wuzak
Captain
The AVG's aircraft seem to have come from a batch originally intended for the RAF in North Africa. In 1941.
Another few months? More like another year, if France was to get any P-40s.
MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The AVG's aircraft seem to have come from a batch originally intended for the RAF in North Africa. In 1941.
Another few months? More like another year, if France was to get any P-40s.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
... the problem(s) with the French Air Force were far more profound than what AC they did or did not have in their hands .. 
doctrine and leadership ... bad corporate culture. The Germans who attacked France were well equipped, well led, and daring. The French were none of these ... and divided.
doctrine and leadership ... bad corporate culture. The Germans who attacked France were well equipped, well led, and daring. The French were none of these ... and divided.If the French had P-39s they could have swept the Luftwaffe from the skies over France.
Well, I would have settled for three more months to train on the D.520s, a couple of squadrons of VG.33s, and maybe 4 more P-36 squadrons....
S
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The French had insufficient pilots and the ones they did have were over age. Many were in their 30s and even 40s.
The French were also short of mechanics and ground crew.
The French also had a truly crappy communication system. Many airfields being connected by using the national telephone system. No radio and no dedicated phone line. Urgent phone calls could take up to 4 hours. Not a way to run a fast paced war.
The French were also short of mechanics and ground crew.
The French also had a truly crappy communication system. Many airfields being connected by using the national telephone system. No radio and no dedicated phone line. Urgent phone calls could take up to 4 hours. Not a way to run a fast paced war.
Interesting. But all of these issues sound like basic teething problems that all nations faced when ramping up very rapidly from a small peacetime army to a large wartime army, as France was in the process of doing. The Germans had been able to work out a lot of the bugs in their systems during the Spanish Civil War and of course, the series of large scale maneuvers over two years including the Anschluss in Austria in 1938 and the (sadly uncontested) annexation of Czechoslovakia in 39.
And then of course the invasion of Poland also in 39, which while more painful than most realize (10,000 killed I believe, with 285 aircraft totally destroyed and 279 badly damaged) taught the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe many of the lessons they needed to learn about communications, logistics, combined arms and coordination between air and land power. Particularly using Stukas as flying artillery which they did to such good effect in France.
Sufficient to turn the German armed forces into a fairly efficient war machine though they still had quite a few issues when they invaded Belgium.
France may not have had the caliber of leadership provided by the Prussian war colleges, their tactics were antiquated and they may have needed more young pilots and more ground crew and better C3I, supplies and so on, but they were smart and competent. They had good tanks and artillery. They had good pilots and good soldiers, some very good planes just coming online (like the D.520 and VG33 / 39), and were already undergoing a very rapid ramping up to a full state of military readiness. They just hadn't quite gotten there yet.
Think of the US in the early days of the war. Pearl Harbor where they were caught with their pants down, and the Philippines - incredibly even though they were not hit until a week later, still had most of their fighters caught on the ground, troops unready, scouting inadequate, AAA unprepared and so on. In other words they suffered from the same kind of leadership paralysis, communications and logistics problems and so forth which led to the rapid conquest of that Pacific nation by the Japanese Empire. And we all know what happened on Java.
But with just a few more months of serious preparation, with essentially the same aircraft, the AVG did well in Burma. The Marines on Wake Island did well. The Americans didn't take long to shake off the cobwebs and adjust to the new reality. Coral Sea was only 5 months after Pearl Harbor and only a few days after the end of the conquest of the Philippines, but by then the Yanks had re-organized sufficiently to check the Japanese advance. Still not perfect, still not as warlike as the Japanese or the Germans who had already made the decision to go to war years earlier, but enough to rally and survive long enough to finish the transformation.
For France, the problem perhaps was that the Rhine was not as wide as the Pacific (or the English Channel), and maybe that they just declared war three months too early. The Germans may have realized their window was closing, certainly they saw that with regard to the Soviets, and decided to move before it was too late.
S
And then of course the invasion of Poland also in 39, which while more painful than most realize (10,000 killed I believe, with 285 aircraft totally destroyed and 279 badly damaged) taught the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe many of the lessons they needed to learn about communications, logistics, combined arms and coordination between air and land power. Particularly using Stukas as flying artillery which they did to such good effect in France.
Sufficient to turn the German armed forces into a fairly efficient war machine though they still had quite a few issues when they invaded Belgium.
France may not have had the caliber of leadership provided by the Prussian war colleges, their tactics were antiquated and they may have needed more young pilots and more ground crew and better C3I, supplies and so on, but they were smart and competent. They had good tanks and artillery. They had good pilots and good soldiers, some very good planes just coming online (like the D.520 and VG33 / 39), and were already undergoing a very rapid ramping up to a full state of military readiness. They just hadn't quite gotten there yet.
Think of the US in the early days of the war. Pearl Harbor where they were caught with their pants down, and the Philippines - incredibly even though they were not hit until a week later, still had most of their fighters caught on the ground, troops unready, scouting inadequate, AAA unprepared and so on. In other words they suffered from the same kind of leadership paralysis, communications and logistics problems and so forth which led to the rapid conquest of that Pacific nation by the Japanese Empire. And we all know what happened on Java.
But with just a few more months of serious preparation, with essentially the same aircraft, the AVG did well in Burma. The Marines on Wake Island did well. The Americans didn't take long to shake off the cobwebs and adjust to the new reality. Coral Sea was only 5 months after Pearl Harbor and only a few days after the end of the conquest of the Philippines, but by then the Yanks had re-organized sufficiently to check the Japanese advance. Still not perfect, still not as warlike as the Japanese or the Germans who had already made the decision to go to war years earlier, but enough to rally and survive long enough to finish the transformation.
For France, the problem perhaps was that the Rhine was not as wide as the Pacific (or the English Channel), and maybe that they just declared war three months too early. The Germans may have realized their window was closing, certainly they saw that with regard to the Soviets, and decided to move before it was too late.
S
Shortround6
Major General
These are things that should have been addressed in 1937-38.
Especially the crappy communication. The commander of the French army didn't even have a single radio at his headquarters.
The communications of WWI , national telephone system, motorcycle messengers and carrier pigeons weren't going to work and show a complete disregard for the changes in command and control that even the simplest prewar exercises would have shown to be necessary.
Especially the crappy communication. The commander of the French army didn't even have a single radio at his headquarters.
The communications of WWI , national telephone system, motorcycle messengers and carrier pigeons weren't going to work and show a complete disregard for the changes in command and control that even the simplest prewar exercises would have shown to be necessary.
Anyway, apologies for the derail - maybe we should resurrect the Battle of France thread and put that stuff in there.
Per the OP, here is my list:
Douglas SBD Dauntless
Sunk more enemy ships in the critical period of the war than any other type, and pressed into service as a fighter, even shot down a respectable number of enemy aircraft, such that it was critical to the defeat of the Japanese and the salvation of the United States. With the grotesque failure of the American torpedo program, the SBD dive bomber was the main ship killer in the American arsenal. The B-17 was supposed to do the job but early war-planners, including some pretty smart ones, failed to realize how hard it was to hit ships with bombs dropped from 20,000 feet (or even 10,000 feet). Turns out they can see the bombers and turn away. The SBD was maneuverable, carried a respectable bomb load, was rugged and well armed enough to survive sorties at a pretty good rate (much better than the TBD or TBF I believe)
I think the SBD is underrated because it's often portrayed as an obsolete plane (name a better dive bomber deployed in any numbers in 1942?) and generally as an underdog in most literature I've read. And yet, if you sent a squadron of these against an enemy fleet, you could expect enemy ships sunk that day and most of them to come back. This is not something you could say about the Fairey Barracuda or the Blackburn Skua, or even the Helldiver for that matter. The Aichi D3A does come close to this, it certainly sunk a lot of American ships, but it's vulnerability was just a little to high to make my list.
Ki-43 Oscar
The Zero gets the glory, at least to some extent (though also a certain amount of sneering again these days) but according to the Japanese themselves, it was actually the Ki-43 "Hayabusa" that shot down the most allied planes. The Ki-43 may not have achieved 400 mph speeds, was lightly armed, a lack of pilot armor and unprotected fuel systems left them vulnerable to damage particularly in the early models, but the phenomenal maneuverability of the plane put it almost in a class of it's own. It was a major part of the "shock and awe" of early Japanese victories throughout the Pacific and Asia. To me it's a beautiful and deadly aircraft that does not get the respect it deserves.
