DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes I was well aware that the FAA flew Hellcats lol. That was my point.
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
Indeed, Darren, I get'cha. My point was to emphasis that the FAA took both with open arms and was able to make the most of them, but yes, you're right, the Hellcat alone was a good alternative, and Wildcats were still in operation at the end of the war aboard escort carriers, too.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Speaking of the Skua, there's another multirole mishmash. Good dive-bomber, but I'll pay you cash money to take my spot in a dogfight if I'm booked for a Skua. I get why they went for it -- out at sea, probably not going to face top-notch fighters ... but they armored the carriers because they envisioned fighting in the North Sea and Med, within enemy fighter range much of the time.
The Fulmar's record is, I think, more a matter of RN having decent radar and protocols rather than a great fighter, but you're right, they got 'er done with it. Whatever it takes.
Yup, agree. The fighter/dive bomber requirement was decided upon back in 1933, long before any of the guys in the Air Ministry could have had any inkling of the impact that decision had. Nevertheless, before it even entered FAA service in 1937 the Air Ministry expressed its doubts about it, so that never helps, when the one responsible for the idea later thinks it's produced an inferior product because of it. Blackburn designed a fairly average aeroplane that did what it said on the tin; nothing more, and with a little bit less than what was expected, but as a dive bomber it certainly met the criteria and proved itself handy in a fight, again through the determination of the teams operating it rather than through any outstanding characteristics of the machine. It certainly did not introduce any capabilities that didn't exist elsewhere, on both sides of the coin, as an exemplary dive bomber and as a mediocre fighter.
The Fulmar was actually a good aeroplane that met the requirement and fulfilled what was expected of it. It was designed as a stop-gap and was meant to hold the line until something better came along - that that took longer than expected meant the Fulmar was around longer than expected. Nonetheless, it performed very well against the Luftwaffe and the RAI in the Med, where decent radar protocols and what have you were not available when operating from land bases, which the type did. So it is easy to miscast it purely because of its lower performance, but it was actually a good aircraft, just not the best fighter and certainly not what the navy needed out of a fighter at the time. Again, its crews made the type's name as an adequate fighter that in a good pilot's hands made it a handful even for single-seat fighters.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Were I in 1-on-1 air combat I wouldn't want either. The Fulmar managed due to support infrastructure, but the Skua lacked the support as well as being deficient on its own. Not many aircraft-carriers had radar in 1938, so you'd better have a better fighter.
Both are warnings against designing multirole into an aircraft, amongst other planes we could complain about.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
JSF?
The thing is, it is easy for us, as remote as we are from events between 1939-1945, to make assumptions about these things because of our situational knowledge and the benefits hindsight brings. It's like saying the A6M Zero is overrated - I freely admit this is a bugbear of mine.
Yes, we all know the story, but we were not there when the US Navy pilots came to the dawning realisation that conventional dogfighting tactics that they learned as trainees were just not going to cut it against this aircraft because it out-flew the F4F, it out-manoeuvred the F4F and it had more powerful armament than the F4F and its crews were aggressive and innovative - basically they had the upper hand. I'm pretty certain those navy guys, like Jimmy Thatch and Butch O'Hare, forced to re-evaluate everything they had learned and quickly come up with an alternative on the spot, would not have regarded the Zero as "overrated".
They were forced to re-think their approach. The alternative was death and defeat. That puts the effectiveness of the Zero in a very different context and it is something that is so very often easily forgotten.
Anyway, the Zero is a great example because I see soooo many people bang on about "it had no armour plating or self sealing tanks so it was rubbish", yet NO fighter aircraft the Zero met in combat between 1940 and 1942 had them when they were first designed. They might have by the time they came into contact with the Zero, but as stipulated earlier, that was because the US learned from European combat in 1939/1940 that it was necessary, NOT from its own experiences and certainly not from having to deal with the Zero in 1942. I'm pretty certain the pilots that confronted the Zero were glad it was there, but it didn't always save them.
