Most overated fighter

[KrazyKraut]

Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.

Great reasoning: The 109 is crap because Germany didn't win the war.

I quote JoeB: "There's seems a fairly widespread recognition that it had success in some periods/theaters of the war (or wars, WWII and Spanish Civil War), and didn't in others, for a variety of reasons." Where in any book good or bad, any television show or any movie is the Bf 109 ever represented as overall supreme or without opposition? None. In fact it's probably a bit underrated in public opinion because that opinion likes to focus on either the BoB or the year of 1944, the worst periods for the Bf 109.

How anyone can call the 109 overrated or even an overall failure is beyond me and I can only think these people must be politically motivated.

 

[drgondog]

Maybe most objective definition of 'overrated' is how often a given audience will misunderstand actual facts about a plane's operational history. Even if everybody has different opinions based on the same agreed facts, that's not as important as misunderstanding of fact. Which facts are misunderstood will depend on the audience, though.

I voted Spitfire with a reasonably well informed audience in mind, because there tends to be IMO the most stubborn refusal to admit to the often mediocre operational record of mid-mark Spitfires, and the relative lack of importance of the later mark Spits to the outcome of the war, even among such people. In first case there's still a strong tendency to quote Spit success in terms of Brit claims whereas in many cases in period ca. 1941-43 the results look quite different from the German side, or considering both sides' reported losses only. In the second case post 1943 the Spitfire was increasingly really successful in fighter-fighter exchange ratio but the real action v the German fighter force shifted to Germany and the Spit couldn't reach (until bases were established near the German border late in the war). The Spit's overall success in the BoB is a valid reason to consider early mark Spits successful and important fighters. Also, from a purely technical POV late mark Spits were excellent a/c compared to contemporaries. But again the rose colored (or often 'coloured' ) glasses on the plane-for-plane operational success 1941-43 and operational importance after 1943 is why it wins my overrated award.

On P-51, if someone's level of background and interest is limited to 'rah rah' individual a/c books that present *all* planes' operational records in the best possible light based on claims, and junky TV documentaries, then OK the P-51 is overrated, perhaps massively depending how junky the sources. But it's less overrated by refusal to accept its real record, among people who should know better, than the Spitfire is, IMO.

The Zero is claimed to be overrated compared to some monumental reputation...except very few people especially Americans or Europeans seem to credit it such a reputation. So I don't understand what it's supposed to be overrated compared to, in such an audience. Eventually a/c like the P-40 could meet it on equal terms in air combat...OK but the P-40 was basically a later airplane. And no other contemporary real fighter, certainly not the P-40 or F4F, could come anywhere near matching the radius of the Zero. That was a key factor in Japanese conquest (especially supported by *land based* Zeroes) of a pretty notable % of the earth's surface in just a few months; conquests it took the Allies, even with overwhelming industrial superiority, a few years to regain. Many discussions of the Zero fail to admit that at all or, 'OK long range, that's nice but...'. No, it wasn't just nice but a major influence on the early Pac War at a strategic level. The Zero is in the running for most *underrated* major fighter of WWII IMO.

I don't see the Bf109 as competing for either prize. There's seems a fairly widespread recognition that it had success in some periods/theaters of the war (or wars, WWII and Spanish Civil War), and didn't in others, for a variety of reasons. Like the Spitifre, pretty different a/c all called 'Bf109' were fielded over a long (in those days) period, but there seem to be fewer Bf109 fans who insist it was always a successful fighter across that whole period (which it wasn't) than Spit fans who claim the same (it also wasn't). Although there are people who do overrate the Bf109, as is true with *some* people for just about any fighter.

Joe

Good summary Joe... for all of it

 

[parsifal]

Defining whether a plane is "overrated" is more difficult than first glance would suggest. To me, whether an aircraft is overrated depends on whether the "popular myth" is so far removed from the reality. In other words, did a given aircraft do what its propoents say that it does. So the formaula to apply for "overatedness" would be a series of questions that goes something like this

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth? The aircraft with the greates gap, is, IMO the most overrated type....

 

[JoeB]

Informed people (unless they are biased) do not over-rate things they are informed about. Generally, over-rating takes place by uninformed people. Since we are "all" informed people here :: we ourselves ought not to ever over-rate anything. . . . .

I said reasonably well informed, not perfectly informed. And by no means did I exclude bias, that's a very big 'unless' you're assuming there .

