Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Vincenzo]

Adding i can write, excluding errors, there were 30 RAF squadrons with V in 6/44
26, 32, 63, 64, 73, 87, 118, 130, 185, 208, 234, 249, 253, 303, 310, 318, 326, 335, 336, 345, 350, 352, 402, 452, 457, 501, 504, 611, 615, 1435

p.s. add 327th

 

[Shortround6]

There is absolutely no contradiction between those two statements. You are just having a failure of imagination. The Spitfire lacked the range to make a good fighter in the Pacific, and lacked a host of qualities necessary on the Russian front, but it too was obviously one of the best fighters of the war - (or maybe you could say it was 'several of the best fighter(s) of the war').

Well, I seem to suffer from either a failure of imagination or too much. You can have fighters that are good (very good) at one or two particular jobs and you can have fighters that good at multiple jobs and you can have fighters that are good or very good at most ever job they are called upon to do.
Which ones should be considered great? The one or two trick ponies or the all rounders?

How about 'fighters' that couldn't fly 600 miles? Every fighter design had it's limitations. Do you even have a point?

The MK VIII could fly 640 miles and carry a 500lb half way. Had the British needed planes that could fly 600 miles it was quite easy to get the Spitfire to do it.
It is a lot harder to get a Yak-3 to do it because of the small wing, (where to put the fuel and lift) and with the low powered engine (comparatively speaking) performance takes a bigger hit with every pound of weight.

What percentage of combat on the Russian Front was taking place at 20,000 feet?
Which Air Force specifically? The Martian Air Force? What you seem to have a tough time grasping is that the quality of a fighter is directly related to it's degree of success Where. It. Was. Fighting. Not it's degree of success in calculations you make on the back of an envelope, or in WarThunder, or in your imagination.

We are back to considering a plane "GREAT" if it excels in one small area of the sky?
BTW I have never played WarThunder ore even looked at the website except when it comes up in a search but will plead guilty to the back of the envelope calculations which you seem to despise. They help explain WHY some aircraft behaved the way they did or got the results they did, they do leave out the human factor.

I like to play the "swap" game. That is to say, if you want to consider a plane truly great on the world stage (and not just best plane on Eastern front or Med or....) try the mental exercise of swapping it into another airforce to fly other missions. But I guess I will have to stop doing that because I lack imagination.

I also have a tough time reconciling the positions that the P-51 wasn't truly great because it came in after the "tipping point" and yet was not only in combat but shooting down (or destroying on the ground) hundreds of German aircraft for 5-6 months before the Yak-3 showed up.

• Coulda woulda shoulda. If their factory hadn't been bombed the Yak 3 would have been flying in 1943 and who knows the outcome on the war.
• Yes, they should have - that is exactly the idea behind the Yak 3 - or the Spit for example. Specialization to excel at a particular task (in a specific environment)

Aircraft designers and their planes are often at the mercy of the engine designers (and fuel supply) what you can do with a 1000hp engine is a lot different than what you can do with a 1500hp engine.
The Spit was designed to be a fighter (and a heavily armed one for it's day) using a 1000hp class engine and to be able to operate at any practical altitude in the mid to late 30s. When it was designed it had comparable range to most (but not all) other fighters in the world.

The Russian designers were skilled and imaginative but they were hindered by being stuck for the duration of the war with a V-12 engine that barely exceeded the capability of a Merlin III from 1940. If you want world class speed and climb in 1943-44 with such an engine you do what the Russians did. You limit the size of the plane, you limit the fuel load and you limit the armament. The last was saved from being a disaster by the Russian guns being very light for their power.
The guns didn't have the service life of western guns but they made an effective package.
Some countries didn't have the luxury of knowing that all the planes they built would be used on one front or in one campaign with rather favorable operating conditions (winter aside) like no long over water flights. There is also a difference between making a general purpose airframe that can be modified for different purposes and making airframes that are tailored to a specific operating purpose/mission.
The Germans could not put a small, crappy but low power drain supercharger in a 109 because they didn't know if a particular 109 was going to the eastern front or the western front or to Italy. Not without screwing up their logistics worse than they were.

Shortround- who are you arguing with here? What makes you think I'm taking that statement any way at all? I don't remember talking about a Yak 1M - do you mean the Yak 9M or the Yak 3?

The Yak-1m was the prototype small Yak flown in Feb/March of 1943. It is where a lot of the performance numbers come from. Others come from the 2nd prototype, sometimes known as the Yak-1M 'doubler'. Mass production was authorized in Oct 1943 as the Yak-3. First production plane completed March of 1944.

What I am getting at is that a lot of statements are made about the Yak-3 that don't hold up. The same can be said for many other aircraft.

What you can and cannot see, thankfully, is not my responsibility. All I can say is that the Yak 3 shot down many, many more German aircraft than it lost. It was still in production 7 years after the war ended. The Yak 3 was not clumsy, it was not slow, it was not undergunned. As far as I can see, the only thing it wasn't was English (or American).

It wasn't clumsy and it wasn't slow, I never said it was. Undergunned is debatable for a 1944 aircraft. The 109 was undergunned in 1944 however wonderful a single MG 151 and a pair of MG 131s were in 1943 (sarcasm).

Hmmm... in 1944 lets see the US had the P-51B/C, P-51D/H, P-40 (yes, still operating them right up to 1945), P-47, P-38, P-61 night fighter, P-70 (night fighter version of the A-20) [Army] plus the F4F-4 / FM2, F6F, and F4F / F2G Corsair, plus the Bearcat and F7F Tigercat waiting in the wings (Navy / USMC), the English had the Hurricane (still), Mosquito, Beaufighter, Gloster Meteor Jet, Tempest, Typhoon, and at least 6 operational variants of the Spitfire including .... wait
... 14 types.

In 1944 the Russians had the Yak 9, Yak 1B (a few left), Yak -3, La 5FN, La 7... and that's about it. By my count it's 5 types. What am I missing here?

Part of what you are missing is that some of those aircraft were functionally interchangeable. Bomber escort could be done P-51B/C, P-51D/H, P-47, P-38, granted some were better than others. They could also undertake ground attack missions with the SAME aircraft. Required a bit different training but didn't require a different airplane like the IL-2. Nice job trying to confuse things with carrier based aircraft. Also nice job including the P-70.
also nice job of lumping all the Yak-9s together. 4 or more different Yak-9s being in use?

That's 737 more than the Fw 190 or the Me 109 (not counting that odd looking thing made by Spain).

It's also 737 more than the P-47. I think any WW2 prop fighters still being produced after 1945 were probably pretty good.

War ended for the Germans which put an end to aircraft production. For the P-47, war ended in Aug 1945, P-47 production stopped in Dec 1945.
US had thousands of P-47s in stock and they continued in use until at least the Korean war (not used there) if not after in the Air National Guard.
What nations used for WW II aircraft after WW II has a lot more to do with money and availability than how good a particular aircraft was.
What could they get cheap (or for free) and how much money they had to spend and who their likely opponent/s were likely to be.

 

[wuzak]

War ended for the Germans which put an end to aircraft production. For the P-47, war ended in Aug 1945, P-47 production stopped in Dec 1945.
US had thousands of P-47s in stock and they continued in use until at least the Korean war (not used there) if not after in the Air National Guard.
What nations used for WW II aircraft after WW II has a lot more to do with money and availability than how good a particular aircraft was.
What could they get cheap (or for free) and how much money they had to spend and who their likely opponent/s were likely to be.

Not only that, but the USAAF, in particular, and the RAF were rapidly transitioning to jet aircraft after WW2.

 

[Schweik]

F8F didn't happen in 1944.
F7F didn't happen in 1944.

If you are going to be pedantic, at least read what you are replying to. I said "waiting in the wings". F8F first flight was August 1944, F7F first flight November 1943. I also didn't count the night fighters by the way.

