Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[gruad]

Where do you guys get some of this stuff? From a cracker jack box.

The size of the JUG and a radial will keep you safer if you get hit.

 

[Shortround6]

The size of the JUG and a radial will keep you safer if you get hit.

well, at least some of the hits will be further away from the cockpit

On another plane they would be called misses.

 

[GrauGeist]

well, at least some of the hits will be further away from the cockpit

On another plane they would be called misses.

My favorite anecdote of the P-47's size:
"...the British pilots joked that a Thunderbolt pilot could defend himself from a Luftwaffe fighter by running around and hiding in the fuselage..."

 

[Schweik]

the first two data look reliable but the third..
so i did a search
JoeB wrote time ago:
".. but the point remains that the all-1942 average of Zero v F4F, which consisted of 100+ losses on each side, was pretty even (apparently a bit in the F4F's favor)."
"It may 'jumping in with ten league boots' again, but somebody quoted 6.9 ratio for F4F which is just not remotely realistic for real fighter-fighter kill ratio, that's the claimed ratio (approx anyway) v all types; the real ratio v Zero was around 1:1 in 1942, and doesn't seem to have dramatically risen in '43 Solomons combats before the F4F was phased out (not counting the FM-2's career in 1944-45). F4F's also met Type 1's over the Solomons in a few combats in early 1943 before the Japanese settled on using Army air units in NG and Navy ones in the Solomons. The outcomes were not vastly different than against Zeroes in those few cases, nor did the F4F pilots recognize immediately that they were facing a different opponent."

Those US Navy pilots were quite well trained by the standards of the period. Maybe not as much as IJN pilots, but they got gunnery training, combat training - far more than a lot of USAAF or RAAF pilots did before they went into action. Having radios in the planes and flying in pairs / finger four flights also helped a lot. Thach weave kind of put those pieces together, but I've read that if they hadn't had good training in deflection shooting Thach weave wouldn't have worked.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Zero was a great platform at the beginning of the war

The A6M didn't show up until the summer of 1940, when the war was almost a year old, and not in any significant numbers until later 1941, when the war was two years old.

 

[Schweik]

Thank God the Japanese didn't have Zeros in 1939. That would have been rough.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The A6M didn't show up until the summer of 1940, when the war was almost a year old, and not in any significant numbers until later 1941, when the war was two years old.

The beginning of the war in the Pacific was December 7, 1941. The Zero didn't fight in Europe (obviously) and I don't think we were discussing the war in Europe so what's your point???

 

[Ovod]

The A6M didn't show up until the summer of 1940, when the war was almost a year old, and not in any significant numbers until later 1941, when the war was two years old.

Spitfire didn't show up "in any significant numbers" in the war until the summer of 1940 in the Battler of Britain - which is one reason why I selected the the aircraft as "most overrated".

The only fighter aircraft to be operated from the very beginning to the very end of the European theatre was the Bf 109 (by 2 days).

 

[GrauGeist]

Japan had been at war in Asia since 1937, actually going as far back as 1931 - the US became involved in 1941, several years after the fact (both in the Pacific and Europe).

 

[SaparotRob]

Spitfire didn't show up "in any significant numbers" in the war until the summer of 1940 in the Battler of Britain - which is one reason why I selected the the aircraft as "most overrated".

The only fighter aircraft to be operated from the very beginning to the very end of the European theatre was the Bf 109 (by 2 days).

Out of curiosity, How would the P-40 fit in this timeline?

 

[pbehn]

Out of curiosity, How would the P-40 fit in this timeline?

P-40s ordered by France were diverted to UK along with those ordered by UK, started arriving in UK in 1940 started in service in 1941.

 

[wuzak]

The only fighter aircraft to be operated from the very beginning to the very end of the European theatre was the Bf 109 (by 2 days).

The 2 days between Germany invading Poland and Britain and France declaring war?

 

[GrauGeist]

The only fighter aircraft to be operated from the very beginning to the very end of the European theatre was the Bf 109 (by 2 days).

Just for the record, there were a few types that soldiered on to the end of the war, operated by smaller air forces.
One such example is the Moraine-Saulnier MS.406, which entered Frence service in 1938 (one year before the European war) and several were still in service with the Finnish Air Force at war's end (1945).

 

[buffnut453]

Spitfire didn't show up "in any significant numbers" in the war until the summer of 1940 in the Battler of Britain - which is one reason why I selected the the aircraft as "most overrated".

The only fighter aircraft to be operated from the very beginning to the very end of the European theatre was the Bf 109 (by 2 days).

Doesn't matter how many Spitfires were operational. Bottom line is that it entered front line service in August 1938 and hence it did operate from the very beginning to the very end of the war. By the summer of 1939 there were several Spitfire squadrons operational.

 

[Ovod]

Out of curiosity, How would the P-40 fit in this timeline?

P-40 didn't really enter service until sometime in 1941. Believe it or not the Grumman F4F was already in service earlier towards the end of 1940 with the FAA, the Martlet could be the third longest serving fighter aircraft in British and commonwealth service, certainly one of the longest serving combat aircraft throughout the war.

The 2 days between Germany invading Poland and Britain and France declaring war?

That's right.

Just for the record, there were a few types that soldiered on to the end of the war, operated by smaller air forces.
One such example is the Moraine-Saulnier MS.406, which entered Frence service in 1938 (one year before the European war) and several were still in service with the Finnish Air Force at war's end (1945).

There were also the Polish PZL P.11 taken over by the Romanian air force (as well as the locally built versions). where they still carrying out combat sorties in May 1945?

