MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
That is pretty much what I agree with what you said about the number 1 and 1b's. The zero however I think was overated by 1942.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree about the Zero. It was common knowledge at the start of the war that the Japanese were short, blind and dumb. then for a year or so they were invincable. By the time Guadalcanal was in the middle of it's struggle (October or so) it was known that tenacity and tactics evened things up. New Superior planes and equipment was on the way too. The Myth was shattered.

After mid/late 42 or so I think the Zero was well respected but not considered invincable anymore. I read a comment from that time period that went this way: with a F4F-4 "Your outnumbered 1 on 1 with a Zero you have to attack in numbers". I think thats just being smart. even the early P-38s fought Dive and slash in numbers with the Zero. Even though there are a few accounts of P-38s out manuvering Zeros, it wasn't a good idea to try.

wmaxt
 
I don't think the Zero was 'overrated', it WAS deadly and held ascendancy until basically the Hellcat Lightnings came into it, but the 'dive and slash' technique was developed in the P-40's, principally by the AVG in the North Asia, and the USAAC, Aussies and Kiwis in the South-west Pacific. The Wildcat also 'held the line' on carriers against the Zeros until the Hellcat came....
It was hugely 'underestimated' initially by the British High Command, which was one of the direct causes of the loss of Singapore, but it wasn't totally indestructible, one of our guys got 3 of 'em in the Buffalo, and they weren't flukes, just spot-on timing in an inferior aircraft....
Once tactics were sorted-out to deal with them, and they held a numerical superiority for a while too, the Japanese did indeed fail to seriously improve or replace the Zero....so I don't believe it was really a case of being 'overrated' as such.......

I guess if the Stuka was THE anti-armour aircraft of the German Invasion of Europe and Russia, and in this it was successful, and then it's opposite would have to be the Il-2, which was successful in the sense that the Russians won the overall battle, but the Hs-129 wasn't so hot, although being heavily-armoured, it was slow and lacked rear defence.

The Bf-110's only area of achievement was as a NF, so I feel it WAS overrated....

Spitfires continued their work after the BoB, going on the offensive despite losses, assisted in the Invasion build-up and continued on into Europe right up to the end, Udet, so I can't see why you feel it was 'overrated'...it may have been 'over-shadowed' somewhat by the US escort fighters, but many bomber pilots were still grateful for them.....
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._568.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 576
To be honest, the Spitfire did not have it's moment of glory in the BoB. Hurricanes equipped more squadrons and shot down more aircraft. Most BoB aces were Hurricane pilots (Bader and Stanford Tuck to name two). The Spit IS over-rated and the BoB was the start of the myth. While it's true that Spits played an important part in ops over Europe, in bomber escort and in Operation Overlord, they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO, on the first meeting with the Zero in the Pacific.
 
The Spit may have been a little over glorified in the beginning, but I don't think it was overrated really. The early marks had their troubles, but as it developed it became a worthy match for almost anything it faced. There came "better" fighters certainly, but she pulled through many an Allied ace.
 
yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........

they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO
Click to expand...

ah the P-51, now she WAS over rated............
 
This was one of the images appearing on the homepage of this site. Yes, the P-51 was certainly overrated. (Perhaps not the most overrated but quite overrated)

 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time that I hear you say that the Spitfire was NOT overrated.

By the way, I think the Spitfire and the P-51 were may be a little overrated, but not that much. And certainly not during the last year of the war.
 

The Zero was a great plane at the beginning of the war but she lacked the necessary traits to be of great effectiveness after 1942. She was outclassed by that time which to me makes her overated. The Japanese had better aircraft then the Zero after 1942 but they chose to keep there beloved aircraft. Sorry to me she was overated.


No sorry she was overated. The Stuka was too slow, not armored eneogh, and not maneuverable eneogh. Yes she was the best dive bomber at the beginning of the war and yes she helped to account for many victories during the Blitz's of the first 3 years of the war however she was clearly outclassed past 1942 and 1943 latest. Without sufficient aircover she was helpless on her own.



I will agree with you on the Il-2. To me she falls in the same boat as the Stuka and was overated as much as the Stuka. But if you are going to say the Stuka was not overated for the reasons that you state above, then I think you are being nothing more then a hippocrit. The Il-2 was just as responsible for Soviet victories as the Stuka. The Il-2 was better armored then the Stuka. The Il-2 could carry more armament then the Stuka. The Il-2 was more maneauverable then the Stuka. I think you need to research this as much. The Il-2 was possibly more capable of destroying tanks then the Stuka and had a better chance of survival then the Stuka. I dont like the Il-2 but I would fly one of them before I would fly a Stuka into combat.

I do not agree on the Spitfire. I will agree she was overated in the BoB. The Hurricane was true warrior of the BoB. The Spitfire however was a great aircraft and was well matched with the Me-109. If you are going to say the Spitfire was overated then you have to say the same of the Me-109 and I will not do so.
 

The Dramatic effect of the Mustangs is crap. The Dramatic effect was Escort Fighters. For the first Three months it was P-38s only and the loss rate dropped from 9/10% to 4/5% and the first 3/4% of that was the loss rate to AAA that the fighters could not stop. This rate was never bettered even in late 44 wnen it was almost all P-51 with as many as 1,500 planes over Germany each mission.

