Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[GreenMottling29]

To John Vasco :

I'm impressed by the 110's stats actually, I like to learn things like this. It's quite contradictory with the impressions we can find on the Zerstörer. For me it was like (not nuanced at all) :
- Excellent aircraft during the Poland's Campaign, and did well in Belgium and Holland. I believe it performs better than the 109 in September 1939
- Okish/decent during the Battle of France, starts to struggle in 1vs1 against A-3/A-4, D520, Hurricanes and Spit sent in France
- Garbage during/after the BoB, affected to other missions than day fighting

However, in 1939-1940, it had IMHO good caracteristics for a fighter : nice max speed (560 kph), heavy firepower with 2 20mm and 4 7,92mm, correct range... All in all, still capable to do plenty of good things except following a single-engine fighter in a turn.

To Pbehn :

The Typhoon did well as it contests the supremacy procured by the FW-190 at low-levels. What I remember from my readings is that it never gived full satisfaction in that role and that's why it was quickly turned into a ground attacking aircraft.

My next posts should be shorter haha

 

[pbehn]

T

The Typhoon did well as it contests the supremacy procured by the FW-190 at low-levels. What I remember from my readings is that it never gived full satisfaction in that role and that's why it was quickly turned into a ground attacking aircraft.

My next posts should be shorter haha

The Typhoon was to be the future, but that was before engine development allowed the Spitfire, especially with a Griffon engine to outperform it. The Typhoons wings were a big issue, they were just too thick, but the Tempest with Laminar flow wings was one of the best at low level, the restriction being the engine, to most casual observers a Typhoon and Tempest are the same plane. Certainly more similar than a P-51A and a P-51D which are all classed as "Mustangs".

 

[XBe02Drvr]

- Excellent aircraft during the Poland's Campaign, and did well in Belgium and Holland. I believe it performs better than the 109 in September 1939
- Okish/decent during the Battle of France, starts to struggle in 1vs1 against A-3/A-4, D520, Hurricanes and Spit sent in France
- Garbage during/after the BoB, affected to other missions than day fighting

Bear in mind when comparing combat results of Me109/110, the 109s used in Poland and early Belgium/Netherlands/France were early versions, Cs and Ds. Later France/BoB saw the Emil, a whole new level of performance, though limited in range.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.
View attachment 691087

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

Hi John,

I've always felt the Bf 110 got the short end of the stick so to speak historically, I see there are 290 claims for July-October 1940, do you have numbers for actual kills for the 110 during the same time frame?

Thanks

 

[pbehn]

G GreenMottling29 For many, the "history" of the Bf110 in the Battle of Britain is based upon what happened on Battle of Britain day itself (17 Sept). Bf 110s were ordered to stay close to the bombers which were flying into very strong head winds. To keep formation they flew with their flaps down, the very worst possible situation to put a heavy fighter in and they got hammered. This was not at all typical of the whole Battle of Britain conflict, or the early years of the war.

 

[at6]

was the name of that show ?

Twelve O Clock High.

 

[33k in the air]

G GreenMottling29 For many, the "history" of the Bf110 in the Battle of Britain is based upon what happened on Battle of Britain day itself (17 Sept). Bf 110s were ordered to stay close to the bombers which were flying into very strong head winds. To keep formation they flew with their flaps down, the very worst possible situation to put a heavy fighter in and they got hammered. This was not at all typical of the whole Battle of Britain conflict, or the early years of the war.

I would have thought the raid on the Newcastle/Sunderland area on 15 August by Luftflotte 5 had more to do with it. The raid was by Norway-based aircraft, meaning the Bf 110 was the fighter escort.

8 of the 34 escorting Bf 110s (23.5%) were shot down while the RAF fighters suffered no losses.

 

[pbehn]

I would have thought the raid on the Newcastle/Sunderland area on 15 August by Luftflotte 5 had more to do with it. The raid was by Norway-based aircraft, meaning the Bf 110 was the fighter escort.

8 of the 34 escorting Bf 110s (23.5%) were shot down while the RAF fighters suffered no losses.

Maybe, but they were the Dachelbauch versions I believe. to make the trip they had the huge extra fuel tank which meant they were initially mistaken for bombers and some screw up with navigation that meant a diversion "raid" by sea planes drew the RAF towards the attack itself.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Maybe, but they were the Dachelbauch versions I believe. to make the trip they had the huge extra fuel tank which meant they were initially mistaken for bombers and some screw up with navigation that meant a diversion "raid" by sea planes drew the RAF towards the attack itself.

Yes, the escort were the pregnant D model

 

[SaparotRob]

Twelve O Clock High.

