MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (3 Viewers)

I'm going to have to say B-17 aswell, it had a very light bombload for a heavy bomber

It could carry a fairly large bombload - Just not terribly far

CC it never really carried it's full load in combat, most books or films will say the B-17 was one of the best bombers of the war, if not THE best, whereas that is far from the truth..............

I know. But I was just saying that it did have a high payload butcouldnt carry it far. I was never making any implications about its full load being used in combat or that it was the best bomber of the war.

besides, there was no point in having a large-er then normal payload if you can't make it past Dover

The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.

The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.

If the B-17 were to limit its altitude to 15,000 feet and not have to form up into a bomber box, it could carry 8,000 lbs further to a target further than 1000 miles away.

So yes, the Lancaster did carry a bigger bombload, but it also was much less durable and would have been slaughtered much worse than the B-17 had it undertaken the same daylight missions.

Some other points to be made:

First the specs of the aircraft:

The B-17F had four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials rated at 1200 hp takeoff, 1000 hp @ 25,000 feet, 1380 hp WEP for brief intervals. Max. speed was 299 mph at 25,000 feet, 325 mph at 25,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed was ~200 mph. Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 25.7 minutes. Defensive armament: 1 x .30 M2 mg + 11 x .50 M2 hmg's. Production: ~12,750 Sorties flown: ??? Bombs dropped: 500,000 - 640,000 tons in the ETO (sources differ).

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee, rated at 1460 hp (no WEP figure given). Maximum speed was 281 mph at 11000 ft. Cruising speed was 227 mph at "optimal cruising altitude" (?). Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 41 min 24 sec. Defensive Armament: 8 x .303 Brownings. Production: 7377 Sorties flown: 156,000 Bombs dropped: 608,000 tons HE plus more than 51 million incendiary bombs.

Of the 7377 Lancasters (there may have been a few more but not many) at least 3460 used the American built Packard Merlin, and many RR Merlins used some American built parts. The Lancaster had about 1000 HP more than the B-17, and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Which brings up another point. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 used an engine which could have reasonably powered a fighter. It could well be argued that the production of Lancasters cost the British/Americans something around 8,000 Spitfires, 8,000 Mustangs, and another 6,000 Mosquitos! Just food for thought.

=S=

Lunatic

But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.

I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......

I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....

I also feel the Corsair could've been used more extensively than it was, but the inter-service mascinations of the US Forces dictated it staying in the PTO....the Mustang earned it's rep, useful in all it's versions, excelling in the 'D' model..... again why the P-47 didn't receive more glory was it's deployment - same thing occurred with the Typhoon too....

The B-17 was a good aircraft but it's deployment as an aerial fortress was the cause of many lives lost....they refused to listen to lessons already learned by Bomber Command.... then they had to resort to Bomber Command tactics to make the B-29 viable in Japan....height and firepower aren't everything, if 'foxy-tactics' can be used........

Gemhorse said:

...The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'...

Click to expand...

The whole Empire? New Zealand, Australia, and India would be speaking Japanese and Canada would've eventually been absorbed by the USA, meaning we'd all be speaking English with a Texas drawl.

Go Spitfire!

GermansRGeniuses said:

I'll start the mud throwing.

Spitfire.

Click to expand...

I will agree that the Spitfire is overrated by some, but it was also probably the best pure fighter of WW2. So the Spitfire kinda earns its respect.

Good, but many planes were better in most categories, such as the La-7.

Click to expand...

Now THATS an overrated plane by far !!

If the Spit XIV and La-7 ever met(Considdering both pilots are equal), the Spit would totally trash the La-7 ! (That includes below 3,000m !)

German flight-tests also proves that the Lavochkin is a VERY overrated fighter ! (During the war, German aswell as Finnish 109's walked all over them.)

Most overrated airplane of WW2= The Lavochkin series !

I would go for the Me-262 or the Me-163 Comet, sure they had a lot of speed but they also had a nasty pilots reputation for fires, and crashes due to no landing gear. They also had a relatively low aerial endurance factor, which means that they can't go too far to actively seek bombers and fighters to destroy. Also there is the He-177 Grief or the Martin Marineer I think the Allied one is, both of these had nasty nicknames, the He-177 Grief was called the Flying Coffin, the Martin Marineer was called the Flying Gas Can. These are certainly aircraft which had a potential to be said to be dangerous and bad for the pilot's health. I don't think the Me-163 and Me-262 were ever intended to serve for long periods. They were only ever intended to serve until Germany developed the better replacements that were on the drawing board back then.

B-17 and the Lancaster.

Kiwimac

This can be an interesting topic.

First off. I would have to say, the super gold medal as the most overrated plane of the entire conflict, ETO and PTO alike, goes flat straight to the soviet IL-2.

You name it, either the single seat or two seat versions the famous Shturmovik are as overinflated as any of those silly basketball or baseball players who by playing a game make millions and millions of dollars a year.

Perhaps the most famous flight simulator of the world bears its name.

The Germans captured numbers of intact IL-2s throughout the war, had them tested and were themselves amazed to realize such a piece of crap had been put into very massive production.

It would not be daring to say the IL-2 is the most shot down plane of the entire conflict.

Its 1 ton of armor while helped well against personal -rifle- caliber guns greeting it from the ground, was of little help against cannon equipped fighters and/or low altitude flak batteries.

It could hardly manouver. Its manouvering was not any better than that of the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF and you are talking about a single engine plane.

Climbing was miserable, so was the turning radius. Roll was kind of out of the question.

