Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (3 Viewers)

[Stig1207]

From that the figure of 2128 is arrived at for the French 9to the beginning of June), which is consistent with Murray 9/39 to 6/40 and just about right also for Cornwell.

If the LW loss numbers you quoted from Cornwell, were all caused by the French, then they are about right; i.e. if the French don't cause any LW losses in June.

I haven't seen Murray's losses 9/39-6/40; but Murray's numbers for May-June have been posted a couple times, by both of us. From does figures it is apparent that the bulk of the LW losses you attribute to the French would have to have occurred prior to May, during the so-called Phoney war.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Parsifal - Many thanks for translating that article, a fair amount of work! I now have reading material for lunch today and am looking forward to digesting (no pun intended) this in full as I begin my journey of learning much more on the Battle of France (in the air).

Thanks again.

 

[kevb]

That's a little harsh on the Allison... P-38's seemed to do ok with them. The Soviets seemed to be happy with the P-39.
Maybe it wasn't a Merlin, but then again, only a Merlin was a Merlin. Except for a Packard of course.
The Allison v-1710 may not be "engine Uber Alles", but it was a solid engine and definitely not a POS. It needed to be used appropriately.
On Edit while thinking on this: IIRC, the Klimov was a lower powered engine forced into service on the P-40 as the VVS didn't have parts for the Allison. So if my memory is correct, why would you want the Klimov after what you just said about the Allison?

Yes because while the Klimov didn't have as high a top end what it DID have was a fast response time and acceleration, at least from every sim I have ever played that had the Klimov.

As for the P-38? It was an uber light body with twin engines, give me ANY engine with an uber light body and double the motors? it will kick some booty, just look at the FW 189 that used the lousy French captured engines but because the frame was so insanely light it often frustrated fighters despite being a recon bird simply by out turning them.

Finally as for the Soviets and the P-39? The Soviets had a MAJOR boner for giant derp guns, heck they stuffed a 37mm tank gun into the LaGG 3 and ended up with a plane that literally ripped its own engine out just from firing the gun LOL. The Soviet pilots were incredible shots so it makes sense that they loved any plane that had a 1 shot kill capability and say what you will about the Airacobra if you hit a fighter with a 37mm HEF shell? That plane is confetti. It also helped that nearly all battles on the Eastern Front took place below 3500m, so you really didn't need much power to get a really small fighter (the P-39 is incredibly tiny, I got to run my hands down one at Lakland AFB and its smaller than my truck) to just 3000m.

But when you look at how many birds got saddled with the Alison, despite having much better engines from other companies available? Yeah..I smell something, be it kickbacks or friends in high places, someone was pushing the Alison HARD.

 

[swampyankee]

I wouldn't place too much credence in performance results from a game unless the programmers and designers are willing to completely document their sources and data and validate their results against test data or a professional modeling system; for engines, that would be something like Kiva, while for an airplane, it would be something like Panair or VSAERO.

Allison was the only player in the US V-12 engine town; Pratt&Whitney Aircraft and Curtiss-Wright made their money selling to airlines, who had given up on liquid cooling. Low-drag installations for liquid cooled engines were easier than for air cooled ones, and the relatively slender V-12 seemed to be much "cleaner" than a radial.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes because while the Klimov didn't have as high a top end what it DID have was a fast response time and acceleration, at least from every sim I have ever played that had the Klimov.

As for the P-38? It was an uber light body with twin engines, give me ANY engine with an uber light body and double the motors? it will kick some booty, just look at the FW 189 that used the lousy French captured engines but because the frame was so insanely light it often frustrated fighters despite being a recon bird simply by out turning them.


But when you look at how many birds got saddled with the Alison, despite having much better engines from other companies available? Yeah..I smell something, be it kickbacks or friends in high places, someone was pushing the Alison HARD.

Some sims are 'tweaked' in order to get players to play them, or certain planes. no fun being shot down all the time.

The FW 189 didn't use captured engines, it use German Argus engines and later they made the French build them as a 2nd source, hardly captured.

While conspiracy/bribery theories are fun by the end of 1942 Allison had built over 22,800 engine compared to Packards 7,300 and was churning out Allison's at 1100-1300 a month, Packard was building 800 engine a month.
Even if you could switch the Allison program over to Merlin production (hundreds if not thousands of sub contractors) how many months production would you loose?

Trade several thousand few fighters in 1942 for better fighters in 1943?
By mid 1943 the bulk of P-39 and P-40 production was going to lend lease. Few, if any, new US squadrons were equipped with them. Already equiped squadrons got replacements until better aircraft could be supplied.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Yes because while the Klimov didn't have as high a top end what it DID have was a fast response time and acceleration, at least from every sim I have ever played that had the Klimov.

As for the P-38? It was an uber light body with twin engines, give me ANY engine with an uber light body and double the motors? it will kick some booty, just look at the FW 189 that used the lousy French captured engines but because the frame was so insanely light it often frustrated fighters despite being a recon bird simply by out turning them.

Finally as for the Soviets and the P-39? The Soviets had a MAJOR boner for giant derp guns, heck they stuffed a 37mm tank gun into the LaGG 3 and ended up with a plane that literally ripped its own engine out just from firing the gun LOL. The Soviet pilots were incredible shots so it makes sense that they loved any plane that had a 1 shot kill capability and say what you will about the Airacobra if you hit a fighter with a 37mm HEF shell? That plane is confetti. It also helped that nearly all battles on the Eastern Front took place below 3500m, so you really didn't need much power to get a really small fighter (the P-39 is incredibly tiny, I got to run my hands down one at Lakland AFB and its smaller than my truck) to just 3000m.

But when you look at how many birds got saddled with the Alison, despite having much better engines from other companies available? Yeah..I smell something, be it kickbacks or friends in high places, someone was pushing the Alison HARD.

Just FYI, the members of this forum don't use crap like War Thunder as any type of guide.

Also, it's blisteringly apparent you know nothing about the Allison engine.

Man, so much bovine fecal matter in this one post alone.

 

[JimmyZ]

Hi all.

This is my first post on this forum

Like a few others, I was surprised to see the P-51 Mustang voted as the most over-rated aircraft of WWII.
Is the P-51 over-rated? Yes, it is. Is it THE MOST over-rated aircraft of WWII? No it isn't, how can it be? Let me explain why I don't think it is.

When I first became interested in aircraft and WWII (and especially WWII aircraft) as a kid (decades ago), the first planes I heard of while reading up on the subject was the Spitfire, the Mustang and the Zero - since I became interested in fighters before any other types. The reason why I came to know the finer details of these three aircraft before any other was because they are (some of) the most "hyped" fighters of WWII. They were highly regarded for different reasons. The Spitfire because it "single-handedly saved Britain". This is off course not true. It had a hand in the "saving" of Britain, but arguably it achieved less than the Hurricane, if we are only considering the Battle of Britain.

The Zero was hyped because "it completely outclassed anything the Americans could send up, and shot them down like it was nothing". This has some grain of truth in it, but the superiority was short lived, and American tactics soon equalized the Zero's superiority to a great extent.

I remember after reading about the Zero and asking my father about it, he told me it was almost impossible for an American fighter to shoot down a Zero due to its superior maneuverability. That is the (false) stories my father grew up with. Of course he wasn't interested in researching much for himself, like I am.

And finally getting to the Mustang. "The fighter that took the bombers all the way to Berlin, and brought the Luftwaffe to its knees". I don't believe the P-51 brought the Luftwaffe to its knees. I do think it did plenty to help achieve that. Off course it was the only aircraft that could escort the bombers all the way to Berlin consistently and in large numbers. I have not heard stories of anyone saying the Mustang outmaneuvered anything over Europe, nor did I hear it was the fastest (albeit at 30,000+ feet it went pretty fast comparing), or that it out-climbed the enemy, out-dived the enemy or any such thing. As a kid it actually took a while to realize what the real strength of the Mustang was (range), since I couldn't see evidence that it was the best at any single thing. If I heard any such stories before, I must have forgotten about it. I believe the war would still have been won had the Mustang not existed. I also believe many more thousands of lives would have been lost had it not.

Let's compare the perception around the Zero and the Mustang. Both are hyped plenty. In my opinion the Mustang a bit more than the Zero. However, the Mustang didn't achieve just a little bit more than the Zero. It achieved a whole lot more, and I don't think that can be disputed. "Over-rated" is about perception, since we cannot measure how much each aircraft is "rated" (we are only measuring in a small pool of WWII aircraft enthusiasts, opinions which aren't necessarily carried over to the rest of the world), versus what it in fact actually achieved (how to value a to a metric how much a single aircraft type achieved?).

Taking the above into account, how can the P-51 be more OVER-rated than the A6M, when it achieved so much more, and is regarded or hyped at about the same level as the Zero.