A Quinn Martin Production.

 

[PBPICS]

I'm wondering if the human element is being taken into consideration? Doesn't the skill of the pilot have as much to do with the performance of the aircraft as the aircraft itself? I've often suggested to my wife that the camera used to take photos has less to do with the final product than the skills of the photographer. I've even shot myself in the foot by suggesting that I could make a shoebox with a coke bottle lens work…that definitely backfired when I wanted to get a new camera or lens. IMHO it's skills over equipment that makes a difference. Open to suggestions…

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm wondering if the human element is being taken into consideration? Doesn't the skill of the pilot have as much to do with the performance of the aircraft as the aircraft itself? I've often suggested to my wife that the camera used to take photos has less to do with the final product than the skills of the photographer. I've even shot myself in the foot by suggesting that I could make a shoebox with a coke bottle lens work…that definitely backfired when I wanted to get a new camera or lens. IMHO it's skills over equipment that makes a difference. Open to suggestions…

This is brought up here all the time. Aside from pilot skill you have to consider tactics.

 

[Shortround6]

Doesn't the skill of the pilot have as much to do with the performance of the aircraft as the aircraft itself?

Kind of depends what you mean by performance.

Get in the plane and climb to 10,000ft. try to fly straight and level fun the engine at max allowed power and the pilot isn't going to make much difference, at least if the pilot can actually flight straight and level.

Skipping a bunch of things here but trying to do tight turns can be a problem. Pilot is on the verge of blacking out and the varies from pilot to pilot, Trying to do a high G turn smoothly and on the verge of blacking out is not easy, over or under doing the control effort can really affect the turn (like stall the aircraft) but we still aren't talking about combat, just getting the plane to move through the sky in a desired pattern/course.
In Combat Performance the pilot has to all the maneuvering and fight the G forces while planning ahead for whatever it opponent/s are going to do and keeping an eye out for his own wingman or leader. The Ability to out think the opponents while going through the high G forces involved in air combat is where the pilots really make the difference. And here is where training/experience really helps.

 

[PBPICS]

Kind of depends what you mean by performance.

Get in the plane and climb to 10,000ft. try to fly straight and level fun the engine at max allowed power and the pilot isn't going to make much difference, at least if the pilot can actually flight straight and level.

Skipping a bunch of things here but trying to do tight turns can be a problem. Pilot is on the verge of blacking out and the varies from pilot to pilot, Trying to do a high G turn smoothly and on the verge of blacking out is not easy, over or under doing the control effort can really affect the turn (like stall the aircraft) but we still aren't talking about combat, just getting the plane to move through the sky in a desired pattern/course.
In Combat Performance the pilot has to all the maneuvering and fight the G forces while planning ahead for whatever it opponent/s are going to do and keeping an eye out for his own wingman or leader. The Ability to out think the opponents while going through the high G forces involved in air combat is where the pilots really make the difference. And here is where training/experience really helps.

I would totally have to agree with you. I don't have experience as a combat pilot, nor a pilot but I do have experience multitasking under high stress conditions and urban combat I.e. bricks and bullets and bombs…only as a frame of reference…so I can imagine that a combat pilot has a whole lot going on which is multitasking to the n-th degree. I think what I'm trying to say here is that I can empathize. Those people are owed a whole lot of respect.

 

[John Vasco]

I would have thought the raid on the Newcastle/Sunderland area on 15 August by Luftflotte 5 had more to do with it. The raid was by Norway-based aircraft, meaning the Bf 110 was the fighter escort.

8 of the 34 escorting Bf 110s (23.5%) were shot down while the RAF fighters suffered no losses.

A few points.
The post to which you replied said that Battle of Britain day was 17th September 1940, when in fact it is 15th September 1940.

Now to your last paragraph:
'...8 of the 34 escorting Bf 110s (23.5%) were shot down...' This is incorrect. 6 were lost, not 8. Here are the full details for I./ZG 76 on that mission:
Stab I./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Failed to return from sortie to east coast of England off Newcastle 1.00 p.m. FF Hptmn Werner Restemeyer (Gruppenkommandeur), BF Uffz Werner Eichert, and Hptmn Ernst-August Hartwich (of W.Leitstelle 15) all missing. Aircraft M8+AB 100% write-off.
Ernst Hartwich was a signals officer operating specialist radio equipment installed to monitor RAF transmissions.

Stab I./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Shot down by fighters in combat off the east coast of England near Newcastle 1.00 p.m. FF Oberlt Gustav Loobes (Gruppenadjutant) and BF Uffz Xaver Brock both missing. Aircraft 100% write-off.

