Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (1 Viewer)

And I had sworn to myself I wouldn't be dragged into that mess.

I'd like to chime in, though it will consist mostly of a reservation. I've usually kept away from both 'underrated' and 'overrated' threads, as quite apart from the difficulties in assessing an aircrafts 'true' worth, it entirely depends on who is doing the rating. The wartime user or their enemies? At what point in the war? The military establishment or the press? The ground troops being pounded by stukas or sturmoviks? Then there is the immediate post war period, the revisionisms and re-revisionisms, rehabilitating aircraft whose reputation has been dragged through the mud, or shooting down a national icon. Finally they end up in this forum, and again I have a hard time of thinking of one aircraft whose denigration has not spurred its champions on in indignated protest, or conversely a defense of a loved old warhorse in face of iconoclast attempts of assasination of reputation.

To take I think you all know what aircraft, I have a long time ago expresseed my opinion ( I don't remember in which of the myriad threads) that the groundhog mostly get handed the short end of the stick. It was in no way perfect, but had some qualities that in some environments stood its pilots in good steed. Now, when somebody truly infatuated with that aircraft tries to make it out to be one of the greatest, naturally enough some others points out the failings. It only take at least one on each side to up the stakes, and increasingly fantastic claims about potential leads to ever increasing focus on the drawbacks and faults until one wonders that the aircraft actually ever left the ground. I guess that one can just stop reading the posts, though incredibly enough there still surfaces hitherto unnoticed facts, though they are indeed few and far between. In the process it continues to get (I think on balance) both over and underrated,which is naturally as each side emphazises its own points. Nobody can be expected to repeat all the pros and cons in each of the sometimes hundreds of posts written on the same aircraft.

To return to the abstract, a final problem is (also when 'best' and so on aircraft are discussed), that numbers and results enters the discussion in a way that is not always straight-forward to judge about. If one is discussing an aircraft as a design, it hardly matters how many were build, but how compare serviceability, never realized teething troubles and potential for improvement? How rate a propeller design at the ewe of the age of jets? How judge the abstract soundness of a design that entered service in a logistic breakdown, either at the beginning of hostilities or at the end? How blame an aircraft entering service in 44 for not matching the spitfire in years in service? If one takes the results as the guideline (and sometimes it's done), all axis aircraft becomes crap because they didn't win the war.

I think i have learned a lot from these threads, but I've also had my share of frustration of those that bogs down in trench warfare. Even then I'd like to extend my thanks to those who bother to spend so much time trying to share their special expertise and interests, even if sometimes clearly they are pressing their aircraft further than any sane pilot would do.

I have sometimes thought about starting an 'most difficult to rate aircraft' thread, but I seem not to be able to relocate the 'create poll' button I'm quite sure I once saw.

I'm willing to bet that we each overrate aircraft others underrate, and underrate aircraft others overrate.

I think the only ratings that matter are from the pilots who either flew the plane, or flew against it.

I know what airplanes I like, but I'm not even a pilot, so my opinion is worth every penny you've paid for it.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'm willing to bet that we each overrate aircraft others underrate, and underrate aircraft others overrate.

I think the only ratings that matter are from the pilots who either flew the plane, or flew against it.

I know what airplanes I like, but I'm not even a pilot, so my opinion is worth every penny you've paid for it.

Click to expand...

I'd give you an "agree" too.

Marcel said:

I actually agree with @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.

Click to expand...

You have a perfectly logical reason for having the opinion that the Spitfire was overrated.

I'm not sure that Ovod pointing out campaigns at which the Spitfire was not present, like Poland, is a reasonable assessment.

Regarding the Spitfire's reputation for winning the BoB. a lot of that probably can be traced back to propaganda at the time.

Still not sure of the logic behind the statement that the Spitfire wasn't present during the invasion of Poland. No British (or French) aircraft were - Poland was on her own.

GrauGeist said:

Still not sure of the logic behind the statement that the Spitfire wasn't present during the invasion of Poland. No British (or French) aircraft were - Poland was on her own.

Click to expand...

It's a silly proposition.

nuuumannn said:

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...

Click to expand...

Yes, but was it with or without turbo? Did it have armor? Where was the radio located? Did it have a drop tank? Were the guns sighted for MOA or MIL?

If only we had a thread where we could learn about the heretofore unknown P-39....

Joining Biff in that timeout now.

Never in my life would I ever have thought any Allied aircraft would be inducted into the ranks of the "Wunderwaffe", where mythical machines sporting black crosses could perform amazing feats beyond the realm of known physics.

But here we are...

GrauGeist said:

Never in my life would I ever have thought any Allied aircraft would be inducted into the ranks of the "Wunderwaffe", where mythical machines sporting black crosses could perform amazing feats beyond the realm of known physics.

But here we are...

Click to expand...

It's that black cross. As soon as it was applied, the aircraft was good for at least an additional 30 knots of airspeed.

soulezoo said:

It's that black cross. As soon as it was applied, the aircraft was good for at least an additional 30 knots of airspeed.

Click to expand...

Painting roundels on an aircraft had the opposite effect. They must have been using 100% lead paint

A6Ms are so overrated omg just because they are maneuverable does not mean they are fast. A corsair would rip right by an a6m and then gain some altitude and zoom again on it with 50 cals

pops-paolo said:

A6Ms are so overrated omg just because they are maneuverable does not mean they are fast. A corsair would rip right by an a6m and then gain some altitude and zoom again on it with 50 cals

Click to expand...

Then again, they ripped through the allied airforces in 1941/early 1942 like a knife through butter.

Marcel said:

Then again, they ripped through the allied airforces in 1941/early 1942 like a knife through butter.

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness it's not like they attacked the British empire who was on the other side of the world and dealing with the blitz and the Italians in Africa like. Look at the coral sea after that they were done and the Japanese airforce only existed for less than a year

Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own.

Brace yourselves...

pops-paolo said:

Oh my goodness it's not like they attacked the British empire who was on the other side of the world and dealing with the blitz and the Italians in Africa like. Look at the coral sea after that they were done and the Japanese airforce only existed for less than a year

Click to expand...

Blimey no, they were just taking it on against the British far-east airforce, the Chinese airforce, the Ducht East Indish airforce, the Australian airforce, the US Navy and US Airforce at that time.

Bit silly to compare a late war Corsair to an early war design isn't it? The Zero got it's reputation early on in the war and well deserved in my opinion. They were not just fighting obsolete designs, but par example also did well against the British Hurricanes in Malaya. True, they soldiered on way to long, later US designs were quite a bit better, but in the well trained hands of the early Japanese pilots, in 1942, it was a lethal opponent.

And here I always understood the British Empire to be global (meaning both sides of the world), but aparently, I was mistaken.

Marcel said:

Blimey no, they were just taking it on against the British far-east airforce, the Chinese airforce, the Ducht East Indish airforce, the Australian airforce, the US Navy and US Airforce at that time.

Bit silly to compare a late war Corsair to an early war design isn't it? The Zero got it's reputation early on in the war and well deserved in my opinion. They were not just fighting obsolete designs, but par example also did well against the British Hurricanes in Malaya. True, they soldiered on way to long, later US designs were quite a bit better, but in the well trained hands of the early Japanese pilots, in 1942, it was a lethal opponent.

Click to expand...

Well we all know the war did not begin until 1941 right?