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

Resp:
I do understand that when both types were available, their assigned targets were often separate. It probably is a moot point as the RAF turned the tide, bringing the prospect of an invasion to a halt.
In the battle zone it was one to one. Priority for the Hurricanes was the bombers, but they mixed it with the Messers and could come out on top. At bomber interception height there was very little performance difference between a Messer and a Hurricane. The Hurricanes had 100 octane fuel and boost, the Messers didn't.
 
In the battle zone it was one to one. Priority for the Hurricanes was the bombers, but they mixed it with the Messers and could come out on top. At bomber interception height there was very little performance difference between a Messer and a Hurricane. The Hurricanes had 100 octane fuel and boost, the Messers didn't.
The extra boost only worked at low altitudes. It made absolutely no difference over 16-17,000ft. The closer you got to 10-11,000ft the more difference it made and from there down to sea level the difference between 100 octane and 87 (or the difference between 6lbs and 12lbs ) was pretty much constant.
 
The extra boost only worked at low altitudes. It made absolutely no difference over 16-17,000ft. The closer you got to 10-11,000ft the more difference it made and from there down to sea level the difference between 100 octane and 87 (or the difference between 6lbs and 12lbs ) was pretty much constant.
I think you're find that the Hurricane I could do 285 mph at sea level for 5 minutes, the Bf 109E the same for one minute but with the radiator closed. Up to about 15000 feet there was little to choose between them in speed which surprised the Germans. The Hurricane had a better roll rate and turning circle, the Bf 109E, a better dive speed, but the Bf 109E can't run away if its going to defend its bombers. So its game, set and match to the Hurricane. Otherwise, I'd agree.
 
I would note that at the time (summer & fall of 1940) the Hurricane got the Merlin XX while the Spitfire got the Merlin XII. This was an attempt to keep the Hurricane competitive until Spitfire production could be increased.
This is for new/planned production. Not aircraft in service or in depot. it would take months for new versions to take over in large numbers.
If the Hurricane was actually better at the time the air staff should have known it and made decisions accordingly.
 
I think you're find that the Hurricane I could do 285 mph at sea level for 5 minutes, the Bf 109E the same for one minute but with the radiator closed. Up to about 15000 feet there was little to choose between them in speed which surprised the Germans. The Hurricane had a better roll rate and turning circle, the Bf 109E, a better dive speed, but the Bf 109E can't run away if its going to defend its bombers. So its game, set and match to the Hurricane. Otherwise, I'd agree.

Why would the 109 run away?
You will find out that people at UK were of firm opinon that Bf 109E posessed a speed advantage of 30-40 mp/h, while also climbing better: link
As noted above, there was a reason why the Hurricane II got Merlin XX, while the Spitfire III did not. That being the noted performance gap, and not enough of the Mk.XXs around for the both.
 
Why would the 109 run away?
You will find out that people at UK were of firm opinon that Bf 109E posessed a speed advantage of 30-40 mp/h, while also climbing better: link
As noted above, there was a reason why the Hurricane II got Merlin XX, while the Spitfire III did not. That being the noted performance gap, and not enough of the Mk.XXs around for the both.[/QUO
Why would the 109 run away?
You will find out that people at UK were of firm opinon that Bf 109E posessed a speed advantage of 30-40 mp/h, while also climbing better: link
As noted above, there was a reason why the Hurricane II got Merlin XX, while the Spitfire III did not. That being the noted performance gap, and not enough of the Mk.XXs around for the both.
Resp:
Why would it run away? If it was during the BoB, I would think that fuel, or lack of would force them to turn away for home. Yes?
 
Resp:
Why would it run away? If it was during the BoB, I would think that fuel, or lack of would force them to turn away for home. Yes?

My English language is probably not that good as I think it is, but I'm still of an opinion that 'run away' and 'turn away for home' are two different things.
 
Tomo was responding to Kevin's post:
The Hurricane had a better roll rate and turning circle, the Bf 109E, a better dive speed, but the Bf 109E can't run away if its going to defend its bombers.
Typically, the term "run away" means flee or retreat - Monty Python's classic "run away" might be a good example.
It's perhaps not the best description for units turning for home.
 
Basically means the same tomo. English can be lazy > 'run away' as in 'run away home'.
You can run away from a fight you're not going to win or you can break off an engagement because you're at bingo fuel.
Cheers,
Wes
Resp:
Just thinking out loud. If the enemy used up enough fuel that it forced them to make a straight line for home, any engagement that required the use of additional fuel, as in evasive maneuver, could force them down (Channel for example). True, the pilot might survive, but it would be a loss of aircraft.
Does anyone know if the RAF plotted egress routes in addition to ingress?
Let's say that they did and found that there were 3 egress routes that the enemy used the most during the BoB. Someone in the Air Ministry would know what distance radar first picked up enemy ingress, figure known estimated time over target, notify fighters (let you choose numbers/which aircraft, as I don't want to start that debate again) and direct them to the most likely egress point. Forcing them into turns, etc would raise fuel consumption.
 
