Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did I ever say that it was? My point about Spitfires and Hurricanes did not even say they were particularly good for the needs of Russia, just better than they had at the time. In all your arguments you seem to overlook some pretty basic stuff. Like Russia being a huge land mass accessible overland by Germany while the UK is a small island group. Russia was fighting a land war from the second war started. The UK was fighting a defensive war on Islands everywhere except N Africa pretty much until 1944.
Shortround6
Major General
My "thumb on the scale." consisted of copying the figures from the chart on page 599 of "America's Hundred thousand" By Frances Dean.
These were the ONLY drop tanks listed in the chart. I didn't leave any out.
If that doesn't meet your standard of fairplay...To bad.
On the next page is a similar chart which includes P-47Ns and P-51Hs. Since those aircraft are really not pertinent to a discussion of Fighter escorts in Europe in 1944 I didn't bother to include them. That would have been "tipping" the scale".
These were the ONLY drop tanks listed in the chart. I didn't leave any out.
If that doesn't meet your standard of fairplay...To bad.
On the next page is a similar chart which includes P-47Ns and P-51Hs. Since those aircraft are really not pertinent to a discussion of Fighter escorts in Europe in 1944 I didn't bother to include them. That would have been "tipping" the scale".
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
From the Flight Operation Instruction Charts I've studied those two wings tanks sorely affected the Thunderbolt's optimum cruise speed at bomber heights, dropping it to around 230 MPH.The fuel burn rate went up as well, about 20 GPH. This cannot be a great situation for an escort fighter in Europe to be in when it was paramount to stay high and fast. On the other hand, a "clean" Mustang can range just as far as a Thunderbolt laden with drop tanks, and it could do it at a much greater airspeed. Place two drop tanks on the Mustang and you have an airplane which could thoroughly out range and out perform the Thunderbolt, period.
Keep in mind pbehn, this discussion involves multiple people. As a review, I pointed out offhand that the Yak-3 was one of the great fighters of the war, I didn't think that was controversial but I should have known better. Then Shortround and some others kind of pounced on me starting a wide ranging debate running all over the place which then you and others chimed in on as you got annoyed by something I said.
I don't even grasp precisely what your beef is here, still but I guess you feel like I'm badmouthing the British fighters. I don't see why, in this very thread I put Spitfires in my top 10 list (I think number 2 or 3) for the whole war and hurricanes in the top 20. In bringing up that neither plane was ideally suited for Russia, I am merely trying to prove the point that not all aircraft were perfectly suited for all Theaters (or necessarily, for the whole duration of the war). This is not an attack on English (or American) airplanes. I don't think there is or was such a thing as a military aircraft suited for every Front in every Theater for every type of operation. I think that is a myth.
I may seem to pick on hurricanes somewhat but I just think that the airframe outlived it's lifespan a bit. Similar to the P-40 which is one of my favorites.
Hurricane dates back to 1936 and was a useful front line fighter I think until 1941. Once the Bf 109F and A6M came on scene I think it was no longer suitable for that role but still useful as a fighter bomber and naval fighter (etc.) through 1943. Probably shouldn't have been built after 1943.
P-40 dates from 1941 and was a useful front line fighter in the Med, Russia and Pacific I think through 1943. It started having trouble with the arrival of the Bf 109G and wasn't suitable for high altitude escort more generally. It still remained viable in the Pacific though limited by range and only really useful at low to medium altitude so limited effectiveness as an interceptor for level bombing raids.
Spitfire dates from 1939? And remained the best Anglo-American interceptor, in it's various incarnations, through the end of the war. With the relatively brief interlude of the early Fw 190 reign of terror in 1942, the Spit was dominant over all German types from 1940-1945. Did pretty well against the Japanese too as an interceptor though longer ranged fighters were better for the Pacific Theater.
Yak and Lavochkin fighters ultimately proved the best adapted for the conditions on the Russian Front, not surprisingly
The Russians did have some naval warfare going on, fairly intense at times, particularly around Leningrad and as related to the siege of Leningrad, but also in the Black Sea. They were using A-20s as torpedo bombers among other interesting things
Here is an interesting clip from a Soviet film on naval action during the War (I think these are IL-4 and maybe I saw a Pe 2). Looks like your typical depressing Russian movie interspersed with cool footage of planes getting shot at and dropping torpedoes.
here is an interview with a Russian A-20 torpedo bomber pilot
Interview with R.S.Demidov
Fair enough, my apologies- I shouldn't have assumed malicious intent.
post the data I'd be interested to see it. Don't have that book yet.
S
Everyone:
Don't let this thread get out of hand.
