Most overated fighter (1 Viewer)

Which was the most over-rated fighter of the war? (As folks over-rate them nowadays)


  • Total voters
    110

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

.... Long range escorts were only effective when accompanied by the Strategic daylight bombing doctrine to draw up the opposing fighter forces - and then effective only if one could defeat the defenders.

I know this is off topic;

Incorrect. A long range fighter can appear anywhere in the German airspace and can hunt and roam as it wants. The presence of P51's and P38's was the beginning of the end for the LW. That's when the attrition really began and unless Germany could replace pilots faster than what the factual record is, they're still going to be defeated.

And consider this; even if their had been no heavy bomber campaign after the late 1943 debacles, the LW will still have to oppose the allied invasion of France and they would still have to run through a gauntlet of thousands of allied fighters which would have eliminated them in June 1944, and not piecemeal from Jan 1944 to May 1944
 
I ditto what Tomo said. Most enjoyable discussion and well thought out posts. To add two cents. I think what drives the idea of P51 being the most overrated fighter is for some, the popular media's attitude which is mostly uninformed. On TV and in many not very well researched books and online, there are many opinions expressed that say the P51 was by far the premier fighter of WW2. The P51 Mustang was a beautiful airplane, sexy looking and the pilots that flew it, naturally for the most part were and still are enthusiastic advocates for the airplane. Narurally the informed can look at the Mustang and pick a number of scenarios where the Mustang could be outclassed by other models of fighter planes. The facts are that the Mustang as a long range escort fighter did yeoman duty (to steal from Kern Tipps) and had a big impact on the war winning strategy. It was an inspired design but it's very popularity to the masses raises the hackles of many who are interested enough to really get into the nuts and bolts of WW2 history.
 
Chris - I got your point and 100% agree. I was just thinking about the simple difference in US vs European airpower doctrine regarding long range fighters.

Long range escorts were only effective when accompanied by the Strategic daylight bombing doctrine to draw up the opposing fighter forces - and then effective only if one could defeat the defenders.

Simply, that is the prime reason the Mustang made the impact it did. Pilot training and increasing pilot experience combined with entering the fight at its best altitude was huge.

It would have been a nice aircraft for the VVS but not as effective daily battling 190s and 109s on the deck. Ditto for Luftwaffe Mustang if the bomber force they were escorting were operating at 15-18000 feet over Britain.

I love the airplane but I'm not not blind to its 'relative' strengths and weaknesses.

Agreed, I think that is the biggest reason why the Luftwaffe failed in the BoB. If the Bf 109E had had the range of the Mustang, coupled with a different idea in tactics the Luftwaffe would have won. Of course this is all just speculation and "could have, should have, would have" stuff...

The facts are that the Mustang as a long range escort fighter did yeoman duty (to steal from Kern Tipps) and had a big impact on the war winning strategy.

Agreed. Fact is fact and as an escort fighter it was the premier machine.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the course of BoB would be different if German Bf 109 fighters were equipped with drop tanks in 1940 as it became standard from 1941 onwards? I find it strange (to say the least) that Bf 110 had drop tanks as early as 1940 but Bf 109s didn't when Bf 110 even without an drop tank already had much greater range then Bf 109.
 
I wonder if the course of BoB would be different if German Bf 109 fighters were equipped with drop tanks in 1940 as it became standard from 1941 onwards? I find it strange (to say the least) that Bf 110 had drop tanks as early as 1940 but Bf 109s didn't when Bf 110 even without an drop tank already had much greater range then Bf 109.
Curious that they didn't
they were available and in August 1940 the Bf109E-4 was being replaced by the E-7, fitted to accept a centre-line 66 Imp Gal drop tank. They were made from plywood and tended to 'unglue' with the inevitable fire hazard that ensued; pilots were understandably a little suspicious of them.
I say curious because the Bf110 had provision for 2 x 66 Imp Gal drop tanks outboard of the engines but I've not read of any complaints from their crews concerning these tanks flying apart and hosing the aircraft down with fuel.
I wonder what, if any, was the difference in construction between the tanks for both aircraft types.
 
I know this is off topic;

Incorrect. A long range fighter can appear anywhere in the German airspace and can hunt and roam as it wants. The presence of P51's and P38's was the beginning of the end for the LW. That's when the attrition really began and unless Germany could replace pilots faster than what the factual record is, they're still going to be defeated.

True - having said this you missed the point Syscom. Translate a Long Range Zero into the same airspace and see what results you get..as contrast the P-51.

My assertion was that the LW was forced to engage the Mustang in most cases in the 20-30K altitude area where it had a margin of performance over the 109 and 190. While the Fighter Sweep/Free Lance occasionally hit the jackpot (at say middle altitudes), more often than not it was catching the LW attempting to form up out in front and the Mustang usually had an altitude/energy advantage at the very beginning.