I think the Ki-43 is underrated because it's typically depicted as flimsy and the Zeros poor cousin, so to speak.
A6M2-N
While it's significance in the war was somewhat limited - this was really the only true float plane fighter ever deployed in any numbers during the war. The closest match would probably be the Curtiss SC Seahawk, also an excellent plane (and probably at least partly inspired by the A6M2-N) but it came too late to make much of a difference. The Nakajima A6M2-N performed remarkably well in spite of the weight and drag of the floats, and it extended the already extraordinary range of the A6M series of fighters by being deployable to very remote bases that lacked airfields. I don't think the Japanese fully exploited the potential of this aircraft so it's impact on the war was limited, but as a design it was remarkable. Nobody else was able to accomplish this design feat within the still contested periods of the war.
I think the A6M2-N is underrated because almost nobody even knows about it, and it tends to be considered an inferior one-off to the Zero.
P-40
The P-40 was the most important land based fighter in the Anglo-American arsenal in numerous Theaters in 1942 and well into 1943, and played a small but crucial role for the Soviets in the same period, particularly in the defense of Leningrad and Moscow. Though it did have a major flaw in the performance ceiling imposed by the engine, and was disliked by the War Department, plans to phase out the P-40 kept having to be put on hold as it's ostensible replacements and rivals such as the Hurricane, P-39, and P-38 failed to live up to expectations or proved unable to do the job. Heavily armed, maneuverable, and capable of escaping (or catching) enemies in very high speed dives, the P-40 gave Allied pilots a chance where other types failed. The P-40 took control over the skies over China, Burma and India, it held the line at Darwin and Milne Bay (Australias "Battle of Britain"), faced the wrath of the Luftwaffe in North Africa and ended the lives of several of their top Aces. P-40 pilots themselves had a hue number of Aces, over 200 by my last count.
I think the P-40 is underrated because while it is popular with neophytes largely due to its looks and therefore gets some grudging respect, the 'experten' of the aviation history community tend to almost universally deride it. For decades, every book on aviation history reported that the P-40 was unmaneuverable, slow, and obsolete before the war began and totally outclassed by the Zero and the Bf 109. None of these things were true. We now know that the P-40 was one of the most maneuverable (fastest rolling and tightest turning) Allied monoplane fighters, probably second only to the Spitfire, and we know that P-40s shot down more enemy fighters than any other land based type in the Pacific in 1942, and probably in the Med as well. We now know that American, Australian, New Zealand, and Russian aces praised it and considered it more than equal to the A6M and the Bf 109. But the revision lags, and most websites still repeat the same "rugged but obsolete / unmaneuverable" Trope from the 1960s.
Yak-1, 1B, 7, 7B
The Yak series was one of the great fighters of WW2. Its performance was limited to low altitude and build quality was often poor especially in the most crucial war year of 1942. But as a design, this plane was one of the greats. It was fast, well streamlined, made largely of wood so cheap to manufacture, reasonably well armed (nose cannon plus a couple of MGs was sufficient for the excellent Bf 109F series so yeah, I think it's good armament) and extremely agile. By the end of 1942 as the manufacturing problems caused by evacuating most of the factories across the Urals were being worked out, this aircraft became an increasingly deadly menace to the Luftwaffe and probably bore the brunt of destroying German aircraft in that crucial tipping point of the war just after Stalingrad.
I think the Yak series, up to the 9 and the 3, are underrated because they are Russian, and people in the English speaking world and the "West" tend to dismiss their victory claims and all things Russian in general, unfairly I believe. Only the Yak 3 really gets respect because that was the plane the Germans said scared them. The Yak was a design tailored to the Theater and the circumstances, it was a low altitude fighter, it's main job was to shoot down Bf 109s and protect the Sturmoviks and Pe-2s, so it was armed appropriately. But it did the job and it's a beautiful looking aircraft to boot.