Joe

 

[parsifal]

So applying this methodolgy, I thought it might be useful to look at some of the contenders

first one off the rank is the P-51

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"

Some people claim that the P-51 was responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 1944-5

2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"

The Mustang played a big part in the destruction of the german Fighter force in 1944, however it was greatly assisted by the P-47 and P-38s, and in the tactical sphere by aircraft of the RAF, and other aircraft of the other allied airforces. Moreover, the conditions that made the Luftwaffe brittle in 1944 had been won, at cost in the preceding years by all manner of aircraft in tha allied inventory
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
The Mustang can rightly claim the lions share for defeating the the LW in 1944. However it is far fetched to suggest or imply that it did this without great assistance

I would rate the difference between the myth and the truth as moderate

 

[parsifal]

The A6M

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"

The zero was markedly superior to all its opponents when introduced, but was overcome later by aircraft of supeior performance, better tactics, and improved pilot training

2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"

The zero was markedly superior to its opponents when first introduced, and the psychological shock that a carrier based fighter could outperform land based equivalent. that it was of japanese origin was almost unbelievable for many. Later it was outclassed by better aircraft, that were in poarticular better protected. The Zero had some serious design and performace faults that could be exploited
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
Very little. The only untrue myth I can see, was that it was not really outclassed by the wildcat

I would rate this as a minor diffrence between fact and fiction

 

[parsifal]

What are the myths about the Spitfire that people have read????

 

[Soren]

Hey don't take it so personal!

It is not like anyone said "Soren is overated!"

 

[drgondog]

So applying this methodolgy, I thought it might be useful to look at some of the contenders

first one off the rank is the P-51

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"

Some people claim that the P-51 was responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 1944-5

I would restate to say it soundly defeated the Luftwaffe over Germany in 1944-1945. Having said that, what you say is the claim that too many people embrace when they describe the Mustang.

2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"

The Mustang played a big part in the destruction of the german Fighter force in 1944, however it was greatly assisted by the P-47 and P-38s, and in the tactical sphere by aircraft of the RAF, and other aircraft of the other allied airforces. Moreover, the conditions that made the Luftwaffe brittle in 1944 had been won, at cost in the preceding years by all manner of aircraft in tha allied inventory

While true for all of the MTO and ETO, the Mustang air and ground victories were significantly higher in total to both the P-47 and P-38 combined and most of them were over Germany where the RAF plus 9th AF and 8th AF P-47s could not compete except for France, Belgium and Holland and western Germany.

The P-38 in the ETO scored 260-161 (air-gnd destroyed) for the Mustang totals of 3368-3212.. to give you a perspective about the balance between the two long range escort fighters in the Batlle over Germany. Even in the 9th AF the 354th FG overshadowed the contributions of the P-47 and P-38 groups in the 9th AF air battle aspect

3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
The Mustang can rightly claim the lions share for defeating the the LW in 1944. However it is far fetched to suggest or imply that it did this without great assistance

Absolutely correct. It is fair to say that the greatest part of the assistance was the bombers as 'bait' - which many 8th AF crews today feel that Doolittle/Spaatz did to them with the famous directive "seek them in the air, on the ground" in January 1944.

I would rate the difference between the myth and the truth as moderate

I wouldn't disagree, for the same reasons you and Basket articulated.

 

[Thorlifter]

Wait, are you telling me the Lightning only shot down 260 planes in the ETO????? If that's true, I had no idea it was that few.

 

[Soren]

Absolutely correct. It is fair to say that the greatest part of the assistance was the bombers as 'bait' - which many 8th AF crews today feel that Doolittle/Spaatz did to them with the famous directive "seek them in the air, on the ground" in January 1944.

Agreed.

 

[The Basket]

So no P-51 and would the war differed?

I doubt...

The most over rated are certainly all the German miracle jets which did next to nothing. Say 540mph and wave a magic wand....make all the B-17s disappear.

 

[Soren]

The jets are not overrated. The reason they didn't impact the war was because they weren't allowed to, first by Hitler then by the lack of fuel and trained pilots. A mere 50 jets aint really going to change much when up against thousands of bombers fighters, and that fuel trained pilots was in short supply didn't help matters either.

That having been said the jets couldn't have won the war for Germany, but they could've chased the western Allies out of mainland Europe had they been used correctly from the beginning.

 

[The Basket]

What did jets do in WW2...zip.

Doesn't matter what the deal is because zip still equals zip.

Ifs and buts don't win wars.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What did jets do in WW2...zip.

Doesn't matter what the deal is because zip still equals zip.

Ifs and buts don't win wars.

Zip is the point of your post...

Fact is that that as an aircraft they were not overated. They were better than any aircraft in the sky. Only a fool would say that performance and aircraft wise the Me 262 was overated.

As Soren pointed out they were not effective because Hitler wanted them used as bombers, by the time he realized his mistake and had them used as interceptors it was too late.