Maybe you have different perceptions than me or the people I've talked to in my life, or books and articles I've read. I do however in life perceive many people to "hate" what other people love, just because many people love it and no other logical reason.
I do not believe the Mustang can claim the number 1 spot for over-rated here, not even close.

The A6M gets my vote. And the Bf 110, P-38, Spitfire and Me 163 being more over-rated in my opinion than the Mustang.

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[Peter Gunn]

Welcome Jimmy,

Interesting post, personally I don't disagree with much of it, perhaps the issue of the Mustang bringing the Luftwaffe to its knees, in that we probably don't see eye to eye exactly. In my opinion, which is formed by the fact that the P-51 shot down more E/A then the Thunderbolt and Lightning combined even though ops were started later, the Mustang did bring the LW to its collective knees. YMMV.

Again, welcome to the forum, there's a lot to learn hear, I suggest reading some of the old and current threads, LOTS of good info there.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Welcome aboard, JimmyZ! You'll have a grand time here. Lots of facts, lots of opinions, lots of perspectives, and lots of camaraderie. If you like research you'll fit right in.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

This is a difficult decision to make with any sort of subjectivity, because most people, including me, are not going to go evaluate both the public relations reputation of dozens of aircraft and compare those to the aircraft's actual combat record. There is also a few cases of outright propaganda being accepted as fact, such as cases probably being the supposed enemy nicknames for the P-38 Lightning, F4U Corsair, and Beaufighter, none of which are seen in writings from German or Japanese pilots.

I think one can readily make a case, though, for any of a half-dozen or more aircraft being over-rated, because these are aircraft that have reputations for effectiveness that are in excess of their actual effectiveness. I think German combat aircraft are especially prone to being over-rated, partly as there is a meme that German designers were so much better than anybody else (yeah, sure. That's why the Bf109 was barely faster than the P-40 despite being much lighter and smaller), partly as the Luftwaffe used better tactics, partly as Germany was dictating the strategic terms of engagement until at least late 1942, and partly as some advanced German aircraft, like the Me262 (overrated) got into service before comparable aircraft from the Allies.

I'll continue to advocate that the FW190 or Bf109 was most over-rated, not that either wasn't an effective, even great, warplane, but that neither was the invincible magical thing that it seems to have become in the eyes of some fanboys. Another aircraft that I think was clearly over-rated was the Me262, as its contribution to Germany's war effort is, in my opinion, vastly overblown.

 

[maxmwill]

P-51 Mustang.

I agree. I'm sure that more than a few of us has, or had, an uncle or other male relation who flew any US fighter, especially the Mustang, who would regale us with stories about how the P51 pretty much single-handedly won the war. I admit that it was a very fine flying machine, good qualities for a fighter, and relatively easy to maintain(as a mechanic, I've heard such stories from older mechanics over the years), but while it was nice, there were other, comparable fighters which also helped "win the war", which have become overshadowed by the Mustang Mystique.

 

[Schweik]

Just a note on the P-39. It flew 30,547 sorties for the AAF in Europe. Lost 107 for a loss rate per sortie of .4%, the lowest of any Army fighter.

That is because they had it flying maritime patrols over empty ocean

 

[Schweik]

This is a difficult decision to make with any sort of subjectivity, because most people, including me, are not going to go evaluate both the public relations reputation of dozens of aircraft and compare those to the aircraft's actual combat record. There is also a few cases of outright propaganda being accepted as fact, such as cases probably being the supposed enemy nicknames for the P-38 Lightning, F4U Corsair, and Beaufighter, none of which are seen in writings from German or Japanese pilots.

I think one can readily make a case, though, for any of a half-dozen or more aircraft being over-rated, because these are aircraft that have reputations for effectiveness that are in excess of their actual effectiveness. I think German combat aircraft are especially prone to being over-rated, partly as there is a meme that German designers were so much better than anybody else (yeah, sure. That's why the Bf109 was barely faster than the P-40 despite being much lighter and smaller), partly as the Luftwaffe used better tactics, partly as Germany was dictating the strategic terms of engagement until at least late 1942, and partly as some advanced German aircraft, like the Me262 (overrated) got into service before comparable aircraft from the Allies.

I'll continue to advocate that the FW190 or Bf109 was most over-rated, not that either wasn't an effective, even great, warplane, but that neither was the invincible magical thing that it seems to have become in the eyes of some fanboys. Another aircraft that I think was clearly over-rated was the Me262, as its contribution to Germany's war effort is, in my opinion, vastly overblown.

