Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Readie]

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

Funnily enough I was thinking along similar lines Steve.

My children are aware of who did what in WW2 as I'm interested (my brother is not) , my father was in the 8th Army and mother in the WAAF. So we have their diaries, medals and photo's to hand.
The school's history department cover WW1 WW2 and go on school trips to see the usual sites here and in Europe.History is delivered warts and all.I think that the sites say it all really. Even the WW1 sites at Verdun etc.
Generally I would say that they are shocked by the savagery and butchery of WW 1 / 2 and appreciative of the hardwon freedom they enjoy.
My wifes parents were teenagers in WW2 are can give the 'homefront' perspective.
My youngest childrens friends nearest relative who were involved in WW2 are great great grandparents and, as you say, are more disconnected than my offspring.
The local newspaper in Plymouth likes to have articles about the way Plymouth was before the blitz and how much was destroyed. Rather missing the point that the post war bulldozers flattened more of the City of Plymouth prior to the great rebuild than the LW ever did.
My lad eldest daughter like to watch the WW2 aircraft displays when we can and seeing the BoB memorial flight is always a special moment. Seeing and hearing a Merlin Spitfire is an even more special moment.But, that's my thing.
I think that WW2 is alive (if that is the right word) as long as people like us on this and other forums remember the planes and crew. When we are not around or the planes are too old to fly any more, I rather suspect it'll all slide into history along with the Napoleonic wars and become part of the landscape.

John

 

[GrauGeist]

I agree...when I was a kid, there were combat vets all around me and WWI was still in living memory, WWII and Korea being even more recent.

So the stories were being recalled first hand (the few stories that they'd share) and we had a grasp of the efforts and sacrifices they made as well as the equipment they used. Many years ago, I was refinishing the stock of a 7x57mm Mauser where I worked, and my co-worker and I were puzzling over a series of "grooves" that were all over the lower stock (both sides, from the reciever to the butt) and I concluded that they were the result of being "knocked around" over the years. A long time customer (who has long since passed away) happened to come into the store, and saw our project and gave it a close look. When I commented on the mystery of the rough condition of the stock, he looked at me and said "Hell son, that's not from wear and tear...some poor bastard was using that as a club!" He pointed out that the "grooves" were made from the edges of Allied helmets...We were speechless!
So we solved a mystery because of a person who had a first hand account and I think it's most important to do what we can to educate the newer generations as best as possible in the hopes that they will someday pass it on to the next.

 

[Readie]

I agree...when I was a kid, there were combat vets all around me and WWI was still in living memory, WWII and Korea being even more recent.

So the stories were being recalled first hand (the few stories that they'd share) and we had a grasp of the efforts and sacrifices they made as well as the equipment they used. Many years ago, I was refinishing the stock of a 7x57mm Mauser where I worked, and my co-worker and I were puzzling over a series of "grooves" that were all over the lower stock (both sides, from the reciever to the butt) and I concluded that they were the result of being "knocked around" over the years. A long time customer (who has long since passed away) happened to come into the store, and saw our project and gave it a close look. When I commented on the mystery of the rough condition of the stock, he looked at me and said "Hell son, that's not from wear and tear...some poor bastard was using that as a club!" He pointed out that the "grooves" were made from the edges of Allied helmets...We were speechless!
So we solved a mystery because of a person who had a first hand account and I think it's most important to do what we can to educate the newer generations as best as possible in the hopes that they will someday pass it on to the next.

I agree with that Dave. I forgot to mention that most of my school teachers were WW2 Vets and taught us history with a personal touch. I started work in 1972 and a lot of colleagues were vets too, all with a different story to tell be they Burma Star, Merchant Navy, Navy, Army or Airforce.Some were very bitter and some found humour in even the darkest hour.
I too hope that the stories like your get passed on, and perhaps mosre importantly the idea that being as free as we are today was won not given.

John

 

[drgondog]

I agree...when I was a kid, there were combat vets all around me and WWI was still in living memory, WWII and Korea being even more recent.