Now if you said tactic wise they were overated, I would agree because of what I said above.

Besides using your statement above you might as well say ALL jets, allied and axis were overated in WW2, which I will still have to disagree with you because jets were the future of aviation. Fact is fact...

 

[The Basket]

The 262 had the potential to be a great fighter. But it didn't shoot down enough enemy aircraft or fulfill its role.

So the 262 is not in the same league as the Spitfire or 109.

A fool? It was foolish of the Germans to trust an untried technology when more traditional aircraft could have done more.

 

[parsifal]

The Spitfire
(didnt get any feedback, so this is just my interpretation)

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
It won the battle of britain, and dominated the skies over Europe later in the war
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
It was the highest performaing aircraft avalable to the british in 1940, achieved a good kill to loss ratio in the battle, and subsequent, was able to improve its overall performance considerably during its operational life.

It did not "dominate" the skies over Europe. It did dominate the skies over friendly controlled territory, such as England and Malta
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
I love the Spitfire, but i have to concede that the difference between the fact and the fiction is considerable. I would rate this overatedness as moderate to high

 

[The Basket]

Spitfire did nice within the limited range it had. Did nicely when it could.

Propoganda wins wars too.

The Spitfire became a symbol of British fighting spirit.

So we say yes the myth was created but is it the myth or the metal that fights the battles...

 

[Oreo]

Wait, are you telling me the Lightning only shot down 260 planes in the ETO????? If that's true, I had no idea it was that few.

I don't think it's true. Don't know where he got his numbers. I heard more like 1,000 or so, in Europe and Med combined, but the P-38's victory to loss ratio was about 1:1 in europe and med compared to about 2.5:1 for P-51 and between 1.5 and 2:1 for P-47. Of all fighter types used in ETO and MTO, the stats I saw (don't have em in front of me) the P-38 had the worst loss to sortie ratio, and the P-39 had the best, although the P-39 had only, I think, around 14 kills in the MTO! Those stats also showed the p-61 had about 2:1 K:L ratio, Spitfire about <1:1 (maybe .8:1) in U.S.A.A.F. hands (does not include Eagle Squad stats, E.S. was operating with RAF). Beaufighter in US hands also was <1:1. The P-40 (USAAF) in MTO was also <1:1.

That book said complete records were not available at that time for the USAAF in the PTO or CBI.

It's important to remember the K:L ratio includes aircraft lost to Flak, and possibly over-target operational losses (collisions, engine failures, loss of fuel, etc). Therefore the Spit, P-40 ratios, etc. may well have been closer to 1:1 or better in actual air:air combat. It also shows the P-38 to have been quite a worthy plane since we know it was used a lot in a FB roll, which would have had many Flak losses and so on. Fighting the LW was difficult, and for our planes to have any ratios over 1:1 is amazing in itself.

The book with those stats, I do not have, had it out of the library once. I think it was called American Combat Aircraft. It had "all" the combat A/C from the USA from earliest days (WWI) through the time it was written, 1970's.

 

[parsifal]

The Me 109

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
That the 109 was able to demolish all opposition in front of it, whether that be over friendly territory or enemy, in the period 1939-42, with the exception of the skies over britain, and even over these skies it was through no fault of the Me 109. Later it gave good account of itself in the defensive battles over germany and occupied Europe
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
The me 109 was a superb fighter aircraft, designed as a defensive fighter in the mid-30s. However, whilst it could achieve domination in the early war period over German territory, or in a tactical sense as part of the battlefield control, it did not dominate the skies over Europe at any time, because it lacked the range to do anything of the sort. Even during the periods of its greatest successes the air force that it was a part of suffered heavy losses, which in part stemmed from the fact that its principal fighter could not provide proper cover for the bombers. This, for me expalins why the Luftwaffe suffered such heavy losses over places like Poland, France, the Low Countries, Malta, and Britain
Later in the war, in the role intended for it, the 109 proved to be an ideal bomber destroyer , and fought heroically against some pretty long odds. But even here, the truth is that it could not successfully complete its mission. There are a lot of reasons for this, and most of them have nothing to do with the 109s characteristics, but the facts are that it could not at any time lay claim to strategically "dominate" the airspace it flew in, as is so often claimed for it
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?

Similar to the Spitfire, i am a great admirer of the 109, as a piece of aeronautical engineering, and able to achieve some impressive feats in the air during its operational life the claims made for it by some, and the reality are poles apart. This is why I rate as the most overrated aircraft of the war. Its not because I want to denigrate the aircraft, have an agenda, or anything else. its because I look at the claims made for it, look at the reality, and realize that there is a huge differnce between the two positions.