Pe-2
I've explained why I like this plane so much. Fast, accurate, versatile. yes it had some limitations and the death of the main designer in an accident probably helped prevent it from being further developed, but it was a very advanced design initially and did the damage the Soviets needed to do to the German war machine in the critical years of the war.
I think the Pe-2 is underrated again, because Russian. And because it didn't carry ten tons of bombs, but neither did the Stuka and look how important that was to the German war machine. Like the Stuka, the Pe-2 was a precision dive bomber, but unlike the Stuka it was fast and well armed with heavy defensive guns. It is also a beautiful aircraft. It deserves more respect than it gets.
A-20
Fastest Anglo-American bomber until the Mosquito. This aircraft was agile, versatile and did the job really well. What took it from a good to a great design in my eyes was its use as a strafer and skip-bomber in the Pacific (and to some extent also in the Med) and it's wide adaptation by many Allies (English, Australians and Soviets) to a wide variety of tasks, especially in the Maritime Theaters, such as where the Soviets used it as a torpedo bomber, and also as a night-fighter and intruder.
I think the A-20 is underrated in the English-speaking world because we put too much emphasis on the four engined heavy bombers and on heavy bomb loads vs. precision and versatility. The A-20 didn't carry 10,000 lb bombs or fly at 35,000 feet, but it probably did more actual harm to the Axis War Machines than those aircraft which did.
S
Per the OP, here is my list:
Douglas SBD Dauntless
Sunk more enemy ships in the critical period of the war than any other type, and pressed into service as a fighter, even shot down a respectable number of enemy aircraft, such that it was critical to the defeat of the Japanese and the salvation of the United States. With the grotesque failure of the American torpedo program, the SBD dive bomber was the main ship killer in the American arsenal. The B-17 was supposed to do the job but early war-planners, including some pretty smart ones, failed to realize how hard it was to hit ships with bombs dropped from 20,000 feet (or even 10,000 feet). Turns out they can see the bombers and turn away. The SBD was maneuverable, carried a respectable bomb load, was rugged and well armed enough to survive sorties at a pretty good rate (much better than the TBD or TBF I believe)
I think the SBD is underrated because it's often portrayed as an obsolete plane (name a better dive bomber deployed in any numbers in 1942?) and generally as an underdog in most literature I've read. And yet, if you sent a squadron of these against an enemy fleet, you could expect enemy ships sunk that day and most of them to come back. This is not something you could say about the Fairey Barracuda or the Blackburn Skua, or even the Helldiver for that matter. The Aichi D3A does come close to this, it certainly sunk a lot of American ships, but it's vulnerability was just a little to high to make my list.
Ki-43 Oscar
The Zero gets the glory, at least to some extent (though also a certain amount of sneering again these days) but according to the Japanese themselves, it was actually the Ki-43 "Hayabusa" that shot down the most allied planes. The Ki-43 may not have achieved 400 mph speeds, was lightly armed, a lack of pilot armor and unprotected fuel systems left them vulnerable to damage particularly in the early models, but the phenomenal maneuverability of the plane put it almost in a class of it's own. It was a major part of the "shock and awe" of early Japanese victories throughout the Pacific and Asia. To me it's a beautiful and deadly aircraft that does not get the respect it deserves.
I think the Ki-43 is underrated because it's typically depicted as flimsy and the Zeros poor cousin, so to speak.
A6M2-N
While it's significance in the war was somewhat limited - this was really the only true float plane fighter ever deployed in any numbers during the war. The closest match would probably be the Curtiss SC Seahawk, also an excellent plane (and probably at least partly inspired by the A6M2-N) but it came too late to make much of a difference. The Nakajima A6M2-N performed remarkably well in spite of the weight and drag of the floats, and it extended the already extraordinary range of the A6M series of fighters by being deployable to very remote bases that lacked airfields. I don't think the Japanese fully exploited the potential of this aircraft so it's impact on the war was limited, but as a design it was remarkable. Nobody else was able to accomplish this design feat within the still contested periods of the war.
I think the A6M2-N is underrated because almost nobody even knows about it, and it tends to be considered an inferior one-off to the Zero.