So the stories were being recalled first hand (the few stories that they'd share) and we had a grasp of the efforts and sacrifices they made as well as the equipment they used. Many years ago, I was refinishing the stock of a 7x57mm Mauser where I worked, and my co-worker and I were puzzling over a series of "grooves" that were all over the lower stock (both sides, from the reciever to the butt) and I concluded that they were the result of being "knocked around" over the years. A long time customer (who has long since passed away) happened to come into the store, and saw our project and gave it a close look. When I commented on the mystery of the rough condition of the stock, he looked at me and said "Hell son, that's not from wear and tear...some poor bastard was using that as a club!" He pointed out that the "grooves" were made from the edges of Allied helmets...We were speechless!
So we solved a mystery because of a person who had a first hand account and I think it's most important to do what we can to educate the newer generations as best as possible in the hopes that they will someday pass it on to the next.

Yo, Dave - did you try to steam the grooves out with wet cloth and iron?

 

[GrauGeist]

Nope Bill, I was going to until I found out what caused those marks...

I left them there as sort of a badge of honor that the rifle earned in it's days as a fighting weapon. It now lives a life of ease as an occasional trophy Elk hunter and destroyer of targets

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I agree with that Dave. I forgot to mention that most of my school teachers were WW2 Vets and taught us history with a personal touch. I started work in 1972 and a lot of colleagues were vets too, all with a different story to tell be they Burma Star, Merchant Navy, Navy, Army or Airforce.Some were very bitter and some found humour in even the darkest hour.
I too hope that the stories like your get passed on, and perhaps mosre importantly the idea that being as free as we are today was won not given.

John

John, Your story brought a tear (off course I have to admit, in my dotage, that doesn't take much). The best teacher I ever had was for 1960, eighth grade: Mr. Oaks. I first saw him come in to school with a marked limp. I later learned he had been at Anzio and wounded. He wouldn't talk much about it, so I never knew his whole story. I just know he taught with a humor and a manner I did not see again. I went into his class believing none of my dreams were attainable, but graduated knowing it was possible to learn and do anything to which one was committed. Had lots of teachers over the years but never learned as much from any other.

 

[zoomar]

I chose the A6M and the Me-163.

The Zero was an underpowered and underprotected airplane that was able to outperform a number of western types because of its extremely light construction. It had some advantages over early war types such as the P-40 and F4F, but was not the amazing plane made out to be by some. Basically outclassed by 1943, which is not a good thing for a plane only first introduced in late 1940.

The Me-163 was a pointless exercise in high-performance waste.

 

[Vincenzo]

the zero was not of extremely light constructions. it's true was outclassed in late '43 but all fighters that outclassed him were newest.

 

[GregP]

I don't really get this poll.

The P-51 has been picked as the best overall fighter of WWII by more than 5 inetrnational panels of judges. Before the P-51, the war wasn't going well in Europe. After the P-51 was there for awhile it was. Spitfires, Typoons, Hurricanes, and Tempests weren't escorting the bombers to Berlin, the P-51 was along with the P-38 for a short while before the P-38 departed for the ETO where it won.

How is it overrated? It may not be the best at any particular task but, overall all ALL tasks, there were few or none better. High speed, high altitude, long range, plently of airframes, better than average maneuverability, adequately armed, with a reliable engine and radio. What other aircraft had more good qualities?They might have the same number of good qualities, but more? I don.t see it.

 

[GregP]

I don't really get this poll.

The P-51 has been picked as the bets overall fighter of WWII by more than 5 inetrnational panels of judges. Before the P-51, the war wasn't going well in Europe. After the P-51 was there for awhile it was. Spitfires, Typoons, Hurricanes, and Tempests weren't escorting the bombers to Berlin, the P-51 was along with the P-38 for awhile before the P-38 departed for the ETO where it won.

How is it overrated? It may not be the best at any particular task but, overall all ALL tasks, there were few or none better. High speed, high altitude, long range, plently of airframes, better than average maneuverability, adequately armed, with a reliable engine and radio. What other aircraft had MORE good qualities? They might have had the same number of good qualities, but more? I don.t see it.

 

[Siegfried]

I don't really get this poll.

