Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

[ATTACH=full]650533[/ATTACH] johnbr [ATTACH=full]650534[/ATTACH] 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?

I voted He-111 because it was the Luftwaffe's 'big stick', garanteed to bring to their knees any opponent it was sent against.

Didn't work out against Warsaw, might have worked somehow against the Dutch (that Rotterdam story), didn't work against the Britts, not even at night. Remember the scare from air attack against cities was 'the big one' in the inter-war period, quite similar to the nuclear one afterwards (in terms of 'people psychology' so to speak.) So the He-111 failed in what it was heavily advertised beforehand.

A rather good aeroplane nonetheless, though weakly defended even by 1940 standards. Besides I just don't like it.

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

He-111 : should have remained an airliner really.

Fast and modern, unpressurized but a neat Vip/1st class transport for the day.

 

[swampyankee]

He-111 : should have remained an airliner really.

Fast and modern, unpressurized but a neat Vip/1st class transport for the day.

Never really intended to be an airliner. If it was, it would look more like the DC-3 or at least the 247.

 

[Howard Gibson]

He-111 : should have remained an airliner really.

Fast and modern, unpressurized but a neat Vip/1st class transport for the day.

There was nothing wrong with the Heinkel He 111 that a good, long range escort fighter would not have solved. Tactically, no WWII medium bombers were functional against determined fighter opposition.

 

[GrauGeist]

Nothing was safe from determined fighter opposition.

 

[Acheron]

Good points regarding the He-111. Yes, as the nightmare of pre-war Douhet thinking of a bomber that would level cities and decide the war by itself, it definitely was a failure. Personally, I have a soft spot for it, as it's reputation is, to my knowledge, only so-so, overshadowed by the Ju-88 in particular. Yet built in massive numbers, it soldiered one, long, LONG past its best-date.

 

[pbehn]

Good points regarding the He-111. Yes, as the nightmare of pre-war Douhet thinking of a bomber that would level cities and decide the war by itself, it definitely was a failure. Personally, I have a soft spot for it, as it's reputation is, to my knowledge, only so-so, overshadowed by the Ju-88 in particular. Yet built in massive numbers, it soldiered one, long, LONG past its best-date.

Considering how long it was in production, it wasnt built in massive numbers.

 

[Acheron]

Considering how long it was in production, it wasnt built in massive numbers.

Just noted that they DID actually build more Ju 88 then He 111, my mistake.

 

[pbehn]

Just noted that they DID actually build more Ju 88 then He 111, my mistake.

The UK built more Lancasters, more Halifaxes, more Mosquitos and massively more Wellingtons than the HE111 while Blenheim Whitley and Hampden numbers combined were about the same, also 11,000 Avro Ansons used as trainers and gophers.

 

[Venturi]

Can't believe that the P-51 was voted "the most over rated." To me every aircraft that had a great reputation, had it for a reason. Aircrews and soldiers in general are not forgiving of hardware flaws when their lives depend on it, and the after the fact reputation will show that. I would say the P-51 like the Spitfire, Bf-109, Hellcat, and Zeke all had reputations that were deserved. In their own ways, all were great for their particular roles, at different times in the war.

 

[Acheron]

Can't believe that the P-51 was voted "the most over rated." To me every aircraft that had a great reputation, had it for a reason. Aircrews and soldiers in general are not forgiving of hardware flaws when their lives depend on it, and the after the fact reputation will show that. I would say the P-51 like the Spitfire, Bf-109, Hellcat, and Zeke all had reputations that were deserved. In their own ways, all were great for their particular roles, at different times in the war.

An aircrafts reputation does not necessarily come form the pilots or other users alone. Marketing is a thing.

Plus, one aircraft might be pleasant to fly, giving it a good rep, but a more demanding one might still be the better bet to survive in, due to for example being faster (thinking of B-25 vs B-26). Survivor's bias, those downed in the more pleasant aircraft often don't get to change their votes.

Double-Plus: An aircraft might be wonderful for the crew to fly in, but be worse for the war effort as a whole. Thinking of the bombers here, as the bomber crew, the size of the payload doesn't really concern you, but for the war effort as a whole, it is rather crucial.

 

[John Vasco]

Has to be the bf 110 it had the guns but it didn't have the speed and turning of something like a P-38 which had good guns too and the british mosquito so the 110 is my pick for overrated

I'll just leave this here...

