Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2

  • Total voters
    409

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GrauGeist said:
In saying "plenty of forums", would these be perhaps gaming forums?
Click to expand...

I'm on some history and martial arts forums. I'm a history researcher in my spare time and have a few academic articles published on late medieval cities in Central Europe. I used to be on Rogan Board under this same handle (Schweik) until it got closed down a few months ago.

How about you, since we are sharing? Why would you assume gaming forums?

S
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I think everyone agrees it is one of the greatest aircraft ever built, but feel it is overrated because people put it on such a high pedestal that they forget there were many great planes contributing to the defeat of Germany.

You would think:

Best Fighter: P-51
Best Transport: P-51
Best Bomber: P-51
Best Seaplane: P-51

You get my drift...:D
Click to expand...

That's it buddy... You are definitely OFF my Christmas Card list... :mad:

grampi however, gets two cards...;)

PS You forgot Best Torpedo Bomber, Best Liason, Best Recon and best BESTEST ever plane...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I think everyone agrees it is one of the greatest aircraft ever built, but feel it is overrated because people put it on such a high pedestal that they forget there were many great planes contributing to the defeat of Germany.

You would think:

Best Fighter: P-51
Best Transport: P-51
Best Bomber: P-51
Best Seaplane: P-51

You get my drift...:D
Click to expand...
Even knowing this is an exaggeration it's ridiculous...sometimes I think people get carried away and over exaggerate (much like you did) about how the Mustang was regarded...what I take away form how it was regarded is that it was the best fighter of the war, and it was...I don't see how that's overrating it...
 
Peter Gunn said:
So what is that cruising into France @ 200mph TAS is tantamount to suicide.
Cruising over undefended water, say Rabaul to Guadalcanal is not the same as crossing the channel and into France and then Germany.
Cruising in an A6M @ 300+ mph TAS (remember, you have to get up to combat speed if bounced, that's why P-51's routinely cruised at high speed over Indian country) does not get you very far, I doubt it could range as far as the Thunderbolt at P-47 speeds.
Click to expand...

I get the gist, but I don't think that the phenomenal range of the Zero especially and specifically as compared to the Spitfire or the Bf 109, suddenly drops 90% if they have to pick up their cruising speed to max continuous for part of the flight. When they brought Spit Vs to Australia they had major problems with them due to range - in spite of the luxury of being able to fly over water. The difference in reach was striking between the Spit and the Zero in that Theater, just as it would in any other.

I don't know precisely how much the range would be reduced but I have seena min-max on range for the A6M2 of 1,600 to 1,900 miles. I assume that difference probably has something to do with the cruise speed. I do not believe as Shortround was suggesting that the range of the Zero would drop down to that of the Spitfire if they increased the cruise speed a bit. I think that is spurious logic - and "reaching" quite consciously.

As I also noted previously, they could use that phenomenal range to loop out into the Atlantic and attack from unexpected (and less protected) directions such as from the Bay of Biscay.

Nor do I think carrying a drop tank would be problematic. It wasn't problematic for P-51s, P-47s, P-38s and so on flying over Europe. You use the fuel for climbing up to altitude and forming up and everything from the drop-tank. Again, spurious and disingenuous.

The bottom line is it's a fact that the A6M2 had 5 times the range of a Spitfire, substantially longer even than the P-38, no matter how you slice it - if one has to slow down to raid France or Belgium, than so does the other. And range does confer a Tactical as well as Strategic or Operational advantage. Some people have a hard time getting their head around that but it's a fact, as inescapable as a good brass fishhook in the mouth of a catfish.

I think the P-51 has some limitations to it's greatness, and no doubt it's annoying for all the non-Americans to see it lauded to such ridiculous heights, mainly because it was such a late arrival and not good at everything (no fighter was). But it was a great plane, because range speed and altitude capabilities, it did effectively win a battle as Parisfal put it. Or a couple of them. It broke the Luftwaffe, essentially.

It was only a factor in the war toward the end, late 1943 - 1945, and most importantly in 1944. And it wasn't so formidable by the Korean War of course. But that doesn't make it a bad plane. Similarly, the Zero was mainly a factor from 1941 through the middle of 1943 - by which time it began to fade as a threat. But it was pretty damn terrifying in it's heyday - and a formidable tool in the arsenal of the mighty IJN. I don't know why the Zero gets so much contempt these days but thems the facts.

No amount of back of the napkin horses**t arithmetic is going to convince me otherwise.

Could a Zero be brought down by a good pilot in a Wildcat or a P-40 - once it's traits and tactics were better known? Yes it could, but so could the Bf 109 and everyone still seems to give them mad respect. I think the difference has much more to do with the popularity of the propaganda from one of the factions in WW2 over all the others than with any actual technical or historical knowledge of the facts.

S
 
Schweik said:
I'm on some history and martial arts forums. I'm a history researcher in my spare time and have a few academic articles published on late medieval cities in Central Europe. I used to be on Rogan Board under this same handle (Schweik) until it got closed down a few months ago.

How about you, since we are sharing? Why would you assume gaming forums?

S
Click to expand...

I would have assumed simply because someone a long time ago used to frequent here with an S in various forms in his signature, and he was known on the gaming forum circuit. And then of course you talked as if you have had many discussions in the past on this forum.

He too liked to stir the pot.
 
grampi said:
Even knowing this is an exaggeration it's ridiculous...sometimes I think people get carried away and over exaggerate (much like you did) about how the Mustang was regarded...what I take away form how it was regarded is that it was the best fighter of the war, and it was...I don't see how that's overrating it...
Click to expand...

I'm not over exaggerating a damn thing...
 
Schweik said:
200 TAS is probably about right, so what? I show for A6M2 207 mph cruise speed


I also show A6M with 1,625 'typical' range and 1,929 'max'. Plus initial climb of 4,517 fpm which is nothing short of phenomenal for 1941, and climb to 19,685 in 7 minutes 27 seconds. Also excellent. Both far better than the Bf 109E (or the G-6 for that matter)

I think just about every fighter I ever heard of had a pretty low cruise speed in long flights. I know the comparison to the Spitfire was extremely disingenuous of him to make to begin with and of you to entertain. Like I said, I don't buy it. We have had these kinds of debates before on this forum and I don't think you to are on the level.
Click to expand...

Cruise speeds can be anywhere from just above minimum stable flight (often 30-50mph above clean stall) to whatever the speed you get an max continuous power. Obviously most cruising is done between those extremes.

I would also be very leery of any source that gives numbers like "initial climb of 4,517 fpm which is nothing short of phenomenal for 1941, and climb to 19,685 in 7 minutes 27 seconds." as 7 minutes 27seconds to 19,685 averages 2642 fpm. any period of time spent at 4517fpm climb is going to require an equal period of time at 767fpm. That is simple math.
Getting 4500fpm for a nearly 6000lb airplane from a 940 hp engine is phenomenal, so phenomenal as to be unbelievable.

going back to the much maligned Spitfire, the MK II at 6172lbs could make 20,000ft in 7 minutes even and never climbed faster than 3,000fpm while doing so.

Something is off in the climb figures given.

I am not claiming the Spitfire can match the Zero for range, it can't, simply using it and the P-40 as benchmarks. Some of the performance figures for the Zero just don't make sense.

If questioning performance numbers that fly in face of physics and common sense makes me not on the level then so be it.
 
grampi said:
Really? I don't ever recall the P-51 being regarded as the best seaplane, or best transport...
Click to expand...

Then you are purposely being obtuse about it. The point of the post, and why it is not over exaggeration is because for many people there was no other aircraft fighting the Germans. That is why many consider it overrated. Not because of it's abilities or performance, or it's contribution.