The P-51 has been picked as the bets overall fighter of WWII by more than 5 inetrnational panels of judges. Before the P-51, the war wasn't going well in Europe. After the P-51 was there for awhile it was. Spitfires, Typoons, Hurricanes, and Tempests weren't escorting the bombers to Berlin, the P-51 was along with the P-38 for awhile before the P-38 departed for the ETO where it won.

International panel of judges? Paula Adul and Simon Cowel?

The P-51 'score' should be weighted and reduced by a factor of 4. The P-51B wasn't present in any significant numbers till January 1944 having flown a few tentative missions in mid december 1943. The earlier Allison P-51A made no significant impact both in numbers and missions due to the limmitations of its high altitude performance. It's also clear that P-47 improvements in fuel tankage were capable of not only matching but exceding P-51 range and that these improvements could also have been accelerated. Furthermore the P-38 was also being improved and had overcome its technical bugs around the time the P-51B started its first missions.

I would say even the P-40 was more important than the P-51. It held the line and it is clear that the US and UK would have suffered many defeats without it that may not have been reversible.

 

[wuzak]

I don't really get this poll.

The P-51 has been picked as the best overall fighter of WWII by more than 5 inetrnational panels of judges. Before the P-51, the war wasn't going well in Europe. After the P-51 was there for awhile it was. Spitfires, Typoons, Hurricanes, and Tempests weren't escorting the bombers to Berlin, the P-51 was along with the P-38 for a short while before the P-38 departed for the ETO where it won.

How is it overrated? It may not be the best at any particular task but, overall all ALL tasks, there were few or none better. High speed, high altitude, long range, plently of airframes, better than average maneuverability, adequately armed, with a reliable engine and radio. What other aircraft had more good qualities?They might have the same number of good qualities, but more? I don.t see it.

Greg, it could be the best thing ever, never surpassed, and sill be overrated.

The P-51 didn't really do a lot for the RAF war effort either, since most of their missions were at night.

 

[Siegfried]

I chose the A6M and the Me-163.

The Zero was an underpowered and underprotected airplane that was able to outperform a number of western types because of its extremely light construction. It had some advantages over early war types such as the P-40 and F4F, but was not the amazing plane made out to be by some. Basically outclassed by 1943, which is not a good thing for a plane only first introduced in late 1940.

The Me-163 was a pointless exercise in high-performance waste.

The Me 163B had been designed as a reconaisance aircraft interceptor, it was 'misused' to intercept bombers. The flaw in the Me 163B had already been ascertained as it was begining its first missions. It had too short an endurance, the pilots could intercept the bombers but needed a few more minutes to set up an ideal attack run. One solution was the New two chamber rocket which had a seperate boost and a smaller more efficient sustainer motor that significantly increased efficiency and range. The other was to increase the size of the aircraft to allow a higher proportion of fuel. The new designs were the Me 163C and Me 263 Ju 248.

It's likely if these improvments had of been incorporated in the first instance we would likely be talking about the deadly effect of these rocket aircraft on USAAF bomber formations.

The latter zeroes received armour protection and self sealing fuel tanks, however new advanced and more powerfull engines did not becoame into production to enhance performance

 

[drgondog]

International panel of judges? Paula Adul and Simon Cowel?

The P-51 'score' should be weighted and reduced by a factor of 4. The P-51B wasn't present in any significant numbers till January 1944 having flown a few tentative missions in mid december 1943. The earlier Allison P-51A made no significant impact both in numbers and missions due to the limmitations of its high altitude performance.

Not entirely clear what you mean by 'score should be reduced by a factor of 4'. If you mean victory credits in the ETO then the same review panel was used for all victory credits and the P-38/P-47 scores would be impacted in the same way. If you are merely exaggerating to make a point then you are entitled to your opinion but perhaps need to do a little more research,

First, the P-51A, A-36 and Mark I and II's were in combat in the roles the AAF and RAF assigned them in Africa, CBI and ETO before the P-47 saw combat.

The P-47D-25 and newer variants had a wet wing and arrived in ETO in June, 1944 after the Long Rang Escorts (P-38/P-51) had crippled LW defenses over Germany - a battle that P-47s were largely watching from the short range sidelines.


