Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (2 Viewers)

[muscogeemike]

Quote:
You may be right, especially 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 got 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.

I really don't have a rooster in this fight but on the first full scale USAAF mission to Berlin (6 Mar 44) both P-51's and P-47's escorted. I've read of P-47 missions in the Pacific that were as long, or longer, then those flown by the P-51. Apparently the Thunder bolt had more range then it is generally given credit for.

 

[zoomar]

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

The A6M was not of extremely light construction? Unless I am sorely misinformed, it was very lightweight, its sheet aluminum was of a thinner gauge than western types, it lacked armour, self-seaing tank, and other amenities s in order to minimize weight. The only reason its relatively low-powered engine could provide it with a performance equivalent or marinally superior to contemporary Allied types such as the F4F, P-39, and P-40 was because it was so light. The Zero first flew in 1940 and was totally obsolete by 1943. The Bf-109 and Spitfire were introduced in 1938 and variants of these planes were still first-line fighters in 1945. The first P-51s and Fw-190s flew in 1940 and they remained first rank fighters until the end of the war. The Zero was a compromised design that acheived short term and relatively marginal superiority over early war allied types by sacrificing any potential for significant improvement. It was a combination of allied overconfidence, surprise that the Japanese had any modern aircraft, and the high skill of early war Japanese aviators that lead to the myth of the Zero's invincibility, not the fact that it was just a fairly decent plane in 1940 with a few outstanding characteristics counterbalanced by some serious flaws

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually the Zero's skin wasn't much thinner than it's western counterparts. It was built light and was actually quite strong although some of it's structure wasn't "over engineered" like some western and US aircraft. What it lacked was armor protection and self sealing tanks. Additionally like many Japanese aircraft, part interchangability was an issue as well.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fighters-were-thick-skinned-937-7.html#post61510

 

[zoomar]

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.

The Me-163 was designed as a high speed research aircraft. It was hurridly adopted as an interceptor. I am unaware that it was specifically designed to intercept only recon aircraft. Even with the improvements planned in the Me-263, the plane would have had a very short endurance and the basic problem associated with its high speed approach and low speed cannon would not have been solved. The Me-163 is an example of an amazing high-performance aircraft that is ranked highly just because of its technology - not its utility as a warplane.

 

[Vincenzo]

Zoomar i can use the flyboyj reply for the constructions question (and armour, ss are not construction). the zero first flight was 1939. was not totally obsolete in all '43, in '43 zero get also good results like in escort over darwin, take in the account that allied new fighters coming in '43 not full replace the oldest model in few days.
Zero was a long range carrier borne fighter, light, it's obvious a compromised design. The Spitfire not get good result v/s zero, the V over Darwin were mauled, late war seafire got nothing of exceptional v/s a "outclassed" plane. Also F4U early don't get one sided result, imho the trouble was not the Zero but the lower level of new japanese pilot (not that the slow speed of zero help, or the its small capacity in dive)

 

[tomo pauk]

The military plane needs to be assessed as a weapon used to prosecute war. For a weapon to make a difference, the good timing is an important thing, as important as the capabilities proper use of those capabilities. P-51B-K did have great capabilities, used in exemplary fashion (making the difference in a major war), and it's timing was good. So the ingredients for a great weapon of war are there.

 

[fastmongrel]

Perhaps the reason the P 51 has got so many votes is because according to some posters on this and other forums it is the reason why the USA won WWII singlehanded.

I say this as someone who thinks it was a great weapon and the Mustang III with Malcolm hood and tail fillet is one of my favourite aircraft of all time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, I see what you mean.
I rate the Hurricane and P-40 as the most valuable fighters for Allied cause, BTW.

 

[davparlr]

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.

Just goes to show you one can find a poll showing anything one wants. However, I suspect you would have a difficult time finding another poll with similar results.

 

[muscogeemike]

Zoomar i can use the flyboyj reply for the constructions question (and armour, ss are not construction). the zero first flight was 1939. was not totally obsolete in all '43, in '43 zero get also good results like in escort over darwin, take in the account that allied new fighters coming in '43 not full replace the oldest model in few days.
Zero was a long range carrier borne fighter, light, it's obvious a compromised design. The Spitfire not get good result v/s zero, the V over Darwin were mauled, late war seafire got nothing of exceptional v/s a "outclassed" plane. Also F4U early don't get one sided result, imho the trouble was not the Zero but the lower level of new japanese pilot (not that the slow speed of zero help, or the its small capacity in dive)

While I agree that the Zero was obsolete by '43, we must not forget that the Zero in expert hands was still capable, as demonstrated by Saburo Sakai over Iwo Jima in June of 1944.