Its only good points were (i) a powerful punch in the form of wing fitted cannons and (ii) the numbers in service, especially during 1944. Period.

Following the fashion of their western allies, the soviets credit the IL-2 with destroying "thousands" of German tanks; while soviet sources can never be expected to be objective, the outcome of the IL-2s charges against German armor, when one takes into account the capabilties of the plane and of its pilots, can not have a different outcome to that gained by the USAAF and RAF fighters committed to ground attack missions over Normandy in 1944.


To some extent, the IL-2 in the air, made the equivalent of soviet infantry: sent en mass to smash the enemy with complete disregard of the cost. A high casualty rate was gladly accepted by the soviet command.

That the shturmovik helped the soviet war effort very much is true.

But its massive production was devoted mainly to replace the horrific losses the plane suffered everywhere it operated.


The soviet claims of a "superb", "superior" ground attack plane can not withstand the most basic of the scrutinies.

IL-2 pilots were hastily trained. Even in 1944, a good number of them shturmoviks carried no radios; many crews were never issued parachutes.

Accident ratio was horrific for IL-2 crews.

The soviets never had time to create a highly trained air force as a whole. Sorry for General Aleksandr Novikov and the credit soviet official history gives him. The beatings they took in 1941-42 deprived them of the necessary timeframes to produce a new breed of pilots.

Even at Kursk, during the first day of operations at the salient, the German fighters shot down nearly 370 soviet planes, that in the first 12 hours of the battle; if you read soviet accounts, Kursk is depicted as the "first hammer" delivered to the Luftwaffe. Non sense.

Also the famous Kuban air battles of 1943, saw a VVS uncapable of gaining air superiority. The IL-2s opeated in numbers there and failed big time. The Kuban bridghead was evacuated by the Germans when the front in the Ukraine was crumbling and not because they got defeated in the northwestern tip of the Caucasus.

Stalin while demanding the opening of new fronts to his western allies, always saw the allied advance in the west as a threat to his future geo-political plans in Europe.

So, the last thing he was interest in was to give the new pilots proper training. His orders were to advance, at all cost, as fast as possible. He did not trust the western allies.

I recall reading somewhere an account, that in late 1945, well after the end of the war, the soviets conducted combat trials in the Baltic Sea. The target: a Kriegsmarine war prize -one of the German light cruisers, forgot the name-. Perfect weather. Target speed: zero. No AA fire.

The IL-2s had a terrible time in finding the mark.

The shturmovik had its prime moment when the Luftwaffe decided to strip the east of its fighter strenght sending many gruppen west to deal with the heavy bomber menace.

Nonskimmer said:

But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.

Click to expand...

Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.

Good point Udet. This was such a field expedient airplane, even the rear gunner's seat consisted of only a small strap between stringers.

RG_Lunatic said:

The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.

The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.

If the B-17 were to limit its altitude to 15,000 feet and not have to form up into a bomber box, it could carry 8,000 lbs further to a target further than 1000 miles away.

So yes, the Lancaster did carry a bigger bombload, but it also was much less durable and would have been slaughtered much worse than the B-17 had it undertaken the same daylight missions.

Some other points to be made:

First the specs of the aircraft:

The B-17F had four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials rated at 1200 hp takeoff, 1000 hp @ 25,000 feet, 1380 hp WEP for brief intervals. Max. speed was 299 mph at 25,000 feet, 325 mph at 25,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed was ~200 mph. Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 25.7 minutes. Defensive armament: 1 x .30 M2 mg + 11 x .50 M2 hmg's. Production: ~12,750 Sorties flown: ??? Bombs dropped: 500,000 - 640,000 tons in the ETO (sources differ).

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee, rated at 1460 hp (no WEP figure given). Maximum speed was 281 mph at 11000 ft. Cruising speed was 227 mph at "optimal cruising altitude" (?). Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 41 min 24 sec. Defensive Armament: 8 x .303 Brownings. Production: 7377 Sorties flown: 156,000 Bombs dropped: 608,000 tons HE plus more than 51 million incendiary bombs.

Of the 7377 Lancasters (there may have been a few more but not many) at least 3460 used the American built Packard Merlin, and many RR Merlins used some American built parts. The Lancaster had about 1000 HP more than the B-17, and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Which brings up another point. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 used an engine which could have reasonably powered a fighter. It could well be argued that the production of Lancasters cost the British/Americans something around 8,000 Spitfires, 8,000 Mustangs, and another 6,000 Mosquitos! Just food for thought.

=S=

Lunatic

Click to expand...

oh boy that was a good laugh, RG, how far could the B-17 carry it's maximum payload?? the grandslam could be hauled 1,550 miles, whereas the B-17 couldn't even lift a grandslam!! ALL the grandslam were dropped by day without loss, and the lanc did in fact bomb by day, and you think the B-17 could haved bombed by day without fighter escort?? they tried and failed, badly................

and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Click to expand...

awww, it's the poor little american feeling left out to the british DUDE!!! the americans weren't even producing the merlin before they were needed for the lanc, and do you actually think they were gonna use them on the B-17 and B-24!!

i'm just so pissed off with your utter ignorance at the moment i can't even argue with you anymore, go away, do some heavy reading on the lancaster, then come back and try and argue your points then...........

Geez. Somebody ate a bad taco.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just insult his mother?

i would say i'm sorry but i'm not, he doesn't have a clue............

RG_Lunatic said:

Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.

Click to expand...

I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee

Click to expand...

Inverted Vee engines?? Sure, if you say so.

KraziKanuK said:

I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.

Click to expand...