That's a rather caddish coat...
"You take care of the bill darling, while I go out and warm up the Jyyaaaaag..."
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's a rather caddish coat...
"You take care of the bill darling, while I go out and warm up the Jyyaaaaag..."
at6
1st Sergeant
What Thrift store did you get that from?
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Got it cheap off the post-Halloween discount rack.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
B-17 was a good, useful plane. As was the B-24.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,962
- Jun 25, 2013
Of course, "useful" and "overrated" are somewhat related: all overrated aircraft were "useful"; the whether an aircraft is overrated or not depends on how it's treated by people talking and writing about it. Every belligerent had combat aircraft that could be considered overrated.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
He may have been prowling through my old stage attire!
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
The P-39 was fast at low altitudes. The Russians liked that. Below 10000ft, it could outrun, outclimb and out dive the Mitsubishi Zero. By the time the tactics needed to defeat the Zero were understood, the P-39s were being replaced mostly by P-38s.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
I am trying to wrap my mind around the concept of over-rated. If something is not working in the shooting war you have gotten into, you replace it as fast as you can, or you just don't put the thing in service. I am amazed that Hawker Hurricanes were manufactured into 1944, and that they were in combat in Burma at the end of the war. The RAF got part way through replacing them with Thunderbolts.
How about the Martin Baker MB-5? It is written about in very positive terms, and it may well have been a good piston engined fighter had it gotten into service. 460mph sounds fast, but is it not that much faster than a Spitfire XIV or Spitfire 22. The MB-5 had the Griffon 85 with the six bladed propeller. The Spitfires, the ones we have speeds quoted for anyway, had Griffon 65s (approx) with five bladed props. Look closely at the YouTube videos and note the lack of pilot armour. What other vitally important combat equipment was missing, and what would it have weighed?
How about the Martin Baker MB-5? It is written about in very positive terms, and it may well have been a good piston engined fighter had it gotten into service. 460mph sounds fast, but is it not that much faster than a Spitfire XIV or Spitfire 22. The MB-5 had the Griffon 85 with the six bladed propeller. The Spitfires, the ones we have speeds quoted for anyway, had Griffon 65s (approx) with five bladed props. Look closely at the YouTube videos and note the lack of pilot armour. What other vitally important combat equipment was missing, and what would it have weighed?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Just so you know that post was from 2007 and the poster is deceased.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The MB.5 had several things in it's favor: It's clean lines, contra-rotating prop, Meridith-effect cooling and so on.
What wasn't in it's favor, was it's debut in 1944 which coincides with the Gloster Meteor's entering service, which was over 100 miles an hour faster.
Last edited:
The Hurricane was almost obsolete when it first went into service, but it was very easy to make and use, it is up to the opposition to bat it out of the game, it was better than nothing and when the enemy has nothing then all is good.
Shortround6
Major General
I would disagree to some extent. Almost obsolete depends on the opposition and that did change quite a bit in just a few years.
In 1938 there wasn't much around that was any better, most were not as good. The Hurricane didn't fall behind in the ETO until the 109F showed up.
In the Med the Italians couldn't match it until they got DB 601 engines in the summer of 1941.
Japanese would have had a very hard time matching it 1940. Claudes and Nates vs Hurricane Is?
For 2 1/2 years the Hurricane was one of the front runners.
How much of the Hurricanes problems were due to poor tactics in the Med and Far East is also subject to question.
British stuck with the 3 plane Vic formation for far too long.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
IMO the Hurricane was one of the most underrated aircraft of WW2.
Hoo boy, here we go again. The primary P39 model that fought the Zero early days (P39D) COULDN'T outclimb it, and though ultimately faster in an extended chase, couldn't match its instantaneous acceleration, which is a serious disadvantage in combat. Early days combat in New Guinea had P39s defending against bombing raids way above their optimum performance altitudes. Later P39s with more horsepower and less weight would have performed better against Zeke, but by then the P38 had taken over and the Airacobras were going to Russia. It's real shortcoming in the PTO was its limited range.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 38,834
- Mar 26, 2007
You forget the groundhog effect on cog wich in an other thread was explained.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I thought the P-39 had no short comings.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Oh no. It's happening again.
The P-39 is like an STD. A gift that keeps on giving.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'd give a bacon on that too if I could!
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
It's funny. Guys like Eric Hammel really went out of their way to malign the P-39 by only including pilot memoirs in which they talk about suffering turn stalls in the middle of combat. Or that oft repeated slander that P-39 pilots were ordered to scramble and fly out to sea to avoid danger when Port Moresby was attacked. The reason there is only one reported American P-39 ace is that the performance was so good that the actual combat results remain classified to this day, to protect the reputations of such dogs as the P-38, P47, and P-51. If the actual numbers were ever revealed there would be a huge outcry about the millions of $$$ squadered on these also rans.
