MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

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

The article mentioned by Smokey Stover is short but it nailed down some important points. That battle was chaotic indeed and historical maps are not very helpful. If you look in related Russian works of the last 15-20 years you can find a lot of conflicting information. Some historians became eternal enemies of each other because they could not agree on loss figures in day this or that or on disposition of certain units, etc.
Serious unbiased study of Jun-Aug 1941 catastrophe has never been done in Soviet period. Post Soviet historians had to begin from scratch trying to figure out events of certain dates. This work is not completed yet. It became more difficult probably due to ideological shifts in the last 10-13 years, changes in archives policies, restrictions on external financing of historical societies and subsequent bankruptcy of some of them, etc. (Recent example of the latter: closure of Moscow based Foundation "Demokratia" which published extensive and probably the most complete library of USSR documents).
I'd recommend to retain of "final" conclusions here. Tomorrow another bunch of papers will be discovered and it will turn earlier assumptions about Brody or another 1941 battle upside down - once again. Or of 1942, 1943... Debunking of some "Kursk" myths was good example.

Sorry for off-topic but could not restrain myself.
 

I know of jentz but have heard very mixed opinions about his claims so agree with you there. Zaloga im not familiar enough with to make comment. But do you mind me asking where or how you source your data? Just purely out of interest....
 
I totally agree with your statement. One simply must keep an open mind whenever it comes to any major historical data/accounts. To not be objective and to just say "this is what happened, end of story" is simply wrong. And until we have a better understanding/release of authentic stats/data all we can do is speculate. However there is enough evidence on some actions that warrant educated guess. But even then, it's hard to know within an acceptable margin of error the truth. My feelings, i dont think we will ever find out.
 
Smokey Stover,
It's many years since I read about the BoB nightfighting, but the Hurricane was up there with a piece of metal on each side of the cockpit forward fuselage that was blocking the exhaust glare from the pilot, there's plenty of period photos around to see of that - Experienced pilots early in the War that had night-flying ability were sent-up above the AA gun height during raids to patrol, largely acting as a deterrent that often resulted in 'unexplained jettisoning of bomb loads' on open ground or the sea, before reaching their targets. RAF 85 Sqn. when lead by Sqn.Ldr. Peter Townsend were 'Night Stalkers', sitting around with 'dimmer goggles' on to preserve night vision, before flying. One of the greatest Hurricane night aces was Sqn.Ldr. Richard Playne Stevens, DSO, DFC. He claimed a total of 14 night victories with RAF 151 Sqn. without the benefit of any radar. He was lost in action on 15th Dec. 1941 whilst serving with RAF 253 Sqn. A lot of the aircraft were painted black, as were the Defiants. I have never heard of Defiants with radar, who the hell was going to operate that !? There was only a pilot to fly it, with no forward-firing guns, and the turret-gunner with 4x.303's !? -

I don't really like talking about the Blenheim, so many lives were lost in them, but yes the Mk.1's did have 4 x.303's in a box under the fuselage which gave more drag to an already slow aircraft,and yes, they were the first to get early AI and may have been the first to shoot something down with it. As a day bomber though, it was seriously flawed, and like the Defiant it was better put to use at night, as with so many enemy bombers blitzing, they had to get-up there and grapple with it any way they could -

I read Bob Braham's book many years ago, [1970's] telling us how he started knocking down bombers with RAF 29 Sqn. [ Guy Gibson was at it too in the same Sqn.] but the great legacy of the Blenheim was it's stablemate, the Beaufighter, which Braham & Co were flying - Also I read John Cunningham's book years ago too, and they were using Mk.IV AI in all their Beau's too.

Russian record-keeping appears to be quite exemplary, compared to other country's air forces - As Parsifal pointed-out earlier there appears that Russian losses are inconclusive - But, both of these books have appendixes' that list all those aircrew that were lost. - Sure, there were high losses, happened with most ground-attack aircraft, but I wouldn't say it was excessive, and yes, some were used as ''propaganda aircraft'', complete with microphone & loudspeakers ! - They were also very popular with the Soviet troops and nicknamed Kukuruznik or corncutters - Indeed, it was a ''psychological'' warfare tactic, night-bombing at low-level those tired enemy troops ! - It was done by all sides in WW2 - These "Night Witches" Po-2's proper designation at the time was ''U-2LSH -light Shturmovik''- By all description it wasn't mean't to be a Warplane but it became one and fought from Stalingrad to Crimea, up past your 'Kursk' to Smolensk, past Minsk fighting on through to Buchgoltz, northwest of Berlin. The Regiment was disbanded on 15 Oct. 1945 - Given the conditions, the aircraft maintenance was as high as it could be with dedicated groundcrew - I'd hate to think we are being a misogynist, Smokey, and I know Russia isn't the 'flavour' at the moment, but you can read the books for yourself -
 

There are photos of Defiants with radar antenna, perhaps not a lot and in some cases a photo may have been "edited/censored" during WW II to eliminate the aerials.
The division of duties in the Defiant night fighter with radar may have been far from ideal but there is little doubt that some flew with radar and achieved some success with it but not during the BoB.
 
My candidate for the most underrated plane of WWII is the PBY. Although the PBY was not objectively better than the Short Sunderland or Martin PBM, it was more versatile than either of those planes because most PBYs of WWII were amphibians. The PBY was interchangable with both the Sunderland and the PBM for most missions, and it ws more economical with just two 1,200 horsepower class-engines.

Of the 10 aircraft that make up my Top 10 of WWII, only one would probably not make the list of the majority of the members of this forum, and for that reason, I think it is the most under-rated aircraft of WWII.

The PBY (Catalina in British service) first made its mark six months before Pearl Harbor in May 1941 when a (some sources say ASV Mk-II radar equipped) Catalina spotted and tracked the battleship Bismark to the point the Royal Navy could overwhelm it. A year later, the PBY played a crucial role in the Battle of Midway, finding enemy fleet elements and conducting some attacks.

In the Solomons campaign not only was the PBY a constant thorn in the side of the Japanese navy with its maritime attacks, it also acted as an amphibious C-47-like transport, providing emergency supplies to Henderson field. With time, radar-equipped PBY's became "Black Cats", attacking enemy shipping at night. PBYs were involved in the sinking of 38 U-boats, PBYs and Catalinas rescued thousands of airmen, sailers and others, including 56 sailors rescued by one plane after the sinking of the cruiser USS Indianapolis.

In the famous "double sunrise" missions, the Catalina's long range was crucial in re-establishing a link between Ceylon and Australlia. Planes with crews of Quantas veterans flew from Ceylon to Perth, Australia in 28 hour non-stop missions, 5,652 kilometers or over 3,511 miles one way.

In summary, the PBY was effective as a patrol plane, a medium bomber, a torpedo bomber, a night intruder, a transport plane, a search and rescue seaplane, an antisubmarine warfare aircraft, and as a long-range transport. Only the Mosquito ablely filled as many roles.
 
Maritime aircraft are a very interesting "subgenre" of WW2 military planes. I think they don't, generally, reach the critical level of importance of say, a Spitfire, a Zero or a Bf 109, they could be very crucial for many areas, especially in interfering with or protecting the vital supply chains, in naval reconnaissