Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Let's not forget it was an Australian P-39 on the ground, not an RFC one being flown by A. Roy Brown (who had piles at the time - ouch) that shot the Baron down...
Thankfully, it was tail-heavy, meaning the guns pointed up even on the ground.
Hi
Although the Spitfire fighters were in action in India and Australia before the end of 1943. Also in Malta by March 1942 and North Africa by May 1942, PR Spitfires arrived in all theatres earlier than the fighter variant. In the UK the Spitfires of 602 and 603 Squadrons claimed German bombers shot down on 16th October 1939 over Firth of Forth (Scotland), two JU 88 crashed into the sea, 4 German aircrew being rescued and made POW. The same RAF squadrons were also involved in the shooting down of first Luftwaffe aircraft over British soil, the HE111 crashing near Kidlaw on 28th October, 1939.
Mike
wuzak
Captain
Did the Hurricane?
Did the Hurricane?
The Spitfire was deliberately held back from the Battle of France.
Since the Spitfires were being held back for the defence of Britain, that is no surprise.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The problem is that the Philippines were in the way, and that meant taking on the US Navy. And then there are those pesky treaties . . .
Conslaw
Senior Airman
I know the Americans captured and used at least one Japanese bulldozer. Who knows how well it compared to an American dozer, but I'm sure it was better than nothing. They also captured a state-of-the-art Japanese radar set and an ice-making factory.
The Hurricane didn't fight over Poland in 1939 - I never said it did.
RAF Hurricanes were operating out of Norway in 1940.
Which is exactly my point. The Spitfire was deliberately held back to the confines of the UK for the first 2.5-3 years - which kind of reduced its effectiveness, wouldn't you say?
wuzak
Captain
So why meantion Poland as a campaign that the Spitfire didn't participate in?
Didn't know that.
In what sort of numbers?
How does that make the Spitfire overrated?
Shortround6
Major General
Small, one squadron for certain, perhaps two?
They were evacuated onto the Glorious in a grand feat of airmanship, they had no arresting gear but by careful placement of sandbag ballast they were able to land without prop strikes.
Wasted when the Glorious's captain got his ship sunk due to stupidity/ineptitude.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I wasn't saying that was the case. The "Fighting Seabees" was a Hollywood production and might not be quite as factual as Mr. Caidin. Didn't know about the radar. That must have been really annoying. "You lost the airstrip AND our radar?"
Shortround6
Major General
Hollywood production and might not be quite as factual as Mr. Caidin>
Hmm, Hollywood vs Mr. Caidin for being factual???
tough call, might need my lucky penny
Hmm, Hollywood vs Mr. Caidin for being factual???
tough call, might need my lucky penny
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
If you sort through photos of USN/USMC/USAAF air ops in the PTO, you'll find groomed and well laid out airstrips in the most ungodly locations - conversely, the Japanese airfields were typically captured facilities. They rarely built their own and when they did, it was by hand, by impressed laborers. And those airstrip were atrocious - the Tinian Kokutai lost 23% of their aircraft to ground errors due to the airfield's poor condition.
The Japanese did have caterpillars, but they were rare in the Pacific due to their terrible logistics. The further out they went, the worse it got.
The Japanese did have caterpillars, but they were rare in the Pacific due to their terrible logistics. The further out they went, the worse it got.
46 Sqd anyways
Because it was a campaign, among many, were the Spitfire was absent. The fact that some other combat aircraft types were not there either doesn't alter the fact, does it?
The air defence of one's own homeland is an important role for an fighter aircraft sure, but you are not going to win any war unless you take the fight to the enemy. Do you think the P-51 would have been rated at all if it had only served in the mainland USA?
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Rather a pointless observation don't you think?
The Spitfire was designed as a defensive fighter. At that it excelled.
The war as it developed was, most likely, what was envisioned when Spitfire.
Since it was originally ordered by the British, it was unlikely to ever serve only in the USA.
And if it did, how it was rated would depend on how it performed in the roles it was given.
Your criteria for rating things seems to be based on what the P-51 did. Most Russian aircraft never went more than fifty miles over enemy lines and for most of the war that was still in the Soviet Union.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Sorry, timeout ain't gonna cut it.
Major penalty, four minutes in the sin bin and sit out the rest of the period.
I actually agree with
O
Ovod
, the spitfire is overrated. And before any spitfire fan starts shouting, in the mean time I also believe the spitfire was one of the greatest fighters of the war. The only reason I think the spitfire is overrated is the fact that it gets the credits for winning the BoB by the uninformed public, while we know better. So in that sense it was overrated. Was it the most overrated? Nah, not really.
Okay that's it, you'll go to the "total perspective vortex".
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I have cast my vote. A plane that has received more press than the war it fought in. The Groundhog.
