Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[drgondog]

What a load of manure. Two things come to mind re: '800 mph Spitfire wing'
First - the drag rise on a zero lift wing of ANY conventional designed wing of the WWII variety would require the power of perhaps an SR71 - IF the wing and airframe were built for the Q loads of simple Parasite drag. The consequence for any well designed fighter would be simply destroying the wing and fuselage altogether near Mach 1. Add the component of asymmetric lift - the subject of control reversal due to ailerons - and the airframe/wing carry through structure becomes confetti long before Mach 1. Recall that conducted dive tests were executed in a 1G dive with the barest possible rudder input to maintain a straight line near symmetric path to minimize applied dynamic pressure loads.

ANY discussion of supersonic capability of aileron/wing stiffness threshold of '800 mph' or even at '580mph TAS' has to be based on incompressible flow dynamic loads imposed on the 'deflected flat plates' and subsequent load transmission in both torsion and bending and shear.

Looks like Marketing headed by a Mo Ron grabbed hallway conversations and proceeded to print.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

May I sugest the A-20 as the most overrated? I

It didn't have the heaviest bomb payload of the light or medium bombers, neither was the fastest or have the longest legs or was the more agile.

Many others developed in the same timeframe were better and evolved more during the war, been better multirole aircraft.

 

[Kevin J]

May I sugest the A-20 as the most overrated? I

It didn't have the heaviest bomb payload of the light or medium bombers, neither was the fastest or have the longest legs or was the more agile.

Many others developed in the same timeframe were better and evolved more during the war, been better multirole aircraft.

The USSR thought it was pretty good and took half those produced.

 

[pbehn]

What a load of manure. Two things come to mind re: '800 mph Spitfire wing'
First - the drag rise on a zero lift wing of ANY conventional designed wing of the WWII variety would require the power of perhaps an SR71 - IF the wing and airframe were built for the Q loads of simple Parasite drag. The consequence for any well designed fighter would be simply destroying the wing and fuselage altogether near Mach 1. Add the component of asymmetric lift - the subject of control reversal due to ailerons - and the airframe/wing carry through structure becomes confetti long before Mach 1. Recall that conducted dive tests were executed in a 1G dive with the barest possible rudder input to maintain a straight line near symmetric path to minimize applied dynamic pressure loads.

ANY discussion of supersonic capability of aileron/wing stiffness threshold of '800 mph' or even at '580mph TAS' has to be based on incompressible flow dynamic loads imposed on the 'deflected flat plates' and subsequent load transmission in both torsion and bending and shear.

Looks like Marketing headed by a Mo Ron grabbed hallway conversations and proceeded to print.

I cant find the quote but I believe Chuck Yaeger said something like "any pilot who believes he broke the sound barrier in WW2 is simply mistaken" I presume because of what you just posted. I didn't know Mitchell designed the SR-71 wings That will be an internet fact next year.

 

[Denniss]

The A-20 was not good as level bomber due to restricted payload and as attacker/strafer only successful against the japanese who lacked sufficient/performant light AA. In Europe the strafer version was just a big target for 20mm quads

 

[drgondog]

May I sugest the A-20 as the most overrated? I

It didn't have the heaviest bomb payload of the light or medium bombers, neither was the fastest or have the longest legs or was the more agile.

Many others developed in the same timeframe were better and evolved more during the war, been better multirole aircraft.

So what are the many light attack bombers you have in mind that were developed in 1939?

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

The USSR thought it was pretty good and took half those produced.

Well, USSR needed every aircraft they can have their hands on (as late as 1943 they used I-16 as first line fighters in some parts) and if they were free, much better.

Just because one aircraft was heavily used, that doesn't make it the best in the clases.

 

[pbehn]

Well, USSR needed every aircraft they can have their hands on (as late as 1943 they used I-16 as first line fighters in some parts) and if they were free, much better.

Just because one aircraft was heavily used, that doesn't make it the best in the clases.

True but the Russian theatre was different anyway. They didn't have a stretch of water between them and the opposition.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

So what are the many light attack bombers you have in mind that were developed in 1939?

Maybe not many of them were developed around 1939 (Ju 88, Pe 2, B 25) but plenty of aircraft were capable of doing the same work in a better way at the same time that the A 20 was in widespread service, such as the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the fighterbombers (P 38, P 47, P 40, Typhoon, Fw 190, Bf 110), all capable of doing pinpoint bombing and straffing with a sizable bomb load, faster and better air capability.

My point is that the light bomber was largely a compromise in WW2 that wasn't as capable as a medium bomber in payload and range and wasn't able enough to survive unescorted so better the resources were directed in others ways and since the A 20 can be regarded as the epitome of the light bomber, therefore can be judged as overrated.

It wasn't as versatile as other twins, neither exceptionaly good at its main role.

 

[Shortround6]

Just because one aircraft was heavily used, that doesn't make it the best in the clases.

I think there is a fair amount of distance between "best in the class" and being most overrated.
As in if a plane isn't the best in it's class then it is most overrated aircraft of the war?

