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

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

drgondog said:
Not really. The first P-51B-1-NA was completed save Packard 1650-3 which didn't arrive until end (snip)
Simply not enough to go around and the 23rd FG was first in CBI to get a few - not enough to equip the Group until July-August 1944
Click to expand...

Ok you have convinced me. They should have got some P-38s or Spit VIII a little earlier then.

Interesting that Caldwell already seems to have had a pretty good idea of the merits of the P-51 in early 1943. Probably rumors about the top speed had filtered around...

S
 
GrauGeist said:
So then the numbers for the P-40 in the CBI wouldn't include victories scored by IJA pilots flying the P-40s of the 2 Hiko Chutai (in Rangoon) :lol:
Click to expand...

They should absolutely include those! All victories must be counted! Lol :)

S
 
It's interesting how low the victory numbers are for P-38s in the ETO (497), though they did quite well in the Med (1431). Presumably most of those are in Italy after mid 1943 when the better P-38 variants started showing up.

The Hellcat numbers are very impressive to me, 5160 that is amazing! Especially considering how late they came and that they only operated in the Pacific Theater. I suspect the Hellcat may really be one of the most underrated fighters.

Also worth noting that the P-40 had by far the most victories in the CBI, 973 vs 345 for the next one down, the P-51, though the latter came quite late to the party needless to say.

Anyone know where to find Commonwealth / RAF numbers by type? I'm having little luck, my google-fu is failing me.

This article says that Hurricanes scored 1,593 out of the 2,739 total victories in the BoB, but that is just the tip of the Iceburg.

S
 
The F6F also appeared in the ETO and was operated in support of the D-Day landings and follow-up support. Hellcats of VF-74, from the USS Kasaan Bay (CVE-69) and VOF-1 from the USS Tulagi (CVE-72) covered the landing zones as well as flying support missions well inland. On 21 August, it was mainly Hellcats from Tulagi that caught and annhilated a long retreat column of German ground forces near Remoulins.

They encountered and downed several Luftwaffe types except for the Fw190 to the best of my knowledge.
 
GrauGeist said:
The F6F also appeared in the ETO and was operated in support of the D-Day landings and follow-up support. Hellcats of VF-74, from the USS Kasaan Bay (CVE-69) and VOF-1 from the USS Tulagi (CVE-72) covered the landing zones as well as flying support missions well inland. On 21 August, it was mainly Hellcats from Tulagi that caught and annhilated a long retreat column of German ground forces near Remoulins.

They encountered and downed several Luftwaffe types except for the Fw190 to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yeah that list shows 8 victories in the ETO must have been from that period. I remember seeing a cool video of a Hellcat strafing a Flak Tower I think during D-Day but have never been able to find it since. I think the British / FAA got about ~30 victories with Hellcats too (I believe I posted this upthread). But basically they were just operating in the Pacific.

I don't know of the overall quality of that list I posted (looks like an 'Amateur' site) but the P-40 numbers do match what is in some of my Osprey books, which may have been his source. And I gather the P-51 number looks right.

Still no luck with Commonwealth numbers.

S
 
Last edited:
The famous "Flak Tower" photo was actually mis-captioned by the war department. It was actually a water tower and was strafed for a couple reasons: one, enemy infrastructure and secondly, it was a high-point that could be used for artillery spotting and/or a sniper position.

The attacking aircraft was actually a P-47 of the 376th/361st FG flown by Capt. Franks and the gun camera footage is from Capt. Frank's wingman, Lt. Laxton.

image.jpg
 
GrauGeist said:
The famous "Flak Tower" photo was actually mis-captioned by the war department. It was actually a water tower and was strafed for a couple reasons: one, enemy infrastructure and secondly, it was a high-point that could be used for artillery spotting and/or a sniper position.

The attacking aircraft was actually a P-47 of the 376th/361st FG flown by Capt. Franks and the gun camera footage is from Capt. Frank's wingman, Lt. Laxton.

View attachment 497012
Click to expand...

Yes a well known photo of the P-47 attacking the water tower.
 
GrauGeist said:
The famous "Flak Tower" photo was actually mis-captioned by the war department. It was actually a water tower and was strafed for a couple reasons: one, enemy infrastructure and secondly, it was a high-point that could be used for artillery spotting and/or a sniper position.