Second point, the P-38s weren't running any successful sweeps until they were already on their way out of the 8th AF and this was after the huge attrition of Feb-May, 1944 battles over Germany. The 38 was further cursed by being easy to spot from a long distance, making their ability to engage more difficult


And consider this; even if their had been no heavy bomber campaign after the late 1943 debacles, the LW will still have to oppose the allied invasion of France and they would still have to run through a gauntlet of thousands of allied fighters which would have eliminated them in June 1944, and not piecemeal from Jan 1944 to May 1944

That has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make about long range Fighter Sweeps. Over the Invasion front nobody needed a lot of range which meant Everybody (RAF, 8th/9th AF) had a chance with the LW - mostly at low altitudes.

An additional point to consider, the 78th and 353rd FG, both flying Jugs, got their worst thrashings in the opening days at Normandy - Ditto 4th FG w/Mustangs who got clobbered on the deck over France on June 6 and August 18. These weren't even fighter sweeps - they were fighter bomber sweeps and low level area patrols

These are the only days remotely approaching the 20th and 55th FG Lightning thrashings air to air against the LW in the Nov 43-Feb 44 timeframe.
 
Curious that they didn't
they were available and in August 1940 the Bf109E-4 was being replaced by the E-7, fitted to accept a centre-line 66 Imp Gal drop tank. They were made from plywood and tended to 'unglue' with the inevitable fire hazard that ensued; pilots were understandably a little suspicious of them.
I say curious because the Bf110 had provision for 2 x 66 Imp Gal drop tanks outboard of the engines but I've not read of any complaints from their crews concerning these tanks flying apart and hosing the aircraft down with fuel.
I wonder what, if any, was the difference in construction between the tanks for both aircraft types.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think it was tried on a limited basis...the RAF countered by attacking (intercepting) fighters over the channel and making them "drop tank" before the strategic benefit of the extra fuel came into play. :rolleyes::oops: That and the plywood fuel tanks leaked.
 
Comparing the defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940 to the victory over Germany in 1944 is interesting, but cannot be put down to any singlefactor. There are a myriad of reasons for the two outcomes

Here are some of the factors as I see them

1) Lack Of Reserves...relatively speaking, the Luftwaffe enjoyed a greater advantage in front line forces relative their enemy in 1940 than the Allies enjoyed over Germany in 1944. But they lacked an effective reserve, which meant every plane lost or damaged was much harder to replace.l In both 1940 and 1944, the Allies enjoyed a huge superiority in the available reserves, which meant that pilots could be turned around even when their mount was lost or damaged

On a similar vein, the Germans never had an adequate pilot training program. They just could not replace losses fast enough, and through the war tried to counter this by cutting back on training hours. This proved a disaster for the Luftwaffe and Germany. But it was a problem not easily addressed....the Germans never invested in support services nearly as heavily as the Allies, because they could not afford to, and lacked the oil to put a large force for training into place anyway

2) A failure to appreciate the effects of British Radar defences. By comparison the allies appreciated the effects of German radar and took elaborate steps to lessen irts effectiveness

3) A failure to concentrate forces. Typically the Germans attacked with strikes of around 200 aircraft each with a bombload significantly less than a B-17 or B-24. By comparison, it was not that uncommon for the allies to attack with a thousand bombers or more. Attacking in large formations reduces the effects of the defending fighters and makes the strike easier to defend. In the BoB the Germans attacked with multiple strike, using a fighter force inadequate to the task (should have been at least three times larger than it was).

4) Bombers that could not defend themselves properly. Whilst the US heavy bombers proved unable to fly completely unescorted, they nevertheless were blessed with formidable defences and were hard to shoot down.

5) A lack of clear strategy, and a strategy that was unrealistic to the capabilities of the force being engaged. In the beginning of the BoB the Germans set out to destroy the RAF as a fighting force. I dont believe the Luftwaffe had the strength or the means to do this. Even in its darkest days the RAF always had the option of pulling back out of range of the 109s and using about 3-4 days to recover. Given that Sealion was not ready (in a loose sense) until late October, there was no real threat arising if the british did withdraw. Its one of those common furphys that the germans had the RAF in its sights, but was denied by Gorings incompetence. I actually think Goring was ahead of the game, By September, only one of the British airfields had been knocked out, and none of the radar stations. The British were losing fighters, but they were replacing them much faster than the Germans were replacing their losses.

Attacking British cities would have reqiuired a heavy bomber force, which the Germans simply did not have.

By comparison, the Germans in 1944 could not retreat, due to the long range of the Allied air force. They were losing 1000 aircrew per month and could do nothing about it

6) Limitations of the aircraft. Ive already alluded to the shortcomings of the German Bombers. Their fighters also had limitations. The Bf 110 could not complete its allotted role of long range escort, and the 109 was too short ranged to do the job in its place. by comparison the Mustang in 1944 could excort Bombers allover Europe and fight competitively when it got there. There are few other aircraft that can claim that in this period.

Lots of other reasons....but I have to mow the lawn, or risk crashing and burning myself.....
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back