Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

SaparotRob said:

Well, propaganda releases don't sound as cool when it says "Our brave pilots took on 32 mediocre enemy fighters and downed 6 of them".

Click to expand...

The problem was that opinions about the Zero went to the opposite extremes, from thinking all Japanese aircraft were rubbish and inferior copies of Western equipment, to being promoted as being invincible. No wonder people get their nut on about it; during the war, getting the story straight was part of the problem, let alone identifying what to do about the aircraft.

A friend of mine was 82nd Airborne and part of the D-Day operation. He recalled that every AFV they encountered, was a "Tiger" because it's reputation preceeded it.

It wasn't until a while later, they actually encountered a Tiger (knocked out on the side of a road) that he and his buddies started laughing. They had been terrified of a legend.

Like the Tiger, the A6M built up a reputation of being invinsible which was mostly due to their opponents being largely unprepared for the performance.

For every new threat, there will be a counter - the A6M's weaknesses were discovered and exploited, the Tiger's weaknesses were soon discovered and countered and in the case of the Yamoto, if the air attacks didn't stop her, there were six battleships, seven cruiser and no less than 21 destroyers enroute to prove she was not immortal...

pinsog said:

Oh I agree. I have stated in other threads that I know what the Wildcat did, but it defies explanation of how it did it. One of the aces at Guadalcanal stated that they should have been easily wiped out and he didn't understand why they didn't. I think I read that in the 2nd book of the First Team. The only thing that I can come up with that tipped the balance in favor of the Wildcat was the 50 was a great balance of hitting power, rounds per gun per minute, amount of ammo carried and the thorough teaching of deflection shooting in the US Navy.

Click to expand...

Gerald Astor's oral history, Wings of Gold (culled from WWII naval aviator interviews), makes much mention of deflection training.

GrauGeist said:

The F4F versus A6M kill ratio became higher as the war progressed.

There was quite a difference between the ratio in 1942 and the final number by war's end.

Click to expand...

Probably has a bit to do with pilot training as much as anything else.

Greg Boeser said:

Weren't the IJN pilots instructed to land ashore due to the lack of experience in carrier landings?

Click to expand...

I think that was more about operational efficiency in setting up a shuttle-run between the islands and the flattops. Not to argue that the pilots weren't green; they were.

nuuumannn said:

So, we now have a naval groundhog as well?

Click to expand...

There was nose armour definitely. A lot of it.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Probably has a bit to do with pilot training as much as anything else.

Click to expand...

And availability.

Here's some quick production numbers:
F4F-3 [1940-1941] 183
F4F-3a [1940-1941] 30 (Greek AF, went to RAF)
F4F-3a [1941] 61 (went to USN)
F4F-4 [1941-1943] 1169
FM-1 [1943] 839
Wildcat Mk.V [1943] 311
FM-2 [1943-1945] 4437
Wildcat Mk.VI [1944-1945] 340

So you can see that early on, the Wildcat had an uphill battle in establishing dominance over the IJN (and IJA).

I suspect that, with the BF110, the Germans were trying to recreate the success they had with their CL aircraft in World War I. Those machines had excelled not only as observation aircraft, but had done unusually well as fighters and most surprisingly, ground attack aircraft. The 110 comes in as very overweight when compared to other twin engine fighters of it's era.

Akuma said:

I suspect that, with the BF110, the Germans were trying to recreate the success they had with their CL aircraft in World War I. Those machines had excelled not only as observation aircraft, but had done unusually well as fighters and most surprisingly, ground attack aircraft. The 110 comes in as very overweight when compared to other twin engine fighters of it's era.

Click to expand...