P-40
The P-40 was the most important land based fighter in the Anglo-American arsenal in numerous Theaters in 1942 and well into 1943, and played a small but crucial role for the Soviets in the same period, particularly in the defense of Leningrad and Moscow. Though it did have a major flaw in the performance ceiling imposed by the engine, and was disliked by the War Department, plans to phase out the P-40 kept having to be put on hold as it's ostensible replacements and rivals such as the Hurricane, P-39, and P-38 failed to live up to expectations or proved unable to do the job. Heavily armed, maneuverable, and capable of escaping (or catching) enemies in very high speed dives, the P-40 gave Allied pilots a chance where other types failed. The P-40 took control over the skies over China, Burma and India, it held the line at Darwin and Milne Bay (Australias "Battle of Britain"), faced the wrath of the Luftwaffe in North Africa and ended the lives of several of their top Aces. P-40 pilots themselves had a hue number of Aces, over 200 by my last count.
I think the P-40 is underrated because while it is popular with neophytes largely due to its looks and therefore gets some grudging respect, the 'experten' of the aviation history community tend to almost universally deride it. For decades, every book on aviation history reported that the P-40 was unmaneuverable, slow, and obsolete before the war began and totally outclassed by the Zero and the Bf 109. None of these things were true. We now know that the P-40 was one of the most maneuverable (fastest rolling and tightest turning) Allied monoplane fighters, probably second only to the Spitfire, and we know that P-40s shot down more enemy fighters than any other land based type in the Pacific in 1942, and probably in the Med as well. We now know that American, Australian, New Zealand, and Russian aces praised it and considered it more than equal to the A6M and the Bf 109. But the revision lags, and most websites still repeat the same "rugged but obsolete / unmaneuverable" Trope from the 1960s.
Yak-1, 1B, 7, 7B
The Yak series was one of the great fighters of WW2. Its performance was limited to low altitude and build quality was often poor especially in the most crucial war year of 1942. But as a design, this plane was one of the greats. It was fast, well streamlined, made largely of wood so cheap to manufacture, reasonably well armed (nose cannon plus a couple of MGs was sufficient for the excellent Bf 109F series so yeah, I think it's good armament) and extremely agile. By the end of 1942 as the manufacturing problems caused by evacuating most of the factories across the Urals were being worked out, this aircraft became an increasingly deadly menace to the Luftwaffe and probably bore the brunt of destroying German aircraft in that crucial tipping point of the war just after Stalingrad.
I think the Yak series, up to the 9 and the 3, are underrated because they are Russian, and people in the English speaking world and the "West" tend to dismiss their victory claims and all things Russian in general, unfairly I believe. Only the Yak 3 really gets respect because that was the plane the Germans said scared them. The Yak was a design tailored to the Theater and the circumstances, it was a low altitude fighter, it's main job was to shoot down Bf 109s and protect the Sturmoviks and Pe-2s, so it was armed appropriately. But it did the job and it's a beautiful looking aircraft to boot.
Pe-2
I've explained why I like this plane so much. Fast, accurate, versatile. yes it had some limitations and the death of the main designer in an accident probably helped prevent it from being further developed, but it was a very advanced design initially and did the damage the Soviets needed to do to the German war machine in the critical years of the war.
I think the Pe-2 is underrated again, because Russian. And because it didn't carry ten tons of bombs, but neither did the Stuka and look how important that was to the German war machine. Like the Stuka, the Pe-2 was a precision dive bomber, but unlike the Stuka it was fast and well armed with heavy defensive guns. It is also a beautiful aircraft. It deserves more respect than it gets.
A-20
Fastest Anglo-American bomber until the Mosquito. This aircraft was agile, versatile and did the job really well. What took it from a good to a great design in my eyes was its use as a strafer and skip-bomber in the Pacific (and to some extent also in the Med) and it's wide adaptation by many Allies (English, Australians and Soviets) to a wide variety of tasks, especially in the Maritime Theaters, such as where the Soviets used it as a torpedo bomber, and also as a night-fighter and intruder.
