What is a plane that is overrated for it combat effectiveness

[Venomstick121]

Why do you think the A-10?

The idea behind it is great, aircraft whose main weapon is a large gun but the execution not so much. It has the highest number of blue on blue incidents, partly because of the lack of identification system and many pilots even took binoculars just to see the ground better. The f-111 performed the tank busting role much better than the A-10. The main issues being an incriminate gun, high pilot workload, lack of good electronic sensor options.

 

[tomo pauk]

This is in contrast to a previous thread that I have. I'll go first, A-10 warthog.

In the 'modern' era, of back from the beginning of the ww1 until now?

 

[Venomstick121]

In the 'modern' era, of back from the beginning of the ww1 until now?

I couldn't find like a general thread for all eras.

 

[tomo pauk]

I couldn't find like a general thread for all eras.

Okay.

My pick is the Hs 129.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The idea behind it is great, aircraft whose main weapon is a large gun but the execution not so much. It has the highest number of blue on blue incidents, partly because of the lack of identification system and many pilots even took binoculars just to see the ground better. The f-111 performed the tank busting role much better than the A-10. The main issues being an incriminate gun, high pilot workload, lack of good electronic sensor options.

What do you mean by lack of identification system?

Is there data that shows the F-111 was a better tank buster?

Also what kind of sensors are you referring too? Remember the aircraft was designed and mainly used in a different era.

 

[Venomstick121]

Also what kind of sensors are you referring too?

Sensors to assist in identifying friend from foe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sensors to assist in identifying friend from foe.
View attachment 757193

View attachment 757194

Ok, thanks for clarifying and I understand what you mean.

So when it comes to friend or foe identification the A-10 really had/has whatever technology at the time.

You have to remember that the A-10 was designed to combat mass formations of Soviet Tanks coming through the Fulda Gap in Germany where identification of enemy tanks would not be difficult at all.

So in that context the A-10 will perform admirable and 2nd to none.

If you use any aircraft outside of its intended or best role it will be at a disadvantage.

For those reasons I don't think the A-10 can be seen as overrated. It just fortunately never had to be used for its intended purpose.

 

[Venomstick121]

Ok, thanks for clarifying and I understand what you mean.

So when it comes to friend or foe identification the A-10 really had/has whatever technology at the time.

You have to remember that the A-10 was designed to combat mass formations of Soviet Tanks coming through the Fulda Gap in Germany where identification of enemy tanks would not be difficult at all.

So in that context the A-10 will perform admirable and 2nd to none.

If you use any aircraft outside of its intended or best role it will be at a disadvantage.

For those reasons I don't think the A-10 can be seen as overrated. It just fortunately never had to be used for its intended purpose.

Your welcome, to be honest I did forget that about why the A-10 was made and I understand why you say it cant be seen as overated. Your point is completely valid.

 

[ThomasP]

re the A/OA-10C capabilities

as of 2016
"A-10 to the Ukrainians? Recent comments by the Air Force secretary suggest a way out for the USAF from A-10 ownership"

as of July 2022
""All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again.""

as of today
""All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again.""

 

[Shortround6]

Fulmar gets a bad rap due to timing.

It took too long to come into service and then seeing as how it was intended to be a temporary expedient, they kept it in service too long.

Went in squadron service in July 1940. Saw Action in Aug 1940.
It can't deal with a Macchi 202? Which doesn't show up until Sept 1941.
Spitfire II showed up in the summer of 1940. Very few in service in Sept 1941. Spitfire II was replaced in production in very early 1941 by the Spitfire V with the better supercharger.

Now because Fulmar was a "temporary expedient" they never did much in the way of upgrades.
Functionally the Merlin 30 in the Fulmar II was a Merlin III with cropped impeller, (there were internal changes/up grades)
It never got the improved inlet/supercharger of the Merlin XX and Merlin 45.

Now even with a 1600hp engine the Fulmar was never going to be a 330mph airplane but it could have been better.
They were waiting on the Firefly, 200 of which had been ordered off the Drawing board in June of 1940. One month before the Fulmar enters squadrons service. It took until Dec 1941 for the Prototype to fly and until March 1943 for any Firefly's to reach squadrons (actual combat took a lot longer).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Your welcome, to be honest I did forget that about why the A-10 was made and I understand why you say it cant be seen as overated. Your point is completely valid.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong either. I just have a differing view.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fulmar gets a bad rap due to timing.

It took too long to come into service and then seeing as how it was intended to be a temporary expedient, they kept it in service too long.

Went in squadron service in July 1940. Saw Action in Aug 1940.
It can't deal with a Macchi 202? Which doesn't show up until Sept 1941.
Spitfire II showed up in the summer of 1940. Very few in service in Sept 1941. Spitfire II was replaced in production in very early 1941 by the Spitfire V with the better supercharger.

Now because Fulmar was a "temporary expedient" they never did much in the way of upgrades.
Functionally the Merlin 30 in the Fulmar II was a Merlin III with cropped impeller, (there were internal changes/up grades)
It never got the improved inlet/supercharger of the Merlin XX and Merlin 45.

Now even with a 1600hp engine the Fulmar was never going to be a 330mph airplane but it could have been better.
They were waiting on the Firefly, 200 of which had been ordered off the Drawing board in June of 1940. One month before the Fulmar enters squadrons service. It took until Dec 1941 for the Prototype to fly and until March 1943 for any Firefly's to reach squadrons (actual combat took a lot longer).

