japanese fighters and bombers in general, FW190, BF109, The only few late-war aircraft I brought were the G8N And A 324. Admittedly.
How the hell does the G8N compare to a B-17?? The B-17 was first flown in 1936, when the G8N wasn't even a daydream by Mitu.
As much as your comparsion of a 1941 B-26 to a 1939 JU-88, That does'n hold much sway anyways, the B-17 first took off in the 30's, but did it mean the USAAF showed up in the skies of europe with the same stuff from 1936? like the JU-88 The B-17 Was upgraded into newer varaints, as much as, probably 80-90% of all aircraft in WW2
the BF-109 First flown in 1935 and was still in full use in 1945 and made a peer for the P-51, why? because they upgraded it into new variants
I will not argue that the B7N, or D4Y were worse aircraft, they were superior to the SBD, TBF and SB2C (which was a terrible aircraft) but its a case of too little, too late. At any rate the A-1 Skyraider was a superior product to each of these aircraft, and it would have replaced both the TBF and SB2C.
Agreed in general.
Well damn that's alot of writing . I think its safe to say who's aircraft we like the best (You Axis, Me Allies lol), and I will agree to disagree and say this: Both sides made good, and bad aircraft, but isn't it cool that we know all this stuff about these great flying machines
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just arguing unbiasdly, I'm not stating that the axis had all in all superior aircraft but in general had better/good aircraft, ofcourse the Allies had better counterparts here and there, now or later, but in general the A6M reigned over the F4F, P-40, F2A, while the B5N ruled over the TBD, the D3A in someways better than the SBD, the SBD was a general purpose aircraft, it would've done its job accordingly and smoothely, divebombing a target, the D3A was more than that, it could fill in as a dogfighter aswell, but naturally that comes with sacrifices in armoring, payload, etc etc. all in all both sides had good aircraft in WW2, i'm not saying the allied ones were crap, and agreed, I love history