The attacking aircraft was actually a P-47 of the 376th/361st FG flown by Capt. Franks and the gun camera footage is from Capt. Frank's wingman, Lt. Laxton.

ThanksView attachment 497012
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about that picture ever since I first saw it as a teenager. What's a Hellcat doing in France, and doesn't that look more like Thunderbolt?
Mystery solved, and thanks Grey Ghost!
Cheers,
Wes
 
I voted for the P-38 Lightning.
Given the perfect vision of hindsight the AAF's vast resources could have been better deployed.
Most here agree that the P-51 Mustang with a two stage engine was the ultimate fighter especially with regard to endurance.
So with 20/20 hindsight the AAF should have developed the two stage (Merlin or Allison) ASAP, which would have tremendously helped the P-39 and P-40 also.
It had all the measurables, it was fast, could climb well, high ceiling, excellent endurance with big drop tanks and maybe the best armament installation of any AAF plane.
Just didn't dive well or turn well. Excellent when it had a 70mph speed advantage over the Japanese fighters, but in Europe where the 109 and 190 were just as fast it was just a big plane that didn't dive or turn well.
Twice the cost of a P-51, twice the maintenance requirements, and a real handful for a new pilot.
The P-38 performed yeoman service and its pilots were brave. But not the best use of resources in my opinion.
 
I have just had the feeling in the past several pages of this thread that the suggestion is about to be made that the P-40 should have received the V-1650-3, not the P-51....
 
wuzak said:
I have just had the feeling in the past several pages of this thread that the suggestion is about to be made that the P-40 should have received the V-1650-3, not the P-51....
Click to expand...

Not from me. Would have been 'neat' to have some V-1650-3 powered P-40s, but the P-40 never would have had the range or the speed of the Mustang. The P-51 was the plane they needed for the rest of the war in the ETO for sure. And the bottom line is nothing like that happened so speculation is mildly interesting at best.

I'm less interested in "coulda woulda shoulda" kind of stuff and more interested in what actually happened. History is what scratches my itch so to speak. What is nice about this forum is that the tidbits of Aviation History does emerge in these discussions aside from the rest of what goes on. Like that memo on the Allison engined P-51s, that thing is gold. I probably never would have found it. I look at WW2performance but I hadn't been interested in the Mustangs that much and if that whole argument about Allison Mustangs hadn't started up you wouldn't have posted it it. Really helps open up the whole 'overboosting' thing, 70" Hg for 20 minutes without damaging the engine... that is some heavy duty hot rodding! I also now know why early P-51s didn't do so well in combat and why they weren't a more famous / important fighter prior to the B model.

As far as the P-40 goes, I'd really like to know what the Commonwealth victory claim numbers were. That may that beleagured US fighter shine a bit brighter in the estimation of all those folks who still call it 'obsolete from the start of the war', 'rugged but unmaneuverable' and so forth. If they had 2200 victory claims in USAAF service, how many were there under Commonwealth, plus Russian? Russian numbers might be out of reach for another year or two (unless somebody in here from Russia has some they can translate for us) but I suspect Commonwelath numbers are out there somewhere.

If the Gold Standard is 5950 for the P-51, I'd be very interesting to see just how close the P-40 actually got if you added up all the victory claims from everyone who used it. I think it would be close.

The P-40 was a flawed design, the engine / performance ceiling issue crippled it, but it seemed to knock down a lot of enemy planes in spite of that problem.

S
 
Last edited:
pbehn said:
I want to know why valuable time and resources were wasted putting Merlins into Spitfires and Hurricanes, a sad lack of foreward thinking
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite - I've made my admiration for the Spitfire pretty clear, and the Hurricane was indispensable in the early years of the war. But I certainly would agree they would have been much better off putting those Merlins wasted in any Hurricanes (XX or whatever model) after 1942 in something else... I know the devil is in the details as to what would be most feasible of course.

But rather than debating that pointlessly in circles I'd rather see the total Victory numbers on the Hurricane, maybe it will turn out to have done better post 1941 than I thought it did...

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
687
yulzari
yulzari
CHen10
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
408
CHen10
CHen10
_PabloSniper_
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
897
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
547
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Back