 

[GregP]

Perhaps you are right when you say the P-51 is considered overrated because of expressed US opinions of our contributions to WWII. Either way, the P-51 is a great plane, whether underrated or overrated. I personally feel the most overrated fighter is either the Spitfire or the Fw 190, take your pick. Both are great planes but tend to get what I see as more adoration than their real-world performance deserves. But that is just me. I KNOW what the P-51 will do and so do not overrate it myself. I have seen in here people quoting performacne for the Fw 190 that I cannot find in my references ... particularly my references from the just-post-war period (I value them above more modern research since they were written by people who were there). We even have a guy in here who calims to have uncovered evidence of even better performance for the liquid-cooled Fw 190's, 70 years after the fact! Yeah, right. The planes were what they were, and were no better or worse. The factory test data are correct. What factory underrates it's own products?

While I'm from and live in the U.S.A., I am not one of the US citizens who thinks we mostly won WWII by ourselves. We helped save Great Britain with food, war materiel and, after Dec 7, 1941, we joined in the war and contributed a great deal. Without our contributions, Great Britain could probably have been lost ... but maybe not the war. On the other hand, the British were pretty plucky and might well have survived without our aid. This is a "what if" for which I don't care to speculate about a conclusion. In the event, we KNOW what happened. All else is fiction and opinion.

I think the biggest single factor in Allied victory was the fact the Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. If not for that, most of the German strength could have been brought to bear upon the western front. If that had happened, Germany might have won. The Soviet Union sapped German strength and the Soviet winter took care of a lot more. The Soviet Air Force, though initially ineffective, evolved into a great air arm capable of repulsing the German Luftwaffe in their own right. Another nation might not have been able to do what they did.

I do NOT claim we definitely saved the UK, I claim we were a factor in keeping the Germans from launching the the invasion of Great Britain and a factor in Britain's ability tio survive and continue the fight. But Germany well might not have launched in any case. I also claim we helped tremendously in the ETO and MTO with our daylight bombing, Navy, and Army. In the Pacific, though there was some presence by other powers, we mostly did it with ourselves and Australia. Yes, the British were there, too (thank you, Great Britain), though not in great numbers since their national survival was at stake in Europe.

Though we suffered maritime losses to U-boats just offshore, nobody invaded the U.S.A or bombed us. Despite some nationalistic views, we admire the British resolve to continue fighting and respect the resistance from those European countries who fell to the Germans. It isn't easy to risk your family to aid a downed flier or trapped / wounded soldier, but you DID and we haven't forgotten it ... at least some of us ( I like to think many of us) haven't. So while the "Ugly American" may be alive and well, not all of us are in that genre. It should not affect your opinions of our aircraft either way ... but I understand a bit better anyway.

 

[barney]

While I agree that the Zero was obsolete by '43, we must not forget that the Zero in expert hands was still capable, as demonstrated by Saburo Sakai over Iwo Jima in June of 1944.

There's no question that Sakai was a world class fighter pilot but Sakai himself admits that if the American pilots had been better shots that day he'd have been toast. He wasn't fighting, he was just trying to stay alive.

 

[zoomar]

Yes, avaiation history is replete with examples of outstanding pilots excelling in planes that would, for an average pilot faced with more capable enemy planes, be a death trap. That is a measure of the pilot, not the aircraft.

 

[GregP]

I met Saburo Sakai in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.A. in the mid-1980's. He was very personable and a nice man. He got a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D at that time and was thrilled to not only fly in a Mustang, but also to fly in a piston fighter again. He enjoyed the day and had many good things to say, particularly that while the Japanese treated their captives harshly, they also did the same to their own people and soldiers. The times and attitudes were tending that way, and while it was not a good thing, that was the way things were at the time and he was a pilot who stuck to piloting as ordered. He never mistreated a subordinate, but DID handle normal disciplinary action for actual transgressions, and never HAD a prisoner of his own to treat well or badly ... he was a pilot, period.