1./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0 (3155). Both engines disabled in attacks by P/O G.H. Bennions and P/O E.A. Shipman of No.41 Squadron during escort sortie for KG26 attack on east coast airfields. Tail broke off in heavy crash-landing near Streatlam Camp, Staindrop, near Barnard Castle, 1.36 p.m. FF Oberlt Hans-Ulrich Kettling captured with slight burns to right hand, BF Obergefr Fritz Volk captured wounded in right knee. Aircraft M8+CH fired by crew 100% write-off.

2./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Shot down in combat with fighters of Nos.41, 72 and 79 Squadrons during escort sortie for KG26 attack on east coast airfields and crashed in the sea off Northumberland 1.00 p.m. FF Fw Klaus Ladwein captured unhurt, BF Obergefr Karl Lenk missing. Aircraft M8+EK 100% write-off.

2./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Belly-landed on beach at Esbjerg badly damaged by fighters in combat over the North Sea off English east coast 1.00 p.m. BF Uffz Hans Geischecker baled out over the North Sea and missing, FF Uffz Bernhard Richter badly wounded - admitted to hospital in Esbjerg. Aircraft M8+JK under 50% damaged.

3./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0(3157). Shot down in the sea off the east coast of England during combat off Northumberland coast 1.00 p.m. FF Lt Heinrich Köhler killed, BF Uffz Heinz Oelsner killed. Aircraft M8+SL 100% write-off.
The body of Heinz Oelsner washed ashore on Ballum on the Danish coast on September 10. The body of Heinrich Köhler was washed up on the Danish island of Mandø on 11/9-40.

3./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0(3182). Returned damaged in attack by fighters off English east coast 1.00 p.m. FF Oberlt Gordon Gollob unhurt, BF Uffz Friedrich Meyer slightly wounded - admitted to hospital in Leeuwarden. Aircraft M8+PL 15% damaged but repairable.

3./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Shot down in the sea off the east coast of England during combat off Northumberland coast 1.00 p.m. FF Oberfw Hans Gröning and BF Obergefr Helmut Hahn both missing. Aircraft 100% write-off.

3./ZG76 Messerschmitt Bf110D-0. Returned damaged by fighters in combat off Northumberland coast 1.00 p.m. FF Uffz Erich Zickler unhurt, BF Gefr Josef Pudlik slightly wounded - admitted to hospital in Jever. Aircraft damage state not recorded.

Six shot down with a further three that returned damaged.


'...the RAF fighters suffered no losses...' This is incorrect. See below.
605 Squadron. Hurricane P3827. F/O C Passy – safe. Hit by return fire off Newcastle. Force-landed and wrecked one mile from Usworth.
605 Squadron. Hurricane P3308. F/Lt A McKellar – safe. Damaged by return fire off Newcastle.
605 Squadron. Hurricane P2717. P/O K Schadtler-Law – wounded. Hit by return fire. Force-landed near Hart railway station and admitted to Hartlepool hospital with suspected crushed vertebrae, laceration of scalp and concussion. P/O Schadtler-Law did not fly again operationally.
79 Squadron Hurricane. P/O Millington – safe. Damaged in combat.

 

[pbehn]

A few points.
The post to which you replied said that Battle of Britain day was 17th September 1940, when in fact it is 15th September 1940.

My fault for typing in the dark lol

 

[33k in the air]

A few points.
The post to which you replied said that Battle of Britain day was 17th September 1940, when in fact it is 15th September 1940.

Now to your last paragraph:
'...8 of the 34 escorting Bf 110s (23.5%) were shot down...' This is incorrect. 6 were lost, not 8. Here are the full details for I./ZG 76 on that mission:

The reference book I consulted stated eight. But this book was published a few decades ago.

 

[John Vasco]

The reference book I consulted stated eight. But this book was published a few decades ago.

I understand that. There is a hell of a lot of misinformation in books published decades ago.

What I posted is the correct information.

 

[fannum]

Invariably, aircraft produced in quantity had good attributes ... just wound up being used in roles they were not designed for. IMHO, surveys like this tend to be fruitless exchanges, like sports challenges in a happy hour.
For not living up to its hype, it's hard to compare to the Fisher P-75

 

[SaparotRob]

As pointless as it may be, it's great fun. Very few people I know have any interest in aviation. Those that do are more interested in air fares. The give and take, wanderings off thread, the stats and facts and "why didn't they just do this?" has given me new insights on aviation history. I like fannum's point about the most produced planes being used the most, including in unintended roles.

The B-17 RULES!