I would like to know just how many German, Japanese or Russian light bombers were being built in late 1943 with exactly the same engines they were using in 1941.
Or how many British light bombers were being built in late 1943 with the same engines they were using in 1941 (trick sentence, the Mosquito didn't see service until 1942 as a bomber so it doesn't count, it also got better engines)

The A-20s may not have been the best at any one thing but they were often pretty good at a number of things although range tended to be a sore spot.

For a plane that was intended to fight at low altitude and short range it didn't do to bad in some of the roles it took on.

Being American it also didn't have to be forced into roles it wasn't really designed for as the Americans had enough production capacity to build special purpose aircraft.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

True but the Russian theatre was different anyway. They didn't have a stretch of water between them and the opposition.

Sure, but they had a huge need of close suport and interdiction aircraft and A 20s were at hand.

DB 7 weren't much better at french service than Blenheims were in british and Commonwealth service at the begining of WW2, pointing that the light bomber concept was a flawed one at the start of the war, a single role plane that needed as much escort as a heavier bomber to get to the objetive solely to delivery a lesser bomb load.

As the A 20 can be regarded has the template of WW2 light bombers, IMO can be regarded as the most overrated.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Me: B-29.
Reality: it was a fussy temperamental plane more likely to kill you than the Japanese fighters scrambling against you.
Legend: it dropped the 2 Atomic bombs that ended WWII.
Never mind that the IJN government, military, and people were going to fight us tooth and nail for every yard of rice paddy, with sharpened bamboo and sharpened teeth.
Never mind the Soviet destruction of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in almost no time at all, and never mind that the REAL fear and realization of the Japanese was that the Soviets were poised to absorb and erase the Japanese people and nation.

Refrain: It was the B-29 and the A-Bomb! (repeat until believed).

 

[pbehn]

What a load of manure. Two things come to mind re: '800 mph Spitfire wing'
First - the drag rise on a zero lift wing of ANY conventional designed wing of the WWII variety would require the power of perhaps an SR71 - IF the wing and airframe were built for the Q loads of simple Parasite drag. The consequence for any well designed fighter would be simply destroying the wing and fuselage altogether near Mach 1. print.

I can follow your arguments on aerodynamics even if I couldn't advocate them, because I don't have the depth of knowledge. What happens to the Spitfire wing's 2% washout at supersonic speed? In my lay-mans mind it becomes two wings. If the tip is going in the direction of the fuselage then the wing root is trying to execute a 2% turn in level flight, is that what is the basis of the problem? In addition to that "shock wave" stuff.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I think there is a fair amount of distance between "best in the class" and being most overrated.
As in if a plane isn't the best in it's class then it is most overrated aircraft of the war?

I would like to know just how many German, Japanese or Russian light bombers were being built in late 1943 with exactly the same engines they were using in 1941.
Or how many British light bombers were being built in late 1943 with the same engines they were using in 1941 (trick sentence, the Mosquito didn't see service until 1942 as a bomber so it doesn't count, it also got better engines)

The A-20s may not have been the best at any one thing but they were often pretty good at a number of things although range tended to be a sore spot.

For a plane that was intended to fight at low altitude and short range it didn't do to bad in some of the roles it took on.

Being American it also didn't have to be forced into roles it wasn't really designed for as the Americans had enough production capacity to build special purpose aircraft.

Perhaps that is the point, other nations bypassed the need for light bombers and have multirole aircraft to do the same (and more) things than the A 20 can do, so there was no real need for them but american production capacity was so big that they can afford to make a single puorpose aircraft that can be delivered to allied nations without the output capacity.

Aprox half production of A 20 go to USSR. Add those that were to see service with RAF, RAAF, SAAF and Armée de la Air, those used in the States as trainera and diverted to fill gaps in roles with USAAF that were unfullfiled (reco, night fight) and A 20 can be seen as overrated, used mainly because it some were desperate to got their hands in something flight capable, not because the machine own capacities.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe not many of them were developed around 1939 (Ju 88, Pe 2, B 25) but plenty of aircraft were capable of doing the same work in a better way at the same time that the A 20 was in widespread service, such as the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the fighterbombers (P 38, P 47, P 40, Typhoon, Fw 190, Bf 110), all capable of doing pinpoint bombing and straffing with a sizable bomb load, faster and better air capability.

We can get in a lot of trouble lumping too many years together. Granted not too many DB-7s fought in France in 1940 but NO Pe 2s, or B-25s were in squadron service at the time. In fact the only other plane in your list in service in the Spring of 1940 was the Bf 110. You might argue that the DB-7 was not an A-20 and depending on point of view or details you might be right. However the R-2600 powered versions were going into combat in the spring of 1941 which also puts them earlier than many of the plane in your post, even if not technically A-20s.
The Bostons and Havocs did do some rather good work at this time. I am also not sure you can blame the aircraft for poor tactical deployment (the turbine light scheme).