I made that very clear. Now if you just want to argue...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I would have assumed simply because someone a long time ago used to frequent here with an S in various forms in his signature, and he was known on the gaming forum circuit. And then of course you talked as if you have had many discussions in the past on this forum.

He too liked to stir the pot.
Click to expand...


Well that is an odd coincidence I guess. I do take outlier positions on some things and I haven't been on the forum long enough to become part of the 'forum culture' yet so I'm sure I rub some folks the wrong way. But I make a conscious effort to keep a high "signal to noise" ratio in my posts for the most part, and personally try to keep my posts intellectually honest. When threads get too heated I'll ditch them (as I did in the other two threads, one in particular, where i was debating with Shortround and Wuzak on a similar "what if" topic)

I'm not really interested in stirring the pot - I am interested in planes, especially WW2 aircraft on and off since I was a kid. My dad was a Navy vet and a journalist who got me into it at a very young age, and I was lucky enough to meet some very interesting flyers and historians when I was a kid. I did used to do table top wargaming but haven't had the opportunity for more than 20 years.

Lately again I've been plunged into WW2 stuff again and I'm very interested in the planes, in part because a lot of new data has come out. I have been very excited by Christopher Shores recent work as I pointed out around here many times (can't wait for MAW Vol IV), and also books like Black Cross / Red Star even though it seems slightly more biased.

I'm also a big fan of David Glantz and his startling work on the history of the Russian / German war. I'm also an enthusiast and supporter of Dan Carlin who has probably got more people interested in history in the last 10 years than all the books printed in that time.

The direction the research is going is somewhat similar to the more recent research on medieval history and in other eras. It's exciting. I think some people embrace that and some people cling to the older Tropes. It's always that way.

S
 
Last edited:
Schweik,

I'm a military / commercial pilot with somewhere in the vicinity of 8000 hours. Of those, less than 120 are in light aircraft. Don't be so quick to discount what SR6 is stating. He has a VERY good grasp of aircraft performance, and what happens when you change the variables in a given equation. I have nothing to quote at the moment, but am operating under the impression that the Zero cruised at a very low speed and that was the key to it's incredible range. Drag goes up quickly with speed, and fuel flow follows accordingly. Maybe Shinpachi or GregP can chime in with the actual numbers if they have them, but the point is you would be surprised by how much range goes down as speed goes up.

Cruising over the Pacific outside visual range of islands / radar is one thing (done at max range) versus cruising over bad guy land (ETO) is another.

The Eagle has a lower CD with two external wing tanks (and is much faster) than it does with one on the centerline. Range with the wing tanks is almost the same as range with all three on board (and they are all the same size / interchangeable). In max afterburner (AB) at low altitude the Eagle burned 140k per hour IIRC. Pulling the throttles back to mid AB cut that fuel flow by 1/3 and only slowed you by about 30-40 knots.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Shortround6 said:
Something is off in the climb figures given.

I am not claiming the Spitfire can match the Zero for range, it can't, simply using it and the P-40 as benchmarks. Some of the performance figures for the Zero just don't make sense.

If questioning performance numbers that fly in face of physics and common sense makes me not on the level then so be it.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time you have questioned the historical data in these discussions - I remember something similar about the Mosquito? Or maybe the Pe-2 I don't recall. If we were talking about theoretical flight models, like for a new plane that hadn't actually been built yet, then I would give you more credit, but we are talking about history. When I read through the Bf 109 vs P-40 thread I noticed a lot of the same thing. A handful of forum grognards doing back of the envelope calculations which they claimed proved that a Bf 109 could out-turn a P-40 - in spite of the fact that the wartime tests and almost every pilot on both sides noted that the reverse was actually the case.

It does help to know how to do a little math and understand the underlying physics and engineering. I have seen on other threads that you have an impressive knowledge of engines and superchargers - I learned from your posts.

But I think sometimes with a little knowledge can come hubris. Some of my clients who I work with are engineers and ship captains- very knowledgeable in their own field but they tend to assume they know about every field, including mine. Comedy results.