In real life, he was a nice person , or at least he seemed that way at the time. I enjoyed his talk at the Doug Champlin Air Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona.

I bought a print of him over Mount Fuji ina Zero, and he personally autographed it. Still have it. Neat guy!

 

[muscogeemike]

I met Saburo Sakai in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.A. in the mid-1980's. He was very personable and a nice man. He got a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D at that time and was thrilled to not only fly in a Mustang, but also to fly in a piston fighter again. He enjoyed the day and had many good things to say, particularly that while the Japanese treated their captives harshly, they also did the same to their own people and soldiers. The times and attitudes were tending that way, and while it was not a good thing, that was the way things were at the time and he was a pilot who stuck to piloting as ordered. He never mistreated a subordinate, but DID handle normal disciplinary action for actual transgressions, and never HAD a prisoner of his own to treat well or badly ... he was a pilot, period.

In real life, he was a nice person , or at least he seemed that way at the time. I enjoyed his talk at the Doug Champlin Air Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona.

I bought a print of him over Mount Fuji ina Zero, and he personally autographed it. Still have it. Neat guy!

I have read other accounts about Mr. Sakai which agree with you and I don't doubt that he, personally, did not abuse prisoners.

I was stationed in Japan in the late '60's and found the Japanese (of the war generation) were very reluctant to speak of their experiences during the war.

I spent several years stationed in Germany and found them to be much more forthcoming. I once stumbled into a small bar in Mannheim which was a hang out for Africa Corps Vets. After some initial awkwardness they actually welcomed us.

One funny thing though, I talked to many Germans (military and civilian) who lived through the war and was amazed that none of the veterans I spoke to (in the US section of Germany) had opposed the Americans - they all fought the Russians or Brits.

Even more amazing was when I spent some time in Dusseldorf (in the Brit. Zone) I was told by Brit. Soldiers that none of "their" Germans fought the Brits - they all fought the Russians or Americans!

 

[iron man]

I have read other accounts about Mr. Sakai which agree with you and I don't doubt that he, personally, did not abuse prisoners.

I was stationed in Japan in the late '60's and found the Japanese (of the war generation) were very reluctant to speak of their experiences during the war.

I spent several years stationed in Germany and found them to be much more forthcoming. I once stumbled into a small bar in Mannheim which was a hang out for Africa Corps Vets. After some initial awkwardness they actually welcomed us.

One funny thing though, I talked to many Germans (military and civilian) who lived through the war and was amazed that none of the veterans I spoke to (in the US section of Germany) had opposed the Americans - they all fought the Russians or Brits.

Even more amazing was when I spent some time in Dusseldorf (in the Brit. Zone) I was told by Brit. Soldiers that none of "their" Germans
fought the Brits - they all fought the Russians or Americans!

And if you take it on an aggregate figure?

~90% of them fought the Russians; ergo, your chance of running into someone who fought either a Brit or a Yank, is only about 10%.

As to the veracity of those with which you spoke?

Who's to say by this point?

BTW? Which was the most overrated aircraft in WWII?

That is what the thread's about.

I still haven't voted...but it's certainly NOT the A6M.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I haven't voted, nor will I, since, without flying (and fighting) in all of them (an impossibility,) how can anyone make a reasoned judgement? For the U.K., I'd put the likeliest candidates as the Manchester and Botha, which caused more trouble for their own side than the enemy.

 

[wuzak]

I haven't voted, nor will I, since, without flying (and fighting) in all of them (an impossibility,) how can anyone make a reasoned judgement? For the U.K., I'd put the likeliest candidates as the Manchester and Botha, which caused more trouble for their own side than the enemy.

Neither the Manchester or Botha have been rated at all highly, so how can they be overrated?

 

[pbfoot]

I haven't voted, nor will I, since, without flying (and fighting) in all of them (an impossibility,) how can anyone make a reasoned judgement? For the U.K., I'd put the likeliest candidates as the Manchester and Botha, which caused more trouble for their own side than the enemy.

Who rated the Manchester as even a good/reasonable aircraft . It was shrapnel from day one

 

[Kryten]

perhaps it was overrated, as in being not as bad as people say!