It is also rather easy to make a plane look bad by only comparing a few numbers. Poor as the A-20s range may have been, it could deliver more bombs a further distance than the fighter bombers even if not the equal of some medium bombers. Of course comparing a 24-27,000lb airplane to airplanes weighing 33-40,000lbs is not going to look good for the smaller plane when it comes to weight of bombs and range. I would also note that the A-20 went out of production around 6-7 months after the Mosquito really started carrying much heavier bomb loads (and one can play games here. Late Mosquito might carry 5000lbs-4000lb cookie and single 500lb under each wing, how often this was done I don't know. Without the cookie the max load was 3000lbs. A late A-20 could carry four 500lb bombs inside and four 500lb under the wings (4000lb total) but range was much, much shorter than the Mosquito.

My point is that the light bomber was largely a compromise in WW2 that wasn't as capable as a medium bomber in payload and range and wasn't able enough to survive unescorted so better the resources were directed in others ways and since the A 20 can be regarded as the epitome of the light bomber, therefore can be judged as overrated.

Every plane was a compromise. That is also a rather long chain of logic to reach your conclusion. Light bombers, on occasion, were much faster than medium bombers and did have better survivability, this varied as to time and theater. I am not sure if the A-20 was the epitome of light bomber (that might go to the Mosquito) but it was a good one.

It wasn't as versatile as other twins, neither exceptionaly good at its main role.

It didn't have to be as "versatile" as with the US you had B-25s and B-26s to handle the longer range stuff. The P-61 was in the works to handle the night fighter duties. Granted the P-61 ran a bit late and the Japanese and Germans never managed to mount large scale night attacks against the US (even US bases) that required hundreds of night fighters to be built on an adapted airframe. The US didn't need it as a photo recon plane as the US had the converted Lightings and P-51s, Russians did use some of the early A-20s they got for reconnaissance (usually the ones with no self sealing tanks) and they did rather well with them, Germans didn't deploy as much radar to the eastern front and an A-20 running light and alone is not that easy to catch (faster than the Beaufighter or the Pe 2 or most Ju 88s and some Bf 110s.) Russians did use A-20s as torpedo bombers, The US planes had the shackles/mounts for a torpedo but rarely(never?) trained with them or used them in combat. Russians kept their torpedo A-20s for several years after the war.

Light bombers, at least in the US, were not expected to be strategic bombers. and the US had a rather different view of of "close support" pre war and early war. Including laying smoke screens.

The A-20 was found to be somewhat lacking in range in the South Pacific but that is due to the geography, many other light bombers would also be clananged to operate at those distances.

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps that is the point, other nations bypassed the need for light bombers and have multirole aircraft to do the same (and more) things than the A 20 can do, so there was no real need for them but american production capacity was so big that they can afford to make a single puorpose aircraft that can be delivered to allied nations without the output capacity.

Aprox half production of A 20 go to USSR. Add those that were to see service with RAF, RAAF, SAAF and Armée de la Air, those used in the States as trainera and diverted to fill gaps in roles with USAAF that were unfullfiled (reco, night fight) and A 20 can be seen as overrated, used mainly because it some were desperate to got their hands in something flight capable, not because the machine own capacities.

The machine actually had some rather good capabilities. Please show how it did not?
The US could hang torpedoes under the B-25 and B-26 also, but they were rarely used as torpedo bombers, in large part because of problems with the MK XIII torpedo itself and partly due to the nature of the targets. Most Japanese shipping (transports and escorts)) in the South Pacific was small and 500-1000lb bombs could sink them very well.

The early A-20s could outrun an A6M2 Zero at low to medium altitude.

Strangely enough, the Bulk of the A-20s that saw combat service in the USAAF did so starting in late 1943 and 1944.

Of the 2804 A-20s used by the USSAF, 2088 were the G model (with the twin .50 turret) or later aircraft. This doesn't seem to line up with the theory that it was used mainly in desperation by crews trying to get something flight capable.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well, delivery contracts were written long before they were delivered.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, let's see:
A-20 introduced 1940
B-26 introduced 1941
B-25 introduced 1941
Pe-2 introduced 1941
YeR-2 introduced 1941
Tu-2 introduced 1942
A-26 introduced 1943

Since the A-20 was already being produced in numbers when the Soviet Union was invaded, it stands to reason that it was an important and much needed tool until newer types became available.

(The types listed above reflect comparable light bomber/attack progression - the B-26 and A-26 were never lend-leased to Russia).

 

[Kevin J]

Well, let's see:
A-20 introduced 1940
B-26 introduced 1941
B-25 introduced 1941
Pe-2 introduced 1941
YeR-2 introduced 1941
Tu-2 introduced 1942
A-26 introduced 1943

Since the A-20 was already being produced in numbers when the Soviet Union was invaded, it stands to reason that it was an important and much needed tool until newer types became available.

(The types listed above reflect comparable light bomber/attack progression - the B-26 and A-26 were never lend-leased to Russia).

Just adding the British contribution:
Beaufort, 1939; Beaufighter, 1940;
Maryland, 1940; Baltimore, 1941;
Mosquito, 1941.

 

[Shortround6]

Squadron or combat use of many of these types is even later.

and we are comparing some rather diverse types of aircraft.
The Early Douglas DB-7 with R-1830 engines were were around 15,000lbs. Wiki, which could be wrong, claims 40,000lbs for the Yer-2 or darn close to a B-17B.