You took the words out of my own mouth amigo. Well said.

I voted for the Bf 109, not because it's a bad plane, but because the reputation it has with some people is akin to what an F-16 would have in a WW2 context. it was good but it wasn't anywhere near that good. Depending on the version it was probably not as good as a Spit and barely better than a Yak-1, P-40 or a MC 202.

The main reason for German "superiority", and Axis superiority in general in the early months of the war, is that the other countries were not expecting to be attacked and it took them a while to get ready and reorient to the new reality. Because in the wake of the mass-catastrophe of WW1, most people thought it was crazy to start off another general war. Which it was, and we tend to forget that the leadership of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were in fact, crazy, even if many of their fighter pilots were skilled aviators and generally normal, decent people.

S

 

[parsifal]

Bf 109 is a difficult one. On the one hand, on claims data at least, it was the most successful fighter of all time. on the other hand, and in the same breath almost, it lost more aircraft of that type than any other fighter during the war......how to process that????? I have no idea.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Bf 109 is a difficult one. On the one hand, on claims data at least, it was the most successful fighter of all time. on the other hand, and in the same breath almost, it lost more aircraft of that type than any other fighter during the war......how to process that????? I have no idea.

Well, as the most produced aircraft of all time, and one of the longest serving in all of its iterations, it's certainly a challenge to summarize.
I would suggest all the verified air to air kills vs all the verified air to air losses might be the best you could hope for.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Stig1207]

We'll never know how many exactly, but there is no doubt the Bf 109 is the most successful fighter of all time, if the number of victories is the criteria. Even if the number of actual victories is way less than the claims; there is no other fighter that comes close. Whether number 2 is the P-51, Spitfire, Fw 190 or Hellcat, that is more difficult.

It doesn't make the Bf 109 the best fighter, but it did, or rather the pilots that flew it, have more opportunity to rack up a higher number of victories than any other fighter.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes because while the Klimov didn't have as high a top end what it DID have was a fast response time and acceleration, at least from every sim I have ever played that had the Klimov.

As for the P-38? It was an uber light body with twin engines, give me ANY engine with an uber light body and double the motors? it will kick some booty, just look at the FW 189 that used the lousy French captured engines but because the frame was so insanely light it often frustrated fighters despite being a recon bird simply by out turning them.

Finally as for the Soviets and the P-39? The Soviets had a MAJOR boner for giant derp guns, heck they stuffed a 37mm tank gun into the LaGG 3 and ended up with a plane that literally ripped its own engine out just from firing the gun LOL. The Soviet pilots were incredible shots so it makes sense that they loved any plane that had a 1 shot kill capability and say what you will about the Airacobra if you hit a fighter with a 37mm HEF shell? That plane is confetti. It also helped that nearly all battles on the Eastern Front took place below 3500m, so you really didn't need much power to get a really small fighter (the P-39 is incredibly tiny, I got to run my hands down one at Lakland AFB and its smaller than my truck) to just 3000m.

But when you look at how many birds got saddled with the Alison, despite having much better engines from other companies available? Yeah..I smell something, be it kickbacks or friends in high places, someone was pushing the Alison HARD.

Pray tell, since when the P-39, P-40, P-51 and P-38 became 'saddled with Allison'? Apart from a comparatively small number of R-2800s and V-1650s produced in USA in 1941-42 (and none of them in 1940, and many slated for USN, RAF or bomber production) what else was there to install in order to provide better powerplant than V-1710s? Let's install R-1820 on P-39 or P-38?
Since when the NS-37 became a tank cannon, and since when Soviet pilos became incredible shots? P-38 with uber-light-body?
So much claims in a single post, but no facts to back them up.

You took the words out of my own mouth amigo. Well said.

I voted for the Bf 109, not because it's a bad plane, but because the reputation it has with some people is akin to what an F-16 would have in a WW2 context. it was good but it wasn't anywhere near that good. Depending on the version it was probably not as good as a Spit and barely better than a Yak-1, P-40 or a MC 202.

The main reason for German "superiority", and Axis superiority in general in the early months of the war, is that the other countries were not expecting to be attacked and it took them a while to get ready and reorient to the new reality. Because in the wake of the mass-catastrophe of WW1, most people thought it was crazy to start off another general war. Which it was, and we tend to forget that the leadership of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were in fact, crazy, even if many of their fighter pilots were skilled aviators and generally normal, decent people.