Another is that "manoeuvrability or acrobatic capability doesn't make a great fighter", yet oddly enough, virtually EVERY nation that built single-seat fighters, from the middle of the Great War to this day even, emphasise manoeuvrability as an asset in a close-in visual fight. The Viper has exceptional manoeuvrability because of its fly-by-wire flight controls. The Sukhoi fighters have vectoring nozzles, they aren't just there to do cool cobra manoeuvres at airshows. The Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr I are defined in the public eye because of their manoeuvrability. It IS important, and the Japanese had the best naval fighter in the world BAR NONE until the appearance of the F6F because of that manoeuvrability.
Rant over... If you're wondering what's got my heckles up, I've had to go have a COVID test because my girlfriend, who is a nurse has come into contact with a COVID affected person. Dammit, that q-tip swab up the nose is an unpleasant sensation...
Yes, we all know the story, but we were not there when the US Navy pilots came to the dawning realisation that conventional dogfighting tactics that they learned as trainees were just not going to cut it against this aircraft because it out-flew the F4F, it out-manoeuvred the F4F and it had more powerful armament than the F4F and its crews were aggressive and innovative - basically they had the upper hand. I'm pretty certain those navy guys, like Jimmy Thatch and Butch O'Hare, forced to re-evaluate everything they had learned and quickly come up with an alternative on the spot, would not have regarded the Zero as "overrated".
They were forced to re-think their approach. The alternative was death and defeat. That puts the effectiveness of the Zero in a very different context and it is something that is so very often easily forgotten.
Anyway, the Zero is a great example because I see soooo many people bang on about "it had no armour plating or self sealing tanks so it was rubbish", yet NO fighter aircraft the Zero met in combat between 1940 and 1942 had them when they were first designed. They might have by the time they came into contact with the Zero, but as stipulated earlier, that was because the US learned from European combat in 1939/1940 that it was necessary, NOT from its own experiences and certainly not from having to deal with the Zero in 1942. I'm pretty certain the pilots that confronted the Zero were glad it was there, but it didn't always save them.
Another is that "manoeuvrability or acrobatic capability doesn't make a great fighter", yet oddly enough, virtually EVERY nation that built single-seat fighters, from the middle of the Great War to this day even, emphasise manoeuvrability as an asset in a close-in visual fight. The Viper has exceptional manoeuvrability because of its fly-by-wire flight controls. The Sukhoi fighters have vectoring nozzles, they aren't just there to do cool cobra manoeuvres at airshows. The Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr I are defined in the public eye because of their manoeuvrability. It IS important, and the Japanese had the best naval fighter in the world BAR NONE until the appearance of the F6F because of that manoeuvrability.
Rant over... If you're wondering what's got my heckles up, I've had to go have a COVID test because my girlfriend, who is a nurse has come into contact with a COVID affected person. Dammit, that q-tip swab up the nose is an unpleasant sensation...
Admiral Beez
Major
The G4M Betty has to be up there. Yes, it did stellar work sinking HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse, but after that I don't think the Betty found much success at all, with most turning into flaming wrecks. It was no Beaufighter, that's for certain.
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
So, Americans should thank you for existing in large enough form to allow for the operation, storage, and use of uncountable numbers of aircraft, vehicles, equipment, and men to effectively bankroll and hold down more than our share of a fight? Gee, thanks."Ummm, no, it if it were not for the Spitfire and Hurricane, and the Royal Navy (Besides the fact that there was no way for the Germans to get an invasion force across the Channel) there would not even be this natural aircraft carrier parked off the European continent for your P-51 to operate off of. Slow you roll…"
Unrelated but for some reason I'm thinking of a quote from the movie Quigley Down Under…
-Uppity British Major: In our experience, Americans are uncouth misfits who should be run out of their own barbaric country.
-Square-jawed handsome Matthew Quigley: Well, Lieutenant….