It's also clear that P-47 improvements in fuel tankage were capable of not only matching but exceding P-51 range and that these improvements could also have been accelerated. Furthermore the P-38 was also being improved and had overcome its technical bugs around the time the P-51B started its first missions.

Not true, particularly for ETO. If you want to compare P-47N to P-51D you have a point but the role of the P-47N in the PTO was less than the P-51D in all respects and it did not have the performance of the 'same generation' P-51H.

As th the P-38J, the necesary Intercooler and dive flap mods didn't come into the ETO until June 1944 and boosted ailerons until a month later with the arrivals of J-25's. Very few P-38L's ever flew in 8th AF and only served in three squadrons in the 9th and several in the MTO. By that time the Battle over Germany was pretty much 'done'

I would say even the P-40 was more important than the P-51. It held the line and it is clear that the US and UK would have suffered many defeats without it that may not have been reversible.

Out of curiosity what did you have in mind regarding 'irreversible defeats' - and in what context did you value the P-40 over say the F4F in 1942 had the AAF had a need to fill a vacuum not served until P-38 or even P-51A was available?

Last but not least. While the first victory credits belonged entirely to the 354th FG in ETO and only scored 9 in December 1943, the combined four (4th, 354th, 355th and 357th FG) scored nearly as many credits as ALL of the ETO (8th and 9th AF) P-47 groups in the 1st Qtr, and by end of June the 7 Mustang Groups had scored as many all All the P-47 groups in ETO for All of the P-47 Group's combat record from early 1943 forward - over Germany and deep targets while the Jugs were relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal support.

Even though the P-38, per se, was not particularly successful compared to the Mustang, the combined long range escort capabilities of the two fighter types compared to the contemporary P-47D enabled the long range effort over German targets to destroy almost as many through March (and crossed over in April) as All the 9th and 8th AF Jug groups.

To perhaps put it in perspective for you the combined P-47 Fighter groups that were operational from January 1944 and flying escort missions were (4th, 56th, 78, 352nd, 353rd, 355th, 356th, 358th, 359th, 361st, 362nd). The combined Mustang Groups were 354th. At the end of March, the 4th, 357th, 354th, 355th and 357th had fully converted to Mustangs in February and March while the 9th added the 366th, 368th and 405th FG's

So, despite a nearly 4:1 operational sortie advantage to the P-47 FG's versus Mustang sorties, the P-51 was outscored 560 to 390. during the next two months the Mustang Groups outscored the P-47 (8th and 9th) approximately 850 to 320 in the battles leading up to D-Day... mostly over Brunswick, Hannover, Berlin, Leipzig, Munich, Augsburg, Magdeburg where the P-47s could not play.

Note: I am busy breaking out the entire ETO Victory credits by a/c by group, by month so the number above is an estimation backed out from end of June.

There were always more P-47s than P-51s in the ETO and the P-47 flew twice the sorties as the Mustang - yet from December 1943 though April 1945, the P-51 outscored the Jug 4179 to 2658 in the ETO (P-38s scored a total of 451).

This does not take into account aircraft destroyed on the ground where the results are far more lopsided in favor of the Mustang, nor have the RAF totals been considered, which skews the resulys even more.

So how was the Mustang overated?

 

[pbfoot]

I don't really get this poll.

The P-51 has been picked as the bets overall fighter of WWII by more than 5 inetrnational panels of judges. Before the P-51, the war wasn't going well in Europe. After the P-51 was there for awhile it was. Spitfires, Typoons, Hurricanes, and Tempests weren't escorting the bombers to Berlin, the P-51 was along with the P-38 for awhile before the P-38 departed for the ETO where it won.

How is it overrated? It may not be the best at any particular task but, overall all ALL tasks, there were few or none better. High speed, high altitude, long range, plently of airframes, better than average maneuverability, adequately armed, with a reliable engine and radio. What other aircraft had MORE good qualities? They might have had the same number of good qualities, but more? I don.t see it.