The Walfisch as well was a well-armed, fairly maneuverable two-seater plane that could carry out a couple of missions well. It too was pressed into service as an escort fighter.

pinsog said:

Oh I agree. I have stated in other threads that I know what the Wildcat did, but it defies explanation of how it did it. One of the aces at Guadalcanal stated that they should have been easily wiped out and he didn't understand why they didn't. I think I read that in the 2nd book of the First Team. The only thing that I can come up with that tipped the balance in favor of the Wildcat was the 50 was a great balance of hitting power, rounds per gun per minute, amount of ammo carried and the thorough teaching of deflection shooting in the US Navy.

Click to expand...

One reason why the Zero did not do too well over Guadalcanal was that Guadalcanal was so distant from Rabaul that the A6M2 had to fight with its drop tank attached and the A6M3, which had a shorter range, could not be used.

First message on this forum after reading this nice thread which motivates me to contribute a bit.

I think stg gets "overrated" when its performance/behaviour is (way) below the expectations placed on it, its importance or value is exagerated. Now, from what pov the aircraft should be considered as overrated : public's eyes or air forces/pilots that use it in combat ?

I'll try to answer from these 2 perspectives with only one aircraft. Firstly, the most overrated aircraft should be famous, known by a wide audience, it can't be confidential. IMO that excludes a lot of aircraft of this poll : P-39, some americans bombers (A-20, B-24, B-26, TBF Avenger), Me 210, soviet fighters and bombers (except Yak series and Sturmovik), italian planes, japanese aircrafts (except Zero)... I think that nowadays, these are only known by amateurs/specialists that put a real interest and passion into WWII's aircrafts, or pilots who flew them.

I won't go for the Mustang, the Spit, the Bf 109 or the A6M. The first two may have over-shadowed other aircrafts that contribute a lot in allies' victory but this can partially be explained by the massive psychological impact they had on the British during the BoB for the Spifire and on american bombers crews for the P-51. Beyond these symbolic factors, they were both excellent aircrafts for the role they were initially designated for. I don't vote for the 109 and the A6M for another reason. I actually find quite "unfair" to say that two fighters which dominate the skies for a period could be qualified of overrated. I would more describe them as outclassed in their latest versions rather than overrated.

There's still plenty of aircraft to choose from, so I will introduce another criteria to answer precisely, more related to military specs. When they order a plane, Air forces generally have an idea of the role that it'll accomplish. If the aircraft suits the role there is no problem and no "overrated" aspect. But sometimes, it can be a desillusion. It was typically the case for the Bf 110 which quickly shows its limits against single engine fighter, even at the beginning of the war. However, it had a brilliant "second life" as a nightfighter that illustrates his zerstörer's potential. Same thing can be said IMO for the Hawker Typhoon, mediocre as a fighter but formidable when used as a fighter-bomber.

Nevertheless, it's a bit different for the most overrated aircraft I have in mind, cause I think a better aircraft existed for the same role(s). With that last thing added my vote goes to (drum's roll)... the B-17.
In fact, the B-24 was superior or equal in nearly all aspects : more bomb load, more range, more versatile, same speed, same armor... In the PTO, the B-17 disappears in 1943, because it was unable to do stg the Consolidated can't do. Maybe, the B-17 was a bit easier to handle and build but performance wise I can't see any advantages he enjoyed over the Liberator. In any case that justify the hype he gets, while the B-24 tends to be forgotten.

Thx to all of you who read til the end, hope my non-english speaking doesn't appears too much haha

Wellcome to the forum G GreenMottling29

A very argued first post and well written. While the B-24 had the advantages you say, don't forget the enviroment were the B-17 thrived: high altitude bombing over Europe in close formations facing coordinated fierce flak and enemy fighters (not saying Japan air defenses weren't fierce, just not as elaborated as those of Germany).

There, ease of flight, higher flight altitude and rugedness played in the B-17 favour.

I guess that a bunch of Hollywood stars like Jimmy Stewart & Clark Gable also make much for the B-17 fame, like been the banner of the premier AF fighting the nazi Germany.