-Wormy British Major: ah-hem…Major
-Heroic Manly Matthew Quigley: Major. We already run the misfits outta our country. We sent them back to their natural aircraft carrier errr country.
Shortround6
Major General
To be fair the most common German fighter in 1937-38 was the Arado AR 68
with the 109B-D taking over.
The He 51 was not proving to be a success in Spain in 1936-37.
Like several nations the development and production phases took to long. And in the Skua's case there was no MK III version and it took way too long for it's replacement to show up.
Had the World seen combat during the Munich crisis the aviation world may have looked more kindly on the Skua.
Overheard in a pub somewhere in Suffolk in 1944...
"Americans, always late to a conflict and even then, they never stop whining once they get there..."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
By the way, one of the best fighters of WWI, the D.VII, was so feared, Germany was not allowed to possess any after the war.
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
It was probably one of the same chaps that had been heard complaining how English women were only interested in the young, strapping American soldiers with good manners, good teeth, and full wallets.Overheard in a pub somewhere in Suffolk in 1944...
"Americans, always late to a conflict and even then, they never stop whining once they get there..."
And when it did, it was so frightful it scared its enemies into submission... Boy, that Barracuda is a beast.
American women are of course used to Yanks chasing other women, as Jeremy Clarkson once said, "When you drive the new Dodge Hellcat, you become instantly more attracted to your sister..."
I'll give you the one about the teeth though...
For all the puffing up of the A6M…
In 1941/2, they were flown by the very best IJN elite pilots, many veterans with years of combat flying over China under their belts.
They were going up often pedestrian pilots, but against competent pilots, the A6M wasn't all that.
Both RAF pilots in Hurricanes and USN/USMC pilots in F4F's were quite capable of holding their own against them if flown wisely - 2:1 in the Allied pilots favour was not that unusual.
But it was a dwindling resource, it took years to train IJN fighter pilot to the same level as these veterans, and after the catastrophic losses in Pacific in 1942, the A6M was no longer all that with its increasingly poorly trained pilots.
In 1941/2, they were flown by the very best IJN elite pilots, many veterans with years of combat flying over China under their belts.
They were going up often pedestrian pilots, but against competent pilots, the A6M wasn't all that.
Both RAF pilots in Hurricanes and USN/USMC pilots in F4F's were quite capable of holding their own against them if flown wisely - 2:1 in the Allied pilots favour was not that unusual.
But it was a dwindling resource, it took years to train IJN fighter pilot to the same level as these veterans, and after the catastrophic losses in Pacific in 1942, the A6M was no longer all that with its increasingly poorly trained pilots.
Hurricane were beaten heavy against the Zero around 38 Hurricane for 6 A6M
the F4F could get this rate occasionally but this was not common
I don't think anybody would say that maneuverability doesn't matter. Of course it does, and everybody wants it in their plane. But maneuverability alone does not make a great plane. The lack of armor and useless radios mattered. Oh, the Zero wasn't alone in having no armor; early Spitfires and Hurricanes and some other planes didn't have armor, either, if I remember correctly. But that deficiency was fixed by the British after combat experience was gained. But the Zero never had armor added. (Not in time to matter, anyway; I don't know about late in the war.) And since the Wildcat did have armor, it mattered a lot that the Zero didn't. The Wildcats also had radios that actually worked, and the Zeroes didn't. Good, rapid communication made tight teamwork possible.
The ratio got better as time went on. It was around or slightly better than 1:1 at first, but with experience, improved tactics, and training, it improved to nearly 6:1 by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign. But the phenomenal early reputation didn't die, because early reputations tend to live forever regardless of new information.
I've already replied on Guadalcanal, "AFAIK was more on 1.6:1"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm not 100% on this but I believe that 6:1 kill ratio for the F4F over Guadalcanal was against all aircraft, I think it was 1.6:1 against the Zero specifically as Vincenzo pointed out.