Another international poll said Rickenbacker was the 2nd most important pilot in WW1 after Richhofenbut I don't think he was even in the top 10.

 

[buffnut453]

Yo, Dave - did you try to steam the grooves out with wet cloth and iron?

I still do - ironing dark trousers can leave them shiny if you're not careful but using a wet cloth (I have a favourite old tea towel for the purpose) prevents that problem!

Ok, so I'm a luddite living in the past...but it works for me!!!

 

[varsity078740]

I agree...when I was a kid, there were combat vets all around me and WWI was still in living memory, WWII and Korea being even more recent.

So the stories were being recalled first hand (the few stories that they'd share) and we had a grasp of the efforts and sacrifices they made as well as the equipment they used. Many years ago, I was refinishing the stock of a 7x57mm Mauser where I worked, and my co-worker and I were puzzling over a series of "grooves" that were all over the lower stock (both sides, from the reciever to the butt) and I concluded that they were the result of being "knocked around" over the years. A long time customer (who has long since passed away) happened to come into the store, and saw our project and gave it a close look. When I commented on the mystery of the rough condition of the stock, he looked at me and said "Hell son, that's not from wear and tear...some poor bastard was using that as a club!" He pointed out that the "grooves" were made from the edges of Allied helmets...We were speechless!
So we solved a mystery because of a person who had a first hand account and I think it's most important to do what we can to educate the newer generations as best as possible in the hopes that they will someday pass it on to the next.[/QUOTE

Assuming the gentleman was refering to Allied troops in WWII and that you are correct about the caliber, I'm afraid he was mistaken. The 7x57 was not the German service cartridge. It was the 7.92x57 chambered in the 98 Mauser.

Duane

 

[drgondog]

IIRC - Spain and Argentina still used 7x57 in WWII timeframe.

 

[GregP]

Hi pbfoot,

I agree. I liked Rickenacker, but he wasn't anywhere number two.

Wuzak,

You may be right, especialoly about the timeframe and helping the RAF. Go look at the tonnage of bombs dropped by the USAAC in WWII and you will see most of the bombs taht were dropped by the USA were dropped after the P-51 go there to escort our bombers to berlin. Coincidentally, that's when the germans began suffering their worst time. Once the mass dalight bombing began it was amatter of time.

Did the USAAF mass daylight bombing win the war? No, but it certainly contributed a great deal. Yes, the Spitfires were there from the start, but were mostly involved in defensive operations through the BOB and beyond. It wasn't until the Allies began attacking Germany that the tide of war changed. The BOB stopped Germany, but didn't do much to destroy the German war machine aside from depleting her of some aircraft and crews and, of course, saving Great Gritain in the process. Heroic. And the Hurriocane did more than the Spitfire in the BOB.

But turning the tide meant bombing the factries that produced war materiel and interrupting the oil, rubber, metal, and food supply. The P-51 was there for the best part of attacking Germany itself. It was seen as a pretty good fighter and did most of its service for teh USAAF, true. I don't argue that at all since it is correct. I just don't get the "overrated" part of it, that's all.

The Spitfire was lauded as the winner of the BOB despite the fact that Hurricane shot down more German aircraft in the actual event. Now that's overrated in my book, at least during the BOB. Doesn't mean the Spitfire wan't a great plane, it WAS and IS. It means it got credit out of proportion to what it actually accomplished ... ergo, overrated. If credit had been given where it was due, the Hurricane would be the big hero of the BOB.

Of course, that's just one opinion and I don't feel particularly emotional about it, just wondering and commenting on it.

 

[Kryten]

{{{The Spitfire was lauded as the winner of the BOB despite the fact that Hurricane shot down more German aircraft in the actual event. Now that's overrated in my book, at least during the BOB. Doesn't mean the Spitfire wan't a great plane, it WAS and IS. It means it got credit out of proportion to what it actually accomplished ... ergo, overrated. If credit had been given where it was due, the Hurricane would be the big hero of the BOB.}}}

The Hurricane was able to shoot down more aircraft partly due to thier numbers and partly due to the Spitfires being used to keep the 109's off thier backs, thats not overrated, thats sound tactics!