Don't let this thread get out of hand.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes, the N model Thunderbolts were very hot aircraft, but their overall performance was dependent on how much fuel they carried in the wing tanks. To get the "Mustang like ranges" you would need to fill the wing tanks to maximum capacity, but this of course affected performance and handling drastically. Climb alone was basically cut in half, when compared to aircraft with only the fuselage fuel tanks in use. I am quite certain that it's maneuverability was hampered as well. The longer ranges required in the PTO allowed for most of the wing tank fuel to be burned before combat was initiated, whereas in Europe this most likely would not have been the case. The N model was designed from the start for operations in the Pacific and first shipments didn't arrive until April '45. It would have been a non-player in Europe until then anyway, so how do we provide "quality escort service" before it's arrival if the Mustang never existed in the first place? I suspect that the war would have dragged on much longer than the history books record if this were the case.
Last edited:
It all hinges on the term greatness I suppose. The Yak-3 appeared in 1944 same as the Tempest, whatever their performance was they didn't influence the direction of the war. In that respect, in my view the Hurricane was a far more significant and "great" aircraft that the plane two generations later from Hawkers the Tempest. There were many aircraft and some were for a time the best in one or two niches and from that changed the course of the whole conflict, it is to these few aircraft the term "greatness" applies.
Last edited:
My point was that the P-51B/C didnt suddenly arrive in mid 1943 out of the blue. There was a lot of research and development put into it. If it had never existed then a similar amount could and would have been put into other possibilities.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
But that could be said of any aircraft that was eventually chosen for frontline service. If it didn't exist something else would have been created to fill that particular role. I hope you don't believe that the Spitfire came about without an extensive and exhaustive development period as well. All that time and energy spent before its introduction could have been equally used creating a totally different fighter which may or may not have done as well as the Spitfire.
The point that I was making earlier is that when one looks at every viable escort fighter available in the Fall of 1943, the P-51 was far and away the best option of them all. It was a very easy decision for the USAAC to select it for that role, and when they did it supplanted all other escort fighters seemingly overnight.That says a lot about how much better it really was.
Darren, I was responding to the fictional scenario that the P-51 disappeared from our history books.[, I agree with all your points. Historically the Hurricane wone the Battle of Britain, but historically the UK would not have allowed itself to just have circa 130 monoplane fighters in Sept 1939.
wuzak
Captain
Nobody told you that the F4F couldn't shoot down a Bf 109 or Fw 190.
There is more to whether one plane shoots down another than the quality/ability of the aircraft.
The tactical situation, for example.
In "leaning into France" the RAF discovered this too. The Luftwaffe engaged the intruders at their own discretion, and mostly when the odds were stacked heavily in their favour.
The actual encounters you cited were from 1945. When even you admitted that German pilot quality had deteriorated substantially.
wuzak
Captain
I'm sure that the Bf 109 and Fw 190 would have given the F6F some grief.
Not sure about Japanese land based fighters. I believe they got better later in the war, but the pilots lacked experience and training by that stage.
The Spitfire V could break the back of the Japanese because:
1. it wasn't there early enough
2. it wasn't there in enough numbers
3. it wasn't there in the right places
The Spitfire was constrained by its range limitations, which the F6F and F4F got around by having mobile bases.
I still don't know if the F6F should be credited with breaking the back of the Japanese - I think that credit goes largely to the F4F.
I still maintain that the performance of the F6F was similar to that of the Spitfire V.
Yes, the Seafire was inferior to the Hellcat.
Wartime Seafires were largely based on the Spitfire V, and lagged behind in development.
fubar57
General
Wasn't me
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I was talking historically and not speculatively. The F6F never found itself disadvantaged with any of the various fighters it encountered. This even goes for the one rare occasion where it met Luftwaffe fighters. I will agree though that it would have to be flown much closer to the margins if flown in the ETO for any extended length of time. If we were to speculate I would say that the FW 190D and late BF 109Gs and Ks were obviously more dangerous than the earlier versions that it met in Norwegian waters. But like you said, German pilot quality was suffering late in the war so I think that would have evened things up quite a bit.
The Wildcat was instrumental in helping to tip the balance towards the allies at Midway and Coral Sea but it was the Hellcat which ensured an allied victory by destroying any hopes of a Japanese reprisal. Read up on the battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf and you will understand why this is true.
Not the F6F-5, nor the F6F-3 with water injection, which were faster at all altitudes, had much greater range (even when land-based), and could take far more punishment. Why did the Spit suffer so at the hands of the Zeros in NG if it was the equal of the Hellcat? There was never a period of the war where F6Fs had their arses handed to them by the Japanese as was often the case with the oh so popular Spitfire.....
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
That was pure Japanese propaganda. The pilot in question was actually flying a Zero at the time and the story spun out of control from there.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I hear you and agree that the Hurricane was the true champion of the Battle of Britain.
Last edited:
