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

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2

  • Total voters
    409

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Peter Gunn said:
That's it buddy... You are definitely OFF my Christmas Card list... :mad:

grampi however, gets two cards...;)

PS You forgot Best Torpedo Bomber, Best Liaison, Best Recon and best BESTEST ever plane...
Click to expand...

The F-6 was quite good.....

And remember, Ike flew over Normandy in one on D+1....
 
I voted for the Me 262, the hype around it is just silly at times. Close second to me was the B-17 Flying Fortress, yes it could withstand and dish out a lot of punishment, but not enough to bomb unescorted in a sustained campaign.

Question to those who voted for the P-51, how many of you are P-47 fans? ;)

johnbr johnbr model299 model299 l'Omnivore Sobriquet l'Omnivore Sobriquet out of curiosity, why did you vote for the He 111? AFAIK it's reputation is a mediocre early war bomber that got dated by mid-war but had to carry on, do you consider this middling rep already to be overly generous?
 
pgf_666 said:
The F-6 was quite good.....

And remember, Ike flew over Normandy in one on D+1....
Click to expand...
I had not heard that, and so far am unable to confirm it. It would have required either that Eisenhower be a capable pilot, or that there was an F6F two-seater available. Can you give more details or a URL link?
 
Acheron said:
I voted for the Me 262, the hype around it is just silly at times. Close second to me was the B-17 Flying Fortress, yes it could withstand and dish out a lot of punishment, but not enough to bomb unescorted in a sustained campaign.

Question to those who voted for the P-51, how many of you are P-47 fans? ;)

johnbr johnbr model299 model299 l'Omnivore Sobriquet l'Omnivore Sobriquet out of curiosity, why did you vote for the He 111? AFAIK it's reputation is a mediocre early war bomber that got dated by mid-war but had to carry on, do you consider this middling rep already to be overly generous?
Click to expand...

1. How can the Me 262 be overrated? It was the first fully operational jet fighter in the history of the world.

2. B-17? Your argument for it us that it sustainably perform a day light bombing campaign over Germany unescorted. Seriously? Name me any bomber that could. I'm waiting.

3. I voted for the P-51. Not because of its performance or capability. It was probably the best fighter built in mass numbers in WW2. I voted for it because so many people (mostly Americans) think it is the only reason the allies won WW2.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
1. How can the Me 262 be overrated? It was the first fully operational jet fighter in the history of the world.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn't make it invincible in the skies. Yet I get the impression that all too often, that is what a lot of people seem to think, that if only it had arrived in numbers a year or two earlier, bam, instant axis-win.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
2. B-17? Your argument for it us that it sustainably perform a day light bombing campaign over Germany unescorted. Seriously? Name me any bomber that could. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...
The issue is, that to my knowledge, few people make claims about the other heavy bombers (B-24, Lancaster, Halifax) that they were, well, "Flying Fortresses". Again, I get the impression that all too often, folks gush all over the ruggedness and defensive armament of the B-17 and kinda overlook that it still wasn't enough to bring enough back from unescorted raids.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
3. I voted for the P-51. Not because of its performance or capability. It was probably the best fighter built in mass numbers in WW2. I voted for it because so many people (mostly Americans) think it is the only reason the allies won WW2.
Click to expand...
That is kinda my issue with the Me 262 and the B-17, it is not that either aircraft was bad, just that neither was as awesome as it is all too often claimed.
 
The B-17 first entered service with the RAF and was named the Fortress I, not a claim but a name like Invader Marauder Havoc Liberator etc.

From wiki "in early 1940, the RAF entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army Air Corps to acquire 20 B-17Cs, which were given the service name Fortress I. "
 
Last edited:
The B-17 was one of the heaviest defended bombers, with thirteen .50MGs, while the B-24 had ten .50MGs, the Lancaster (typically) had eight .303MGs, the Stirling had eight .303MGs and so on.

The B-17's construction and design was such, that it could receive considerable damage and remain airworthy long enough to return to base, where many other types would be lost.

It's also notable that the B-17 was manufactured from 1936 to 1945, remaining in front line service to war's end.
 
Acheron said:
Yes, but that doesn't make it invincible in the skies. Yet I get the impression that all too often, that is what a lot of people seem to think, that if only it had arrived in numbers a year or two earlier, bam, instant axis-win.
Click to expand...
The -262 wasn't invincible and it wasn't going to be an "instant win" if it was introduced two years earlier (I think the outcome of the war in Europe would have been the same) but it certainly would have prolonged the war.
Acheron said:
The issue is, that to my knowledge, few people make claims about the other heavy bombers (B-24, Lancaster, Halifax) that they were, well, "Flying Fortresses". Again, I get the impression that all too often, folks gush all over the ruggedness and defensive armament of the B-17 and kinda overlook that it still wasn't enough to bring enough back from unescorted raids.
Click to expand...
I knew several people who flew B-24s and B-17s and in some cases they preferred the B-24. The Lancaster got it's place in the spotlight many times but at the end of the day just about any heavy bomber of the period, despite heavy armament was not going to succeed unescorted.
Acheron said:
That is kinda my issue with the Me 262 and the B-17, it is not that either aircraft was bad, just that neither was as awesome as it is all too often claimed.
Click to expand...
Well you have to define your definition of "bad" and "awesome." Both aircraft were history makers and changed the course of aviation warfare.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I knew several people who flew B-24s and B-17s and in some cases they preferred the B-24. The Lancaster got it's place in the spotlight many times but at the end of the day just about any heavy bomber of the period, despite heavy armament was not going to succeed unescorted.
Click to expand...
Pilots and crews perceptions were sometimes wrong. Many preferred the Halifax because it had more space and was easier to get out of. The statistics dont support that view and from Harris' point of view it was no contest, on a long distance raid he would need to send many more Halifaxes than Lancasters to drop the same load and they would suffer more losses.
 
Shortround6 said:
The B-17 "Flying Fortress" had nothing to do with number of guns on the later versions (like the B-17E).

It was supposed to have been coined by a paperman at a photo opportunity/press prelease in 1937/38.(or earlier?)
Click to expand...
During it's debut in 1935, Richard Williams of the Seattle Times exclaimed: "Why, it's a Flying Fortress!" because of it's many gun emplacements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
Replies
2
Views
56
GTX
GTX
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
752
yulzari
yulzari
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
388
fubar57
fubar57
CHen10
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
629
CHen10
CHen10
_PabloSniper_
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Back