I think the A-20 is underrated in the English-speaking world because we put too much emphasis on the four engined heavy bombers and on heavy bomb loads vs. precision and versatility. The A-20 didn't carry 10,000 lb bombs or fly at 35,000 feet, but it probably did more actual harm to the Axis War Machines than those aircraft which did.
S
Last edited:
soulezoo
Senior Airman
Your list Schweik... I respect it.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
The Philippines were hit within a day after Pearl Harbor.
You are right, my bad... I don't know why I thought it was a week later. This debacle sounds similar to the problems the French had:
Philippines Campaign (1941–42) - Wikipedia
At 11:27 am and 11:29 am, the radar post at Iba Field detected two incoming raids while the closest was still 130 miles out. It alerted FEAF headquarters and the command post at Clark Field, a warning that reached only the pursuit group commander, Major Orrin L. Grover, who apparently became confused by multiple and conflicting reports.[34][36] The 3rd Pursuit Squadron took off from Iba at 11:45 with instructions to intercept the western force, which was thought to have Manila as its target, but dust problems during its takeoff resulted in the fragmentation of its flights. Two flights of the 21st Pursuit Squadron (PS) at Nichols Field, six P-40Es, took off at 11:45, led by 1st Lt. William Dyess. They started for Clark but were diverted to Manila Bay as a second line of defense if the 3rd PS failed to intercept its force. The 21st's third flight, taking off five minutes later, headed toward Clark, although engine problems with its brand-new P-40Es reduced its numbers by two. The 17th Pursuit Squadron took off at 12:15 pm from Clark, ordered to patrol Bataan and Manila Bay, while the 34th PS at Del Carmen never received its orders to protect Clark Field and did not launch.[40] The 20th PS, dispersed at Clark, was ready to take off but did not receive orders from group headquarters. Instead a line chief saw the incoming formation of Japanese bombers and the section commander, 1st Lt. Joseph H. Moore,[41] ordered the scramble himself.
wuzak
Captain
Same day.
The Philippines are on the other side of the International Date Line from Hawaii.
wuzak
Captain
Not really.
The B-17 was demonstrated to be able to intercept ships at sea in order to provide a reason for its procurement in isolationist United States.
The Army planners had in mind a much bigger, more offensive, role.
Be that as it may - they still kept trying to sink ships with B-17s throughout the first couple of years of the Pacific campaign - including around the same time as the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway- and it never worked as far as I know.
S
The interception of an ocean liner in the Atlantic by a formation of B-17s for a low level photo op is a far cry from achieving a successful attack on a defended warship that's free to maneuver.
I suspect there was also a touch of "Norden mania" involved.
Cheers,
Wes
Smokey Stover
Banned
Fiat G-55/P-39&Tempest lV???
The Tempest Mk III and IV, both earmarked for installation of Rolls-Royce Griffon engines, diverged significantly from the Sabre engined Tempest program. Only the Mk III prototype (LA610) was actually converted (Mk IV prototype LA614 was cancelled in Feb 1943). The aircraft was test flown during September 1944 as a "lightweight" Tempest powered by a Griffon 85 engine. Later it was re-engined with the final version of the Sabre, the Mk VIII, which developed over 3000hp, and in this form it achieved 483mph making it the fastest of the Hawker piston-engined fighters. And that claim about being the fastest Mk of Tempest is dubious at best. Did the Mk lV even see combat?
Last edited:
Smokey Stover
Banned
Both aircraft were absolutely terrible.....
Smokey Stover
Banned
Vickers Vildebeest. Vultee Vengeance. Bristol Beaufort. Blackburn Roc (Modified, limited success) Grumman Tarpon/Avenger (Ok so that last one is not strictly British)
Smokey Stover
Banned
Most underrated WW2 Aircraft? Hmmmmm
Handley Page Halifax. Curtis P-40. Hawker Hurricane. Aichi D3A "Val". Yak 9. PBY Catalina. Junkers Ju 52.
Handley Page Halifax. Curtis P-40. Hawker Hurricane. Aichi D3A "Val". Yak 9. PBY Catalina. Junkers Ju 52.
Ascent
Senior Airman
Vildebeest, Vengeance's and Beaufort's never flew from carriers, the Vengeance never carried a torpedo and was technically American.