When it comes to history, we have to remember the past is a foreign country. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you how a Zero has such a long range or climbs so well - but maybe there is a factor, or more than one, that you just weren't aware of and didn't make it into your calculations. I know from painful experience these things are complex and the devil is in the details. I am well aware climb rate declines quickly with altitude (that is why these days instead of initial climb rate we often see those "time to 20,000 feet" type statistics).

Climb rate isn't even the be all - climb speed can matter more sometimes. P-38s could not out-climb Zeros but they could do a shallow climb at very high speed, which allowed them to do a type of boom and zoom attack which was very successful - it's how Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire racked up most of their kills.

In short, the Devil is in the details. Early analysis of the Zero may have led to some hyperbole, but they did learn some interesting things about it - notably how well streamlined it was. Flush rivets, guns embedded inside the wings, excellent streamlining, made in one piece instead of with separate wings bolted on. It did have a unique type of construction. It was an outlier in many ways.

Which is part of why it was such a great fighter.

S
 
BiffF15 said:
The Eagle has a lower CD with two external wing tanks (and is much faster) than it does with one on the centerline. Range with the wing tanks is almost the same as range with all three on board (and they are all the same size / interchangeable). In max afterburner (AB) at low altitude the Eagle burned 140k per hour IIRC. Pulling the throttles back to mid AB cut that fuel flow by 1/3 and only slowed you by about 30-40 knots.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of thing I suspect came into play with the A6M. These things are counter-intuitive and if anybody else suggested this you (a very experienced pilot) might find outrage as a reaction - how could range be the same with 30% less fuel? But physics and aerodynamics are complex things. You routinely run into a lot of things which are conunterintuitive. Finding just a particular throttle setting which gives you good speed and good endurance and so on.

I've run into enough of this kind of thing with historical research that I've learned to trust the primary sources and the hard data even when I can't make sense of it.

S
 
Last edited:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
So what's a "forum grognard"?

Maybe come off the high horse a little too...

I think you underestimate the knowledge of this forum.
Click to expand...

I actually don't - and i can see there is a lot. I have already learned a great deal here and did so even before I joined - it's why i joined.

But I have read these forums for years and seen many of the same cliches and tropes repeated over and over, I've seen some people so invested in the ideology or propaganda of one side or the other that they let that cloud their opinions. I have read through some farcical debates on here when newly emerging data doesn't match peoples cherished beliefs. I read an old one last night about some action between the the Ta 152 vs Tempest. Data was fascinating, the subsequent debate was a bit disappointing.

I can tell I am ruffling some feathers right now, so be it. You are a mod, it's not my forum, if you don't want me here ban me. I may not agree with the consensus on some things like how crappy the A6M was and how Uber the 109 was, but I think I have something to offer regardless. I've tried to post some useful data and been careful in writing my posts. That's the best I can do brother.

S
 
Schweik said:
I actually don't - and i can see there is a lot. I have already learned a great deal here and did so even before I joined - it's why i joined.

But I have read these forums for years and seen many of the same cliches and tropes repeated over and over, I've seen some people so invested in the ideology or propaganda of one side or the other that they let that cloud their opinions. I have read through some farcical debates on here when newly emerging data doesn't match peoples cherished beliefs. I read an old one last night about some action between the the Ta 152 vs Tempest. Data was fascinating, the subsequent debate was a bit disappointing.

I can tell I am ruffling some feathers right now, so be it. You are a mod, it's not my forum, if you don't want me here ban me. I may not agree with the consensus on some things like how crappy the A6M was and how Uber the 109 was, but I think I have something to offer regardless. I've tried to post some useful data and been careful in writing my posts. That's the best I can do brother.

S
Click to expand...

I'm not going to ban you, why would I. I just want you to tone it down...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
406
yulzari
yulzari
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
307
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
N
The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
12K
pbehn
P
Back