The Navy planes were, mainly, for aircraft carriers - which the Soviets did not have, so didn't need that class of aircraft.

• I don't see why that matters even if it was true but
• ... it's not true, obviously. F4Us and F4Fs were used quite a bit from land. F4Us were in wide use by the USMC and some land based USN squadrons, plus replacing P-40s for the New Zealanders in 1944.

Like the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish hands, or even the Gladiator on Malta, the 'Carrier aircraft' designation didn't necessarily affect a given fighters capabilities from a land base. Certainly not with the Corsair. (Maybe Fairey Fulmar...)

When it went operational, there were only 5 squadrons on P-70s. Most of these changed to P-61s or Beaufighters before going into action. P-70s saw a little action in the PTO, but not for very long before being replaced by the P-61.

So what? I didn't even count night fighters anyway. I just mentioned them to make a point.

The Mosquito and Beaufighter performed roles other than night fighting - bombing, attack, PR, etc.

So did every other fighter in 1944.

The Meteor was Britain's first jet service aircraft, and was used only over Britain in 1944.

As far as I know, Yaks were only used over Russia and Eastern Europe in 1944...

The Typhoon and Tempest would be the closes British aircraft to a specialist low altitude fighter, and much of the time they operated as fighter-bombers.

Again, so did every Soviet fighter.

The Allies did not need to fill the gaps with their variety of aircraft, but rather replacement aircraft arrived where they were needed to most, so Spitfire V squadrons took time to replace with IXs - as there were so many of them.

Again, why would you think this was unique? Every air force in the world was replacing older types with newer types (and also introducing more specialized types like the Spit IX LF and so on)

PS: How many P-40 variants were still in use in 1944?

Es? Fs? Ks? Ns? Ms?

What does that have to do with anything? The answer is all of the above plus Ls.

S

 

[Shortround6]

The US and the British continued to build piston planes but they were not, for the most part, planes that had been in production in the middle of 1944.
A few contracts were run out to use up some parts but 1946/47 production used engines not available in 1944/45. Compare F4U-5 to F4U-1D for example.


I would note that the Russians spent a lot of time trying to develop high altitude engines and fighters but were hampered by both fuel and materials, so that few made it into service. German capability to put high flying aircraft (bombers and recon planes) over Russian cities, production centers, transport hubs declined as the war went on making the production of high flying interceptors less of a priority. Not that the Russians didn't want their own in order to reduce dependency on the west. Let's not mention the the high altitude interceptors provided under lend lease.
Or count lend lease aircraft in the types operated by the Russians or the operational flexibility they gave them.

 

[Schweik]

The US and the British continued to build piston planes but they were not, for the most part, planes that had been in production in the middle of 1944.
A few contracts were run out to use up some parts but 1946/47 production used engines not available in 1944/45. Compare F4U-5 to F4U-1D for example.

I would note that the Russians spent a lot of time trying to develop high altitude engines and fighters but were hampered by both fuel and materials, so that few made it into service. German capability to put high flying aircraft (bombers and recon planes) over Russian cities, production centers, transport hubs declined as the war went on making the production of high flying interceptors less of a priority. Not that the Russians didn't want their own in order to reduce dependency on the west. Let's not mention the the high altitude interceptors provided under lend lease.
Or count lend lease aircraft in the types operated by the Russians or the operational flexibility they gave them.

A couple of fairly obvious points.

The Yak 3 was a low altitude, short range air superiority fighter variant of the larger Yak family. It still had a ceiling of 35,000 feet so it wasn't quite the submarine some people imply, and it was also used for ground attack so it's not the 'special snowflake' others imply either. But it was specialized, somewhat for that specific job - shoot down German fighters over the Front. But in the "Yak Family" they also had Yak 1B, Yak 7B, Yak 9K (CAS), Yak 9D (long range), Yak 9U (high speed - 435 mph - / high altitude) etc.