S

Bf 109 was a far better performer than Yak-1 (and longer ranged) and P-40. As a fighter, the 109 was about as close to Spitfire as possible, bar the Spitfire XIV.
I agree than there was much more to the German initial successes than just the Bf 109.

 

[Schweik]

Bf 109 was a far better performer than Yak-1 (and longer ranged) and P-40. As a fighter, the 109 was about as close to Spitfire as possible, bar the Spitfire XIV.

Well the devil is in the details when it comes to all these types, and it varied year by year, sometimes month by month. Assuming a decent build quality (which could vary by factory and by batch) Yak-1 or Yak-7 were pretty closely matched to Bf 109E, (as was the Tomahawk for that matter, as the Russian pilots themselves noted) - Yak 1B or Yak 7B could take the Bf 109F or early G models (as could the later model P-40s).

Spit I and II were roughly equal to Bf 109E, Spit Vb was a bit worse than Bf 109F, Spit Vc was a bit better - all versions of the Spit V were vulnerable to the Fw 190A.

Spit IX was clearly significantly better than any model Bf 109 E -1 through the G-10 and was also superior to the Fw 190A series.

After that it gets less interesting for me because the outcome of the war was really no longer in question.

I agree than there was much more to the German initial successes than just the Bf 109.

Yes and there is much more to the lingering hype around all German kit, 'experten', leadership, troop qualities and so forth than their actual merits

S

 

[Schweik]

It doesn't make the Bf 109 the best fighter, but it did, or rather the pilots that flew it, have more opportunity to rack up a higher number of victories than any other fighter.

No it certainly didn't - you could have racked up kills just as easily with a Spitfire or a Zero on the Russian front in 1941 and 1942. So long as you had radios in them.

We all know the glorious victory tallies, but I think the vast number of them shot down (particularly over Russia) tends to get shall we say, de-emphasized.

S

 

[tomo pauk]

Well the devil is in the details when it comes to all these types, and it varied year by year, sometimes month by month. Assuming a decent build quality (which could vary by factory and by batch) Yak-1 or Yak-7 were pretty closely matched to Bf 109E, (as was the Tomahawk for that matter, as the Russian pilots themselves noted) - Yak 1B or Yak 7B could take the Bf 109F or early G models (as could the later model P-40s).

Bf 109E is/was vastly better than any Yak fighter since it was available for two years when Yak fighters were not available - 1939 to 1940.
Once the Yak-1 is available - in 1941 - the Bf 109 is at F series, a performance edge for the 109. The Yak-7 does not add any new advantage for the Yak family apart for improvement in armament. In 1942, the 109F4 and G2 hold speed advantage as big as 50 km/h (or even greater is we accept Soviet data, they plotting the 109G2 at 410 mph), the edge epecially going to the 109 as altitude increases.
Any model of P-40 and any Yak were competitive if the Bf 109s were at low-ish altitudes, no such luck above 3-4 km.

Spit I and II were roughly equal to Bf 109E, Spit Vb was a bit worse than Bf 109F, Spit Vc was a bit better - all versions of the Spit V were vulnerable to the Fw 190A.

Spit IX was clearly significantly better than any model Bf 109 E -1 through the G-10 and was also superior to the Fw 190A series.

After that it gets less interesting for me because the outcome of the war was really no longer in question.
...

Spitfire IX vs. Bf 109E? That is a joke. At low and medium altitudes Spitfire IX have had performance parity vs. German opposition, it edged them out above 25000 ft, bar the 109s with AS engine and DB 605D (in the 109G-10s and K-4s mostly).
Spit VC was the underperformer due to too heavy armament on not so great HP, a mistake the Germans will repeat in 1943-44 with Fw 190s. The 109F-4 was with clear edge vs any Mk.V, so were the 190s, per German test report the 109F-4 held the performance advantage vs. 109A-2 as altitude increased. Spitfire VB and VC having firepower advantage over clean 109s.
The Bf 109F1 and F2 were as evenly matched with Spit VA and VB as possible.

The Spitfire V family was unfortunate to receive low standard of workmaship, bad carburetors, draggy exhausts and draggy U/C when rettracted vs. the 109F that got many aerodynamic improvements, and was already feturing a smaller size (good for performance, bad for growth potential - Spitfire excelled as a base for many non-land-based-fighter duties).