 

[pbehn]

I'll just leave this here...
View attachment 656857

There must be something seriously wrong with those figures, if they are true, both sides would have huge numbers of new aircraft, sitting around at the end of October Bf 110 losses were approximately the same as production circa 700, while UK single engined fighter production from August was 500 per month with around 500 damaged from all causes returned to service per month, Bf 109 production was around 250 per month. 544 RAF aircrew were killed in the BoB.

Remembering the Pilots of the Battle of Britain | CWGC

From July to October 1940, much of the fighting during World War Two in Western Europe was concentrated in the skies above the English channel, pitting the might of the Luftwaffe against the RAF.

www.cwgc.org

 

[Greg Boeser]

Perhaps this is only reported combat losses?
So operational and non-operational losses not included?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] also 11,000 Avro Ansons used as trainers and gophers.

!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'll just leave this here...
View attachment 656857

Let assume these numbers are somewhat correct - to really validate this, sorties would have to be included. Of these aircraft, which ones had the greatest exposure to a combat environment? The fact that the Bf110 is shown with a .06 higher claim to loss ratio is a bit meaningless, 2 or 3 aircraft in either direction of claims/ losses puts it right there with the -109 and Spitfire.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I'll just leave this here...
View attachment 656857

Given the overclaiming done during the Battle of Britain, particularly by the Luftwaffe, those numbers mean nothing.

 

[nuuumannn]

I have a soft spot for it, as it's reputation is, to my knowledge, only so-so, overshadowed by the Ju-88 in particular. Yet built in massive numbers, it soldiered one, long, LONG past its best-date.

Agree, the He 111 is an intriguing aeroplane, at best a compromise and the measures taken to incorporate both bomber and airliner requirements into the airframe were compromises. Bomb cassettes in the fuselage where the pax cabin was in which bombs could only be stored vertically, rubber bomb bay doors actuated by a Bowden cable, defensive armament scabbed on, that redesigned glazed nose tunnel was an attempt at streamlining but there wasn't much space in there and despite all that glazing, visibility was not that great and it certainly messed with instrument placement in the cockpit. And then there was visibility forward on the ground, which was non-existent, which meant the pilot had a seat that could be raised so his head poked above the sill of the cockpit, with a retractable windscreen, effectively turning the thing into an open-cockpit bomber.

I do have a fondness for it, and yes, it wasn't intended on being in service for anywhere as long as it was. The BoB should have been its last hurrah.

The clumsy way in which bombs exited the aircraft can be seen in this museum example of a Spanish Heinkel. The bombs' fins hit the rubber doors on exiting the airframe. The cable that opened the doors can be seen and to prevent them from sagging in flight owing to aerodynamic effect was the springs on the tubing around which the doors rotated 90 degrees. The L shaped metal brackets fitted to the doors were stiffeners.

Gatow 168

 

[nuuumannn]

Given the overclaiming done during the Battle of Britain, particularly by the Luftwaffe, those numbers mean nothing.

It does depend on where the figures come from. Relying on combat reports is meaningless for this reason, but these days, more thorough research and wreck recovery has meant that more accurate figures behind kills and losses can be produced, so it isn't so easy to dismiss recent combat figures for the BoB as a shed-ton of research has been ploughed into this subject.

My standard of reference on the battle for figures is Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, which certainly does benefit from extensive research done from different sources, which avoids overclaiming and does illustrate what producing these figures was supposed to do, what each side was up against.

Bungay states this in his chapter "Appraisal"

"Attempting to gain daylight air superiority over south-east England cost the Luftwaffe 1,887 aircraft. Stopping them cost Fighter Command 1,023. Bomber Command lost 376 aircraft in helping stop an invasion, and Coastal Command, which supported both efforts lost 148. Total losses for the RAF were therefore1,547. In comparing the cost to the air forces of each side, the Luftwaffe lost only 20% more aircraft than the RAF."

"In the air fighting, however, the Luftwaffe as a whole was directly confronted by Fighter Command. It destroyed all but a handful of the 1,887 aircraft the Germans lost, achieving an overall kill ratio of 1.8:1. the margin of victory was not narrow. The Luftwaffe never came close."

 

[SaparotRob]

Could the small "c" by the claims number mean confirmed?