Though the Soviets did have some problems initially developing engines in the early parts of the war, the narrative or Trope that they were still using 1100 hp Hispano Suiza variants even late in the war is false. The VK 107 in the Yak-9U may have had it's serious issues but it generated 1,600 hp. Depending on the variant, the Shvestov ASh-82 (as seen on the La 5) generated 1,850 hp at Sea level and 1,450 at 15,000 feet.

Needless to say all countries faced problems with their engines. The superb merlin had the infamous carbeurator flood cutout with negative G. The Allison V-1710 had the infamous altitude performance ceiling limitations we have discussed so much in here. Even the DB engines had some issues.

You may have "problems" understanding how the Yak 3 performed as it did, as you have mentioned before many times with many other aircraft in threads here that I have been part of, but this really doesn't mean anything. If you really think the numbers are off on several of the famous aircraft that we discuss in here then write a book and source your references. In the mean time Occam's Razor tells me it's far more likely that you are simply leaving something out in your calculations.

Your repeatedly demonstrated lack of imagination in discussions like this in several threads makes this seem much more likely to me. If you start with an assumption and try to find data to fit, you are always going to be a bit perplexed whenever you circle back around to the Historical record and compare your theories to it.

Recon is important, I agree. The Soviets had their own high altitude planes starting with the MiG 3 (which performed well at high altitude even though it lacked capability down low) and high alt versions of the Pe-2R / Pe-3. So it's not like they couldn't manage it. And sure long range recon was an important thing, high flying Ju 86P's, Fw 189s were a problem for the allies in general. Luckily for the Russians they did not have to contend with Ki-46 or Mosquitoes. The Germans certainly went out of their way to shoot down Tac-R planes too, often successfully. But recon was not the same level of importance to the overall war effort that front line fighters were, if only because recon planes often lived or died based on the fighters escorting or chasing them.

The Spitfire came in to the Russian Front originally in the form of the Spit V in 1943. The Soviets were careful with it and did a work-up, but it just didn't perform that well during a period of intensive air combat. The Spit IX which came later was assigned to PVO units where it's main mission was not, in fact, to intercept German Ju-86P or Fw 189s, but rather to stop the occasional Operational level large scale German bombing raid of Ju 88s, He 111s and so on, which had done some serious damage on a few occasions to Soviet production and infrastructure assets in 1941-1943. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree there. The Spit IX was given the job of protecting C3I and factories and leadership. Just like later model P-40s and MiG 3s earlier in the war.

The long and short of it is, the Spit just didn't match the needs of the Theater well enough to be used on the Front Line. Of course they found a use for it, and no doubt an important one, but that can be said of many aircraft in many Theaters that didn't "make the team" for the front line Air Superiority contest. My point being that while clearly a great fighter, the merits of the Spitfire were not universally suited to all Theaters.

None of what I am saying is controversial, I am just pointing out that the quality of a given aircraft in WW2 (to be specific) is a combination of the traits of the aircraft with the conditions in the Theater and the training and maintenance. Suggesting that the Yak 3 was one of the best fighters of the war is also not controversial in general, in spite of what some people in this forum might think.

By the way, to correct yet another (accidental or otherwise) mischaracterization of what I actually said, I never suggested the P-51 wasn't a great fighter, I just said it wasn't my personal favorite because it came rather late. The same can indeed be said for the Yak 3, Ta-152 or Griffin Engined Spitfires. I like the early to mid-war fighters for the most part which is just a matter of personal preference. But the P-51 is without a doubt one of the best fighters of WW2.

My personal top 10 WW2 "Day Fighter" list, for the record:

1. A6M Zero
2. Spitfire (Early to mid war variants)
   
3. Yak family (Yak 1, 7, 9 and 3)
4. F4U Corsair
   
5. Fw 190A
   
6. La 5 family (5, 5 FN, and 7)
7. Bf 109 (Early to mid-war variants)
   
8. P-51 B,C,D
   
9. F4F
10. Ki-43 II

Each plane on that list makes the cut for different reasons and I freely admit - this is not a scientific list (how could it be). It's just my opinion. And unlike perhaps some people I can distinguish between facts and my own personal preferences.

