Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[model299]

I seem to remember reading an article (Wings or Airpower) some years ago about the P-39, and the author's opinion, backed up by some research and interviews, where he stated that training in stateside p-39s actually made for better P-51 pilots. I'll see if I can dig that up.

 

[fastmongrel]

May I venture to suggest that the B29 was a little over rated?
Its weak spot being engine fires.
It had many good advanced features but...
John

It was a whole technical generation ahead of anything else so not surprising it had some initial problems. Still doesnt stop it being the best bomber of the war.

 

[Readie]

It was a whole technical generation ahead of anything else so not surprising it had some initial problems. Still doesnt stop it being the best bomber of the war.

I agree the B29 was advanced in design and delivered the fatal blows to Japan. No one could argue with that.
However, I think that the A bomb attack has led a lot of people into believing that the B29 was the best bomber of WW2.
I would vote for the aerial footsoldiers who slogged through years of attack, losses, success and failures the Flying Fortress, Lancaster, Stirling, Liberator and Wellington.
having said that if you look at the team of bombers the allies had, together they were unbeatable and that is the most important thing at the end of the day.
John

 

[Readie]

That's the thing about our Readie - you always know where he stands ("Spitfires are FANTASTIC!! Any questions? No? Good!")

BN, They are, but so are others. I admire the Typhoon Tempest Mosquito's in particular.
I also have a sneaking admiration of the Mustang too.

Fabulous piston engined aircraft.

John

 

[buffnut453]

I also have a sneaking admiration of the Mustang too.

I wouldn't bring that up in polite conversation if I were you. It'll ruin your reputation!

 

[Readie]

I wouldn't bring that up in polite conversation if I were you. It'll ruin your reputation!

Mum's the word BN.

John

 

[stona]

Tricky this. I pegged the Me163 since it was pretty useless. An interesting concept but a dead end,there aren't many rocket powered glider interceptors about today but for the Germans,at the time,needs must.Was it however over rated? Did anyone really rate it in the first place?
This is why people are voting for great aircraft like the Spitfire and Mustang. By being so highly rated they leave themselves open to the charge of being over rated. Not by me though.
Steve

 

[Readie]

Tricky this. I pegged the Me163 since it was pretty useless. An interesting concept but a dead end,there aren't many rocket powered glider interceptors about today but for the Germans,at the time,needs must.Was it however over rated? Did anyone really rate it in the first place?
This is why people are voting for great aircraft like the Spitfire and Mustang. By being so highly rated they leave themselves open to the charge of being over rated. Not by me though.
Steve

Well said Steve
John

 

[muscogeemike]

Don't tell that to the Russians!

I think the PBY Catalina was one of the most overrated planes.
It was reliable, beautiful and sturdy but does not deserve all the acclaim it receives.

Don't get me wrong it was (is) an awesome plane but to often that is the ONLY image that is conjured when thinking of WW2 seaplanes or flying boats.

I love the Cat but she is overrated.

Especially when compared to other flying boats.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree the B29 was advanced in design and delivered the fatal blows to Japan. No one could argue with that.
However, I think that the A bomb attack has led a lot of people into believing that the B29 was the best bomber of WW2.
I would vote for the aerial footsoldiers who slogged through years of attack, losses, success and failures the Flying Fortress, Lancaster, Stirling, Liberator and Wellington.
having said that if you look at the team of bombers the allies had, together they were unbeatable and that is the most important thing at the end of the day.
John

That does not change the fact that capability wise it was the best and most capable heavy bomber of the war. It could do more than any of the other heavy bomber and was more advanced. I don't understand why people don't want to admit that. There is no shame in that, nor does it take away from the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24. They were also amazing aircraft, but fact remains that there is always a next generation that makes it better.

Now I do agree with you and think that a lot of people overlook the other "big 3", but not in a serious aviation community like this one, and therefore that does not make it overrated. No one with a true understanding of the B-17, Lancaster and B-24 would do this. There are however a lot of people on this forum that overlook the B-29, because it was not built on a certain Island to remain unnamed...

 

[fastmongrel]

When your building a bomb truck Higher, Faster, Further with more is always better. B29 did all those things and did them well, I personally think that the B 29 as an all round weapons system wasnt equalled till the Vickers Valiant and B 47 came out and they were another 2 generations further on.

 

[Readie]

That does not change the fact that capability wise it was the best and most capable heavy bomber of the war. It could do more than any of the other heavy bomber and was more advanced. I don't understand why people don't want to admit that. There is no shame in that, nor does it take away from the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24. They were also amazing aircraft, but fact remains that there is always a next generation that makes it better.

Now I do agree with you and think that a lot of people overlook the other "big 3", but not in a serious aviation community like this one, and therefore that does not make it overrated. No one with a true understanding of the B-17, Lancaster and B-24 would do this. There are however a lot of people on this forum that overlook the B-29, because it was not built on a certain Island to remain unnamed...