It wasn't untill mid June '44 that P-51 numbers equaled P-38 numbers on the escort missions and the 9 months previous to that was
a) when the tide turned for the air war over Germany.
b) When the major portion of the Experten Pilots were lost.

Durring that time the P-38s outnumbered the P-51s and were as much or more instrumental by that percentage of P-38/P-51.

This is exactly why I think the P-51 is the most overrated.

One good redily available site is the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" web site. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt
 
Your only correct points about the IL-2:

(i) it was better armored, and
(ii) it could carry more armament.


More manouverable? I would not be so sure on that.

Point (i) was the result of a rough 1 ton of extra armor fitted to the plane.
It only made it an armored flying turkey. It turned out to be a double edged knife. While it could help well aganst rifle caliber guns greeting it from the ground, it made it helpless against interceptors.

Yes, heavily armored still German pilots found the weak spots very very fast. Yes, heavily armored and an impaired manouvering.

I have done my homework. I happen to have a good number of German guncamera footage showing the IL-2s getting shot to smithereens.
You can see some rear gunners jumping down covered in flames.

More manouverable than the Stuka? You ought to double check that. It was as clumsy as a four engine heavy bomber of the USAAF, and the soviet model was a single engine craft.

The Stuka and the IL-2 had about identical maximum speed.

Better chances of surviving than the Stuka? A "yes" would come only in theory, when reading some of the specifications, mainly the armor issue.

Battlefield records show the IL-2 not only proved highly vulnerable to interception; the loss rate for the Shturmovik was prohibitive.

So I do not think the IL-2 had better chances of surviving.

The IL-2 had its prime when the Luftwaffe stripped the jagdwaffe ost to deal with the heavy bomber threat in the west. It was only then when it could work.
 
I cannot see how anyone could consider the Spitfire over-rated. After all it's only reputation beyond the Battle of Britain is that it was a magnificant plane to fly and a brutal challenge for any who opposed it, not to mention it's wonderful looks.
I also fail to see how the Spitfire became unworthy of respect 'out of it's cave'. It performed fighter sweeps over the channel throughout the entirety of the war. If these sweeps had continually been a failure, the Fighter Command would have halted them to avoid losing much needed aircraft for the defence of Britain.

The Spitfire continued through the war, escorting bombers over the channel (which was still hot with the Luftwaffe right up until around '44), performed fighter sweeps over France, covered the D-Day landings, flew over Africa, flew over the CBI, covered both landings on Italy, was in the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, VVS, USAAF and FAA. For an aircraft designed for intercept duties, never intended to go far reaching out of British airspace it performed remarkably well throughout the war. The Luftwaffe certainly did not enjoy it's presence in any engagement.

In the Battle of Britain I will agree the Spitfire is given too much glory. The Hurricane deserves the most, but never all as the Spitfire did perform there too. The Spitfire was hitting them hard and fast, just as the Hurricane was.
 
Sorry. It served with the RCAF (I put it first, just for you), RNZAF, RAAF, RAF, VVS, USAAF and FAA. Really though, do we care about Canada? I mean, seriously.

 
At last !...a strong clear voice rises above the muttering....and thank you for putting 'RNZAF' second....The highest scoring RAF pilot was Canadian, and I believe his successful mount was the Mk.IX Spitfire....

But I agree with all you've said plan_D, although I believe it was more a case of the Hurricane not being fully appreciated and acknowledged, like with all the glory bestowed on the Spit....It really was a better weapon's platform too, and I can't understand why they didn't improve on it more; perhaps Hawker's efforts all went into the Typhoons etc., afterward, also
another aircraft that deserved 'glory'....

Also, on this topic generally, there is a difference between ''overrated'' and ''outclassed'', which occurred to aircraft such as the Zero....

Interestingly, the Zero and Hurricane were of a kind really, both into it early as interceptors, but the Hurricane's range of duties-performed was much wider, geographically, and from the first to carry RP's, to having 2x 40mm's underwing....She was also the first British NF......She was definately ''overshadowed'' by the Spitfire....not as fast.....but far more versatile.

Speaking of armour, the Hs-129 also carried plenty, but although it had success against Soviet tanks, from the start of 'Operation Bagration', late June 1944, what followed was a huge defeat of the German Forces, the Hs-129 was seriously in decline....It was only good for 200-250 mph, so it was at the mercy of any interceptors and although heavily-armed and armoured, it was mostly AA fire that was their undoing....So how would you classify this ? - 'overrated or out-classed ?'.....

So just outa interests sake, how would the 'Buffalo' be categorised here ?
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._213.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 440
Just keep design strategies in mind. Hs-129, Ju-87 and IL-2 are designed for the ground attack role, only. Tactics require air superiority or a sudden strike. For that aim they are pretty planes, no other allied plane has nearly the records of IL-2 as well as no axis plane contributed that much to ground operations as the Ju-87. Without fighter cover, these planes are easy prey, no doubt. Bu if they can move freely, they are able to wreak havoc under their targets in uncomparable quality.
I still stay for the Me-262, altough I like all ww2 jets, it seems to be overrated in many books ("..could have changed the outcome and such things...nonsense!).
Not intending to denie it was a good plane
 
yeah there was no way, even if the -262 was around at the start of '44, it would have made a difference to the war for the germans, the way i see it only the Fw-190 could have saved the germans, the A to take out the bombers, the D to deal with the fighters............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
698
yulzari
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
424
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
936
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
553
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register