In a top 20 list I'd add the Italian '5 Series' fighters (Reggianne, Macchi, and Fiat), the P-47, P-38, P-40, P-36, MC 202 & 200, Hurricane, Typhoon, Beaufighter, D.520 and Ki-61. Roughly in that order.

S

 

[Milosh]

Is May 10, 1942 late?

 

[Schweik]

Is May 10, 1942 late?

If you are referring to the P-51, I believe the 'A' (Alllison engined / A-36 / Mustang I & II) versions were not really used as a fighter but rather as recon (with some fighter overlap) and as a dive bomber (with some fighter overlap). Why that is I'm not sure, on paper it looks like it would be a good fighter even with the Allison engine. I asked this question before in fact in this forum, maybe even earlier in this thread I think. But I don't think I got a very convincing answer.

But as a fighter, it was not until the Merlin engine was added that it came into it's own. This was done in late 1942 experimentally, but from what I gather production started in Summer 1943 and these planes started hitting operational units in Winter of 1943. So that is on the edge of being late. Still in the game but a little late.

The great conquests of the Mustang were later in 1944, with the D and later versions. And that is definitely late. Personally I like the B / C and Mustang III versions best. But the D and K and H are the ones that did the real damage. They just wrecked a Luftwaffe (and IJN and IJA air force) which were already at least partly broken in my opinion. Admittedly - just my opinion.

S

 

[pbehn]

If you are referring to the P-51, I believe the 'A' (Alllison engined / A-36 / Mustang I & II) versions were not really used as a fighter but rather as recon (with some fighter overlap) and as a dive bomber (with some fighter overlap). Why that is I'm not sure, on paper it looks like it would be a good fighter even with the Allison engine. I asked this question before in fact in this forum, maybe even earlier in this thread I think. But I don't think I got a very convincing answer.

But as a fighter, it was not until the Merlin engine was added that it came into it's own. This was done in late 1942 experimentally, but from what I gather production started in Summer 1943 and these planes started hitting operational units in Winter of 1943. So that is on the edge of being late. Still in the game but a little late.

The great conquests of the Mustang were later in 1944, with the D and later versions. And that is definitely late. Personally I like the B / C and Mustang III versions best. But the D and K and H are the ones that did the real damage. They just wrecked a Luftwaffe (and IJN and IJA air force) which were already at least partly broken in my opinion. Admittedly - just my opinion.

S

The Allison engine Mustang was a good fighter, the problem was getting anything to fight with it.

 

[fubar57]

The P-51H did not see active service in WW2

North American P-51H Mustang

 

[Schweik]

The Allison engine Mustang was a good fighter, the problem was getting anything to fight with it.

In 1943? Sorry I don't buy that. Still plenty of fighting going on including where they were deploying them like in Italy.

S

 

[Milosh]

The Allison engine Mustang was a good fighter, the problem was getting anything to fight with it.

Tactical reports from RAF army cooperation units were laudatory. The Mustang I and IAs were able to take an incredible amount of battle damage. The long range of the Mustang made it an excellent tactical reconnaissance aircraft and its heavy armament made it effective against most ground targets. In 18 months of operation 200 locomotives and 200 barges were destroyed or severely damaged, and an undetermined number of enemy aircraft were destroyed on the ground. This was accomplished at the expense of only one Mustang being shot down by enemy fighters, five lost to flak, and two vanishing with no record of their fate. At low altitudes, the Mustang was faster than either the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. At sea level, the Mustang could run away from any enemy aircraft. The flaps were very useful in combat to reduce the turning radius.

Mustang Is and IAs served with the RAF up until 1944. It knew few equals in the role of low-altitude interdiction and reconnaissance.

 

[Shortround6]

A couple of fairly obvious points.