Resp:
Just thinking out loud. If the enemy used up enough fuel that it forced them to make a straight line for home, any engagement that required the use of additional fuel, as in evasive maneuver, could force them down (Channel for example). True, the pilot might survive, but it would be a loss of aircraft.
Does anyone know if the RAF plotted egress routes in addition to ingress?
Let's say that they did and found that there were 3 egress routes that the enemy used the most during the BoB. Someone in the Air Ministry would know what distance radar first picked up enemy ingress, figure known estimated time over target, notify fighters (let you choose numbers/which aircraft, as I don't want to start that debate again) and direct them to the most likely egress point. Forcing them into turns, etc would raise fuel consumption.
I think you'll find that one out of six Bf 109E's lost was due to running out of fuel. Our fighters were sent in to destroy the bombers and were ordered not to follow fleeing Messers as we couldn't afford to lose our fighters and definitely not our pilots.
 
I would note that at the time (summer & fall of 1940) the Hurricane got the Merlin XX while the Spitfire got the Merlin XII. This was an attempt to keep the Hurricane competitive until Spitfire production could be increased.
This is for new/planned production. Not aircraft in service or in depot. it would take months for new versions to take over in large numbers.
If the Hurricane was actually better at the time the air staff should have known it and made decisions accordingly.
The Spitfire was the fighter with the best long term development potentential and could dive with a Messer which the Hurricane could not. The Hurricane was hard pressed to catch the Ju 88, which with bombs dropped could reach 326 mph in level flight, likewise the Do 215 recce bomber. Anything else the Hurricane could handle. The Merlin XX gets the Hurricane II almost up to the top speed of the Spitfire II, 342 as opposed to 355 mph which I sure you'll agree is a marginal speed difference so neither plane would be at a speed disadvantage against the Bf 109E equipped with the DB 601N which did about 307 mph on the deck and 357 mph at altitude. Once the Bf 109F arrives in numbers then the Hurricane II has a problem, but few were available in the Winter of 1940/41 and those they had did have a habit of shedding their wings in dives and violent manoeuvres. Once the Spitfire Vb comes along in Summer 1941 then clearly the Hurricane II can be withdrawn from front line fighter duties. There's only so much that you can do to improve its performance. In 1942, 16 lbs boost was introduced for the Merlin XX, so in the Western Desert and up against the Macchi 202 Folgore it performance is comparable at 2000 to 3000 metres as an escort fighter.
 
I think you'll find that one out of six Bf 109E's lost was due to running out of fuel. Our fighters were sent in to destroy the bombers and were ordered not to follow fleeing Messers as we couldn't afford to lose our fighters and definitely not our pilots.
Resp:
That is not a bad statistic; one in six. Our Air Planning Unit couldn't tabulate enemy aircraft because we had little air threat. We also moved around and when possible and had/used different air assets.
 
I percentage of kills scored by Hurricanes in the BoB was higher. Just use the search facility on the aviation forums to find the figures and look on wikipedia at the Czech squadrons. The overall victories don't include V-1's shot down which may be a bit unfair. Also look on wikipedia at the Battle of Britain and air offensive over France sections for 1941 to 1942 under the Fighter Command section.You'll see that the Spitfires in that period shot down relatively few Luftwaffe fighters and according to German post-war records even less than they claimed.

Hurricane's achieved just a couple of hundred victories in the ETO from 1941 and on. To get 6000 victories 95% of those had to have been achieved in 1939-40. I don't know how many victory credits were awarded to RAF fighter pilots in that early period of the war, but that it was over 6000 (assuming Spitfires and other types also scored a few) seems doubtful.
 
The overall losses during the Battle of Britain were:
Britain: 1,744 (+/-) aircraft
Germany (and Italy) : 1,977 (+/-) aircraft
All losses combined = 3,721...

I'm having trouble trying to see where the Hurricane was able to get 95% of their 6,000 claimed out of the BoB.
Okay lets take this from another angle, from 1939 to 1945, Fighter command lost 3690 killed, 1215 wounded and 601 POW, 4790 were aircraft were lost. We know that RAF claims in the BoB were 1.7 kills per Spitfire and 1.1 per Hurricane. Overall claims were over twice the number of aircraft shot down than in reality. In the Air Offensive over France in 1941/42, Spitfire claims were three times reality. According to the 10500 overall claims for the RAF in the ETO of which a third were by Spitfires, then the Spitfires downed 3500 or about 700 p.a. from 1940 to 1945, which is a plausible figure for claims, they claimed 711 in 1941 in the France air offensive, 236 from all causes in reality, so an over claimed kill ratio of 3 to 1. So the Spitfire figure seems reasonable. I've got to log in for work, so I'll come back to this one later and edit this post.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back