 

[RCAFson]

According to "the numbers" the Zero did not do well against those fighters and for all this superiority it should have done way better against the Wildcat, as we know tactics played a lot into this. This piece was written earlier in the year. I haven't vetted the numbers referenced and you also have to consider overclaims on both sides.

"Consider the Battle of the Coral Sea. During the May 4 to 8, 1942 clash off the Solomons, U.S. Navy Wildcats shot down 14 A6Ms for a loss of just 10 aircraft.

Later that year – between Aug. 7 and Nov. 15 – Wildcats shot down 72 Zeros while losing 70. And, in the carrier vs. carrier battles during the same period, 43 Zeros were bagged at a cost of 31 Wildcats.

The numbers kept improving in the Grumman fighter's favor. By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal – Feb. 3, 1943 – records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators flying F4Fs shot down 5.9 Zeros for every one Wildcat lost. That ratio would eventually grow to 6.9:1."

Wildcat vs. Zero – How America's Grumman F4F Outfought the 'Superior' Mitsubishi A6M - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

Lundstrom, in First Team, states that only 4 Zeros were destroyed by F4Fs at Coral Sea (I had to count these as he provided no explicit summary), with the other losses being due to aircraft ditching due to a lack of flight decks, or were jettisoned to free up deck space, after one IJN light carrier was sunk and a fleet carrier lost the use of her flight deck, leaving only one carrier operational.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lundstrom, in First Team, states that only 4 Zeros were destroyed by F4Fs at Coral Sea (I had to count these as he provided no explicit summary), with the other losses being due to aircraft ditching due to a lack of flight decks, or were jettisoned to free up deck space, after one IJN light carrier was sunk and a fleet carrier lost the use of her flight deck, leaving only one carrier operational.

As stated, that reference I posted wasn't vetted. With that said, the other Japanese losses that were due to ditching, were they all because of lack of flight deck or did any of them run out of fuel or were damaged?

 

[RCAFson]

As stated, that reference I posted wasn't vetted. With that said, the other Japanese losses that were due to ditching, were they all because of lack of flight deck or did any of them run out of fuel or were damaged?

Some of the jettisoned A6Ms were damaged, and possibly some of those that ditched, however these were only aircraft that ditched in the vicinity of an IJN carrier after landing on was delayed. Of course some of the damage may have been caused by strike aircraft defensive fire, as the Zeros shot down a number of SBDs. OTOH, F4F losses were due to a variety of reasons as well. This is Lundstrom's summary of the IJNAF strike against Lexington and Yorktown:

A total of twenty Grumman F4F fighters and twenty-three Douglas SBD dive bombers participated in the defense of Task Force 17. Their losses totaled three F4Fs (two from VF-2, one from VF-42) and five SBDs shot down, while another SBD was lost in a landing accident on board the Lexington. Other fighters and dive bombers damaged beyond repair managed to land on board the carriers. American aerial victory claims amounted to ten fighters, four dive bombers, and one torpedo plane for Fighting Two and Fighting Forty-two, while the three dive bombing squadrons reported the destruction of six fighters, one dive bomber, and ten torpedo planes, for a grand total of thirty-two enemy planes. From a correlation of Japanese and American sources, it appears reasonable that the F4Fs actually shot down no Zeros, but perhaps splashed three dive bombers and one torpedo plane, while the SBD crews accounted for no Zeros, but downed one dive bomber and five torpedo planes—total ten Japanese aircraft destroyed by aerial engagement. American antiaircraft fire from the ships likely destroyed one dive bomber and two torpedo planes. Many other Japanese planes sustained heavy damage from all causes, as out of the strike group seven ditched and twelve were later jettisoned.

 

[Conslaw]

Some of the jettisoned A6Ms were damaged, and possibly some of those that ditched, however these were only aircraft that ditched in the vicinity of an IJN carrier after landing on was delayed. Of course some of the damage may have been caused by strike aircraft defensive fire, as the Zeros shot down a number of SBDs. OTOH, F4F losses were due to a variety of reasons as well. This is Lundstrom's summary of the IJNAF strike against Lexington and Yorktown:

Lundstrom also examined Japanese and American records from the Guadalcanal campaign and determined that once you eliminated the overclaiming by both sides and looked just at the loss records, the A6M and F4F fought to a statistical dead heat in that campaign. (SInce the A6M was a lighter, cheaper aircraft attacking consistently 600 miles from its home base, that's actually a damn good record for the A6M.

In his Osprey book, P-47D Thunderbolt vs Ki-43-II Oscar, Michael John Claringbould attempted a similar analysis from the American and Japanese records during the New Guinea campaign, (I'm going from memory here too) and he determined that the P-47 shot down 2 Ki-43s on average. That's actually a good result for the Ki-43 in that that plane uses up less than half the resources of one P-47.

 

[Snautzer01]

Lundstrom also examined Japanese and American records from the Guadalcanal campaign and determined that once you eliminated the overclaiming by both sides and looked just at the loss records, the A6M and F4F fought to a statistical dead heat in that campaign. (SInce the A6M was a lighter, cheaper aircraft attacking consistently 600 miles from its home base, that's actually a damn good record for the A6M.

In his Osprey book, P-47D Thunderbolt vs Ki-43-II Oscar, Michael John Claringbould attempted a similar analysis from the American and Japanese records during the New Guinea campaign, (I'm going from memory here too) and he determined that the P-47 shot down 2 Ki-43s on average. That's actually a good result for the Ki-43 in that that plane uses up less than half the resources of one P-47.

A fighter pilot training take years. Planes are in comperision very cheap. So 2:1 is very much a lethal blow. It is not about how fast you can replace planes or the kill ratio against plane against plane.