The Yak 3 was a low altitude, short range air superiority fighter variant of the larger Yak family. It still had a ceiling of 35,000 feet so it wasn't quite the submarine some people imply, and it was also used for ground attack so it's not the 'special snowflake' others imply either. But it was specialized, somewhat for that specific job - shoot down German fighters over the Front. But in the "Yak Family" they also had Yak 1B, Yak 7B, Yak 9K (CAS), Yak 9D (long range), Yak 9U (high speed - 435 mph - / high altitude) etc.

Though the Soviets did have some problems initially developing engines in the early parts of the war, the narrative or Trope that they were still using 1100 hp Hispano Suiza variants even late in the war is false. The VK 107 in the Yak-9U may have had it's serious issues but it generated 1,600 hp.

You may have "problems" understanding how the Yak 3 performed as it did, as you have mentioned before many times with many other aircraft in threads here that I have been part of, but this really doesn't mean anything. Occam's razor tells me it's far more likely that you are simply leaving something out in your calculations. Your repeatedly demonstrated lack of imagination in discussions like this in several threads makes this seem much more likely to me. If you start with an assumption and try to find data to fit, you are always going to be a bit perplexed.

My "Occam's razor" tells me that if something seems to be too good to be true, then it probably is. Like 390 mph early P-39s. The Bell factory certainly used a lot of imagination (and elbow grease to apply 20 coats of paint hand sanded between each coat to help get that speed).

I also like facts to line up. Not stretches of imagination like "the narrative or Trope that they were still using 1100 hp Hispano Suiza variants even late in the war is false. The VK 107 in the Yak-9U may have had it's serious issues but it generated 1,600 hp."

True, they weren't using 1100HP Hispanos but then they weren't using VK 107s or even VK 106s in the majority of the Yaks either. Leaving the M-82s to the La-5/7s that leaves either modified Hispanos or rubber bands. Since the last is hardly practical we are left with the modified Hispanos. True they weren't making 1100hp, they were rated for 1280-1300 (?). the question is at what altitude?
I would note that My comparison to the Merlin III was a bit of a trick, The Merlin III in 1940 was rated at 1310hp at

Recon is important, I agree. The Soviets had their own high altitude recon planes starting with the MiG 3 (which performed well at high altitude even though it lacked capability down low). So it's not like they couldn't manage it. And sure long range recon was an important thing, high flying Ju 86P's, Fw 189s were a problem for the allies in general. Luckily for the Russians they did not have to contend with Ki-46 or Mosquitoes. The Germans certainly went out of their way to shoot down Tac-R planes too, often successfully. But recon was not the same level of importance to the overall war effort that front line fighters were, if only because recon planes often lived or died based on the fighters escorting or chasing them.

The Spitfire came in to the Russian Front originally in the form of the Spit V in 1943. The Soviets were careful with it and did a work-up, but it just didn't perform that well during a period of intensive air combat. The Spit IX which came later was assigned to PVO units where it's main mission was not, in fact, to intercept German Ju-86P or Fw 189s, but rather to stop the occasional Operational level large scale German bombing raid of Ju 88s, He 111s and so on, which had done some serious damage on a few occasions to Soviet production and infrastructure assets in 1941-1943. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree there. The Spit IX was given the job of protecting C3I and factories and leadership. Just like later model P-40s and MiG 3s earlier in the war.

The long and short of it is, the Spit just didn't match the needs of the Theater well enough to be used on the Front Line. Of course they found a use for it, and no doubt an important one, but that can be said of many aircraft in many Theaters that didn't "make the team" for the front line Air Superiority contest. My point being that while clearly a great fighter, the merits of the Spitfire were not universally suited to all Theaters.

None of what I am saying is controversial, I am just pointing out that the quality of a given aircraft in WW2 (to be specific) is a combination of the traits of the aircraft with the conditions in the Theater and the training and maintenance. Suggesting that the Yak 3 was one of the best fighters of the war is also not controversial in general, in spite of what some people in this forum might think.