I have always said that the B29 was the next generation of bomber, advanced in design capability albeit with teething issues but, as FLYBOY points out these were sorted.
It was a quantum leap forward almost as much as the jet was over the piston engine.
I agree with your points Chris, those of FLYBOY and other posters. The B29 was a fantastic plane and the fact that it was not British has nothing to do with it. If the Germans had designed it I would say the same as ( as you say) we are a serious forum.

My point and I stress that it is my opinion, there to be be shot at so feel free, that the A bomb delivery and long range attacks does not automatically make the B29 the 'best'. Neither does the Dam Busters raid automatically make the Lancaster the 'best'.
I am more inclined to give credit in WW2 to the heavy bombers (and crews) that did the spade work rather than the new designs that came late in the war.

John

 

[Gixxerman]

Neither does the Dam Busters raid automatically make the Lancaster the 'best'.
John

Have to disagree with you there John, if ever there was an outstanding example of sheer technical merit in an aircraft it was proved to be there in spades in the Lanc.....the pertinent accompanying point being for the timeframe summer 1943.

It's not so much that 'it made the Lanc the best' as that it proved it was (in summer '43).....together with its' crews.
The difficulty of pulling off what those men machines did given the problems they faced was nothing short of miraculous.....not to mention the dangers
(the loss figues made chilling reading).

Anyways just my 2 pennies.
I have to say I think the B29 did enough for long enough to show itself as the best bomber in WW2.

(The only serious opposition contender of anything close to similar ability - and that is heavily reliant on proposed specs and not produced specs - I can see is the German He 274, which we know from Fench post-war use was one very formidable machine, but which thankfully had zero operational history to gauge it by; the question is was it next gen or peak of the old gen? I tend to see it more as next.....kind of in the way the Lanc grew out of the old Manchester gen to become a new gen itself, so to the He 177 - He 277/274)

 

[Dcazz7606]

I agree with the Me 163 Comet as totally over rated. Dangerous and difficult to service. Deadly to the pilots if something went wrong which it sometimes did. Short duration. The biggest drawback was it's fast attack speed as the two cannons fired too slow and the Comet would pass it's target before many rounds had been fired.
Depending on what you read it seems it either shot down 7 or 9 bombers in it's entire operational carrer.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-29 actually doesn't catch the spotlight as much as bombers such as the B-17, Lancaster , B-24 and so on.

It did have mechanical bugs to contend with early in it's operational career, but the troubles the Wright R-3350 caused were eventually fixed. On the otherhand, consider it's capabilities, and how it ushered in a new age of bombers and it could almost be considered under-rated...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The B-29 actually doesn't catch the spotlight as much as bombers such as the B-17, Lancaster , B-24 and so on.

I agree. I think when most people think of WW2 bombers they automatically think of the B-17 (unless you are from the Motherland....

 

[Readie]

Have to disagree with you there John, if ever there was an outstanding example of sheer technical merit in an aircraft it was proved to be there in spades in the Lanc.....the pertinent accompanying point being for the timeframe summer 1943.

It's not so much that 'it made the Lanc the best' as that it proved it was (in summer '43).....together with its' crews.
The difficulty of pulling off what those men machines did given the problems they faced was nothing short of miraculous.....not to mention the dangers
(the loss figues made chilling reading).

Anyways just my 2 pennies.
I have to say I think the B29 did enough for long enough to show itself as the best bomber in WW2.

(The only serious opposition contender of anything close to similar ability - and that is heavily reliant on proposed specs and not produced specs - I can see is the German He 274, which we know from Fench post-war use was one very formidable machine, but which thankfully had zero operational history to gauge it by; the question is was it next gen or peak of the old gen? I tend to see it more as next.....kind of in the way the Lanc grew out of the old Manchester gen to become a new gen itself, so to the He 177 - He 277/274)

Gix, The Lancaster was the best bomber for the RAF sorties there is no doubt about that. I was just trying to put my point in context about the B29.
I agree with your B29 comment too.
John

 

[Readie]

I agree. I think when most people think of WW2 bombers they automatically think of the B-17 (unless you are from the Motherland....

That's an interesting point, if we went into the streets of our respective cities and asked the youth which heavy bomber they associate with WW2 I wonder what they would say?

We may have to explain the term 'heavy bomber' first...

John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That's an interesting point, if we went into the streets of our respective cities and asked the youth which heavy bomber they associate with WW2 I wonder what they would say?

We may have to explain the term 'heavy bomber' first...

John

I am sure it would be exactly this:

USA - B-17
UK - Lancaster

 

[stona]

That's an interesting point, if we went into the streets of our respective cities and asked the youth which heavy bomber they associate with WW2 I wonder what they would say?

We may have to explain the term 'heavy bomber' first...

John

You'd need to explain more than that. My youngest daughter is a secondary school teacher and most of her pupils have no idea which decade(s) the second world war took place in,far less what equipment was used to fight it.
I knew my grandmother who was bombed in Canterbury and my grandfather who served in various theatres. My children did not and the next generation of children are totally disconnected from what to them is ancient history. It's something that sometimes happens (usually badly) in Hollywood movies.
Cheers
Steve