I give it a bad rap because it had a hard time fighting other current fighters, and had a hard time intercepting many current bombers -- especially if caught low on the deck. And even if there's no 109s out in the Atlantic, there are Ju-88s over Biscay, and try intercepting one of those in a Fulmar ...

I don't care why this was the case, timing or whatnot. The thing I'm arguing against is the whole "highest-scoring FAA fighter, must be decent" thing, because of 80-odd kills. Mmkay.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A carrier fighter doesn't have to be able outperform the opponent's fighters if the opponents fighters can't get there.

Well said, and true in almost all the Fulmars ops, except one.... Considering that HMS Ark Royal was designed for Pacific Ops it would have been nice if her fighters were too. And forget the fighters, the Fulmar is slower than a clean B5N.

A6M
First flight 1 April 1939
Introduction 1 July 1940

Fulmar
First flight 4 January 1940
Introduction 10 May 1940

Both are destined to meet over Ceylon. It's too bad there were no spies reporting on what Mitsubishi were working on; or those at the Air Ministry that would appreciate what the "backward" Japanese have just done.

 

[Shortround6]

The thing I'm arguing against is the whole "highest-scoring FAA fighter, must be decent" thing, because of 80-odd kills. Mmkay.

Well, I will admit that the bar for most FAA kills is pretty low.
But then the RAF has to contend with the Hurricane being the highest scoring RAF fighter.

almost 6 years, different theaters and different opponents can introduce a bunch of statistical anomalies.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, I will admit that the bar for most FAA kills is pretty low.

I wonder what FAA fighter has the highest kills of enemy fighters. I assume it's one of Martlet, Corsair or Hellcat, but it may well be the Sea Harrier, if we consider Skyhawks as fighters.

 

[Ovod]

I'm sure a few Iraqis might disagree with you.

My own picks, for the time period of the forum, would be the Ju-87 or the Fairey Fulmar, and as much as it pains me to say it, the P-38.

According to the RAF museum, the Ju-87 was responsible for sinking the largest number of enemy shipping during WW2, or during any other time. Certainly sank more ships than any Japanese or US torpedo or dive bomber - certainly sank more ships than the Fairey Swordfish (there's a candidate for "most overrated aircraft").

Doesn't sound too overrated to me.

Junkers Ju87G-2 - RAF Museum

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to the RAF museum, the Ju-87 was responsible for sinking the largest number of enemy shipping during WW2, or during any other time. Certainly sank more ships than any Japanese or US torpedo or dive bomber - certainly sank more ships than the Fairey Swordfish (there's a candidate for "most overrated aircraft").

Doesn't sound too overrated to me.

Junkers Ju87G-2 - RAF Museum

I'd really like to see those hard numbers.

 

[don4331]

(Wow, I didn't think my posting would hit so many nerves!)

You are absolutely right, as I conceded to Shortround6 in regard to the Mid-Atlantic: In a scenario populated by low-performance planes (low performance in everything except for range), the Fulmar could do well. The one-eyed man ...

Welcome to the forum; yes, you hit a number of nerves.

While top speed numbers are interesting, they are only representative of a certain condition e.g. clean (i.e. no external stores), ideal altitude, etc. And we will note that piston engines are often only good for max power for a very short period e.g. 5 minute limit and they were extremely hard on fuel when operating at max power - not quite as bad as modern jet on afterburners but way more than cruise (planes are using excess fuel for cooling). And that planes, especially torpedo bombers, had to fly low and slow to "belly flop" their ordinance in without damaging it.

It is often more illustrative to look at cruise speeds. He.111 - 190 mph; SM.79 - 161 mph; B5N1 - 161 mph; Bf.109E - 233 mph (Aside, while Bf.109E maxes out at 348 mph at altitude, it only makes 290 mph at sea level. As with the Soviets, if you can drag the German fighters down to the deck, their advantage is negated.)

And ideally our interceptor has an altitude advantage - so will be exceeding its max level speed.

So, the Fulmar often has >100mph speed advantage over the Axis bombers as they approach the RN convoys as it attacks.

Had I been in FAA, of course I would have preferred a high performance single seat fighter - I'll take a Hawker Sea Fury thank you kindly. But given how technology changed between specification being written and plane coming into service, the Fulmar wasn't all that bad. I think Fairey could have done a much better job, but FAA needed it now, not next year. The FAA requirements didn't help - RN needed planes for their next generation carriers (Ark Royal/Illustrious class) - being 10+ knots faster than Argus - when they relaxed the landing restrictions, the FAA got better planes.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'd really like to see those hard numbers.

I too would like to see them, however, I would not consider it an overrated aircraft. The Stuka was deadly accurate (2nd to none) and its siren had a great psychological effect. It was also an effective tank buster as well.

Some argue that it was overrated because it required air superiority to be effective. Well that is true of all lightly armed dive bomber aircraft. You put any dive bomber of any kind into contested airspace it will be a turkey shoot.

So considering it was highly accurate at its intended role, I don't think it can be considered overrated.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Some argue that it was overrated because it required air superiority to be effective. Well that is true of all lightly armed dive bomber aircraft. You put any dive bomber of any kind into contested airspace it will be a turkey shoot.

This is the basis for my opinion, true. But I think of the Dauntlesses making their getaways at both Coral Sea and Midway and consider that any dive-bomber would be a turkey may be a bit overbroad. The SBD was quite a bit handier than the Stuka, even if the whole CAP thing is overblown.

And even if Stukas did indeed sink more vessels than SBD, I'd bet the the SBD surpasses it in tonnage sunk.