By the way, to correct yet another (accidental or otherwise) mischaracterization of what I actually said, I never suggested the P-51 wasn't a great fighter, I just said it wasn't my personal favorite because it came rather late. The same can indeed be said for the Yak 3, Ta-152 or Griffin Engined Spitfires. I like the early to mid-war fighters for the most part which is just a matter of personal preference. But the P-51 is without a doubt one of the best fighters of WW2.

My personal top 10 WW2 "Day Fighter" list, for the record:

1. A6M Zero
2. Spitfire (Early to mid war variants)
   
3. Yak family (Yak 1, 7, 9 and 3)
4. F4U Corsair
   
5. Fw 190A
   
6. La 5 family (5, 5 FN, and 7)
7. Bf 109 (Early to mid-war variants)
   
8. P-51 B,C,D
   
9. F4F
10. Ki-43 II

Each plane on that list makes the cut for different reasons and I freely admit - this is not a scientific list (how could it be). It's just my opinion. And unlike perhaps some people I can distinguish between facts and my own personal preferences.

In a top 20 list I'd add the Italian '5 Series' fighters (Reggianne, Macchi, and Fiat), the P-47, P-38, P-40, P-36, MC 202 & 200, Hurricane, Typhoon, Beaufighter, D.520 and Ki-61. Roughly in that order.

S[/QUOTE]

 

[pbehn]

Tactical reports from RAF army cooperation units were laudatory. The Mustang I and IAs were able to take an incredible amount of battle damage. The long range of the Mustang made it an excellent tactical reconnaissance aircraft and its heavy armament made it effective against most ground targets. In 18 months of operation 200 locomotives and 200 barges were destroyed or severely damaged, and an undetermined number of enemy aircraft were destroyed on the ground. This was accomplished at the expense of only one Mustang being shot down by enemy fighters, five lost to flak, and two vanishing with no record of their fate. At low altitudes, the Mustang was faster than either the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. At sea level, the Mustang could run away from any enemy aircraft. The flaps were very useful in combat to reduce the turning radius.

Mustang Is and IAs served with the RAF up until 1944. It knew few equals in the role of low-altitude interdiction and reconnaissance.

I agree completely Milosh, my point was how much did Germany put into stopping them. They weren't much bothered about French locos.

 

[Shortround6]

Mustang Is and IAs served with the RAF up until 1944. It knew few equals in the role of low-altitude interdiction and reconnaissance.

As of Jan 1943 Allison powered Mustangs served in 15 different RAF squadrons, at their peak they served in 21 squadrons.

In June of 1944 5 RAF squadrons still used Allison Mustangs and two squadrons were still operating them until V-E day.

That is an awful lot of recconasance.

Source AHT. Other sources differ.
Squadrons that were supposed to have used Mustang I, Ia and IIs were no, 2, 4, 16, 26, 63, 168, 169, 170, 171, 225, 231, 239, 241, 268, 285, 309, 400, 414, 430, 516 and 613.

 

[ykickamoocow]

With determining the most overrated aircraft of WW2 how much do we need to take into account that in the latter half of the war the Western Allies were not really fighting the cream of the Luftwaffe? I mean most of the Luftwaffe was heavily engaged in Eastern Europe and you can't even compare the training a new Luftwaffe pilot received in 1943 and onwards compared to the training they got in 1939 and 1940. Would it be fair to say that the new Luftwaffe pilots in 43 onwards were no where near as well trained as the pilots from 4 years earlier?

 

[swampyankee]

With determining the most overrated aircraft of WW2 how much do we need to take into account that in the latter half of the war the Western Allies were not really fighting the cream of the Luftwaffe? I mean most of the Luftwaffe was heavily engaged in Eastern Europe and you can't even compare the training a new Luftwaffe pilot received in 1943 and onwards compared to the training they got in 1939 and 1940. Would it be fair to say that the new Luftwaffe pilots in 43 onwards were no where near as well trained as the pilots from 4 years earlier?

Should we then also take into account that the Luftwaffe for the first year or so of the was frequently fighting unprepared opponents?