Escuadrilla Azul said:

I guess that a bunch of Hollywood stars like Jimmy Stewart & Clark Gable also make much for the B-17 fame, like been the banner of the premier AF fighting the nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

Except that Jimmy Stewart was a B-24 pilot.

Thanks Escuadrilla Azul. I was hoping someone that could say it better than I would stop by.
Great post, GreenMottling29 and welcome! That's well written but you're utterly wrong. I don't waste my time with facts or knowledge. The B-17 is the most beautiful airplane to ever take flight. That alone should clinch it but wait, there's more! The B-17 had a kick-ass TV show my Dad and I watched in the '60's. Did the B-24?
I am also fond of the Amiot 143.

GreenMottling29 said:

But sometimes, it can be a desillusion. It was typically the case for the Bf 110 which quickly shows its limits against single engine fighter, even at the beginning of the war.

Click to expand...

Er, no. Take a look at the the chart below. Might come as a bit of a surprise to you. Note that overclaiming occurred in equal measure on both sides. I say this having researched the Battle of Britain from both sides for the past 42 years.


Given the Bf 109 losses, one might be able to make a case out that it showed its limits against single engined fighters...

I would say the Typhoon was a good fighter until it started to be loaded up with extra armour and rockets, it was able to chase down the Fw 190 for example. It was a poor aircraft though because of its engine. Kept in service for the drive across northern Europe and scrapped immediately after.

GreenMottling29 said:

Nevertheless, it's a bit different for the most overrated aircraft I have in mind, cause I think a better aircraft existed for the same role(s). With that last thing added my vote goes to (drum's roll)... the B-17.
In fact, the B-24 was superior or equal in nearly all aspects : more bomb load, more range, more versatile, same speed, same armor... In the PTO, the B-17 disappears in 1943, because it was unable to do stg the Consolidated can't do. Maybe, the B-17 was a bit easier to handle and build but performance wise I can't see any advantages he enjoyed over the Liberator. In any case that justify the hype he gets, while the B-24 tends to be forgotten.

Thx to all of you who read til the end, hope my non-english speaking doesn't appears too much haha

Click to expand...

You make a good argument for your point but a few things to consider...

B-17s serving in the PTO had an appalling attrition rate for all reasons (logistics and enemy losses). The B-24 with it's longer legs worked out well when deployed in numbers to the Pacific. The B-24 was able to be operated at lower altitudes and didn't face the same amount of aerial opposition that the B-17 saw over the ETO. Lastly the B-17 was also directed away from the PTO because of the need to re-supply B-17s being lost in Europe.

The B-24 was not easily maintained and did not do well when one or more engines were lost.

A good piece about the B-17/ B-24

A comparative analysis conducted in the spring of 1944 by the AAF Operations and Requirements Division concluded that "it would be desirable to increase B-17 production and decrease that of the B-24, because the former airplane is a much more effective combat weapon."

This recommendation was based on statistical comparisons:

1. Statistical data compiled on the utilization of both planes showed that the B-17 was easier to maintain and therefore more available for combat.
2. Statistical data on time from aircraft acceptance to delivery in theater showed that the B-17's spend only half as much time in modification centers thus are availableat the theaters in a shorter time.
3. Use of B-17 combat sorties, versus B-24, resulted in a 40% savings in personnel and material.
4. The average man-hours expended in producing and modifying one B-24 were greater than for a B-17.
5. Statistical comparisons done on loss rate per sortie showed that the B-17 had a 35% longer combat life than the B-24.

Another study was conducted in the fall of 1944 by the AAF Unit Training Division. In the final report, Colonel Walker, Chief of the Unit Training Division, states the following: "The extensive use of the B-24 is inconsistent with the blunt fact that it is the most extravagant killer of any airplane in the AAF. Since Pearl Harbor through September 1944, B-24 accidents in the U.S. have resulted in 2,188 fatalities. In the first 9 months of 1944, B-24's did only 6% of total flying in the U.S. but accounted for 26% of all fatalities. They flew 5% less than B-17's but had 105% more fatalities and 85% more wrecks. Had the B-24 had as good accident rate as the B-17 during the period 7 December 1941 through September 1944, there would have been a saving of 230 aircraft wrecked, 904 lives, and approximately $60,000,000."

Although some in the AAF were not too enthused about the B-24's performance, the Royal Air Force (RAF) preferred it to the B-17. Unconvinced of the value of daylight precision bombing with a four-engine aircraft, the RAF was sold on the "safer" night area bombing. They also believed that the B-17 would make a satisfactory night bomber but pointed out that its firepower was wholly inadequate for protection during daylight missions, and that its bomb capacity was too light to warrant the radius of action of which it was capable. However, they considered the B-24 a superior night bomber because of its greater bomb load and larger fuselage which made possible the installation of increased defensive armament. The RAF also believed that the B-24 was useful for coastal patrol for locating and destroying enemy submarines and the German Focke-Wulf patrol bombers. Even though it had less defensive fire and high altitude speed than the B-17, the British felt that the B-24 was still superior to the German bomber. Thus, they preferred the B-24 and even named her the "Liberator".

In a letter dated 14 Feb 1944,Maj Gen Doolittle, 8th Air Force Commander, requested to Lt Gen Spaatz, U.S. Strategic Forces in Europe Commander, that B-24's be modified and redesigned in order to correct performance problems that the plane had been experiencing. He stated that the problems were a result of the efforts taken to increase the ability of the B-24 to protect itself by increasing its armament. He also explained that it was difficult to motivate his crews because the pilots flying the B-24's knew that the plane was not performing as well as the B-17.


For a non-English speaker, you do fine!

buffnut453 said:

Except that Jimmy Stewart was a B-24 pilot.

Click to expand...

Upssss, nice gaffer on my part!!!!!

It might be interesting to know that Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was a B-17 pilot in the Pacific Theater.

Thx for your comments and welcoming messages guys !

To Escuadrilla Azul and FlyBoyJ :

I might have neglected those practical advantages the B-17 offers compared to the B-24, especially the "ease" to fly with one or several engine(s) damages for the Flying Fortress and its ease of maintenance. I also agree for the role Hollywood had given to the B-17.
However, I stay convinced these differencies were insufficient to explain the gap in fame and glory between these two aircrafts and why IMHO the B-17 was overrated. I don't say it was a bad aircraft, just there was another one who achieve similar results and didn't get the recognition it deserves (at least in Europe). I don't know if it's the same in the USA but I've the feeling B-24's impact in Europe sink into oblivion.

Concerning the attrition rate (in combat) of the two aircrafts in the 8th Air Force I've found this article : The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, or the Consolidated B-24 Liberator?
"Advocates of the superiority of the B-17 are surprised to learn that their per-sortie overall loss rate was nearly half a percent higher among Eighth Air Force groups than that of their peers who flew B-24s. When comparing the number of sorties flown and losses sustained by the two types, the difference is even greater. Groups flying B-17s flew 60.38 percent of sorties flown by the Eighth Air Force and sustained 69.75 percent of the losses, while B-24 groups flew 29.77 percent of the sorties yet sustained only 26.1 percent of the heavy bombers lost. Groups that operated both types flew 9.85 percent of the sorties and took 4.14 percent of the losses."

It would have been interesting to have more details about these groups that operate both types. I have to admit that these figures surprize me, I thought B-24 suffered a higher rate of losses per sortie.

To SaparotRob :

Hahaha I didn't saw that coming ! Well I recognize the B-17 is way prettier than the B-24. This sole fact is more than enough to invalidate my vote. Doing a TV show with a B-17 is already kinda weird in my mind, but doing the same with a B-24 seems impossible. What was the name of that show ?

Aaaah finally speak with someone who praizes the beautiful French-designed aircrafts before WWII lol