 

[ykickamoocow]

Should we then also take into account that the Luftwaffe for the first year or so of the was frequently fighting unprepared opponents?

To be honest I think we should. To me the Luftwaffe was never stronger than the start of the Battle of Britain and then the start of Operation Barbarossa. Once 1942 came along the Luftwaffe were always in a slow decline to the point where by mid 1944 the odds of a Western Allies fighter craft being shot down by German fighter craft was quite low, at least compared to a few years earlier. It is very easy to make the late WW2 fighter aircraft look really strong simply because they had almost no opposition.

 

[wuzak]

If you are going to be pedantic, at least read what you are replying to. I said "waiting in the wings". F8F first flight was August 1944, F7F first flight November 1943. I also didn't count the night fighters by the way.

I did realise that after I had posted, sorry.

Yes, they flew during or before 1944, but were not in service in 1944.

• I don't see why that matters even if it was true but
• ... it's not true, obviously. F4Us and F4Fs were used quite a bit from land. F4Us were in wide use by the USMC and some land based USN squadrons, plus replacing P-40s for the New Zealanders in 1944.

Like the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish hands, or even the Gladiator on Malta, the 'Carrier aircraft' designation didn't necessarily affect a given fighters capabilities from a land base. Certainly not with the Corsair. (Maybe Fairey Fulmar...)

The point about the navy fighters were that they were designed to be used aboard carriers. A specialist role that land based fighters could not, generally, succeed at.

Yes, navy fighters were used from the land, but the fact that they were designed for carrier use explains their existence.

So what? I didn't even count night fighters anyway. I just mentioned them to make a point.

I honestly don't know what the point you are trying to make is?

So did every other fighter in 1944.

Not nearly to the same extent.

As far as I know, Yaks were only used over Russia and Eastern Europe in 1944...

Yes, but they engaged enemy aircraft.

Meteors shot down V-1s, but not much else. They really didn't go into battle.

Again, why would you think this was unique? Every air force in the world was replacing older types with newer types (and also introducing more specialized types like the Spit IX LF and so on)

I didn't say it was unique.

You suggested that the Allies were filling gaps with the multiplicity of types. I disagree with that.

What does that have to do with anything? The answer is all of the above plus Ls.

What does the number of types and sub-types of Spitfires have to do with anything?

 

[Schweik]

With determining the most overrated aircraft of WW2 how much do we need to take into account that in the latter half of the war the Western Allies were not really fighting the cream of the Luftwaffe? I mean most of the Luftwaffe was heavily engaged in Eastern Europe and you can't even compare the training a new Luftwaffe pilot received in 1943 and onwards compared to the training they got in 1939 and 1940. Would it be fair to say that the new Luftwaffe pilots in 43 onwards were no where near as well trained as the pilots from 4 years earlier?

That is a fair point, but the converse is also true. When considering the merits of German fighters (and the glory of the experten) it does bear considering that most of the Allied pilots they faced in 1940-1942 were hastily trained and flying aircraft which were either new and flawed designs still being debugged or obsolescent types- scrambling to defend their bases from an (often numerically) overwhelming onslaught. Probably at least half the German victories on the Russian Front in the first two years were against (I-15 / 153 series) biplanes and open-cockpit 30's era (I-16 series) fighter planes. Not to speak of parasol winged P-11s, obsolescent Morraine 406s and buggy Bloch 152s and so forth.

Maybe it all comes out in the wash I don't know, but I think it's interesting how much people praise the German planes and pilots to the skies for steamrolling over the ill prepared air forces of countries that didn't expect to be attacked in the early years of the war. If anything the most impressive thing is how the British, Russians and Americans all rallied fairly quickly and stood up to the aggression they faced.

That is, for me, why the middle (say June 1942 - June 1943) is the most interesting part of the Air War. You still have a lot of very experienced and well trained Axis (German, Italian and Japanese) pilots, but by this point the Allies also have some good / experienced / adequately trained pilots and have weeded out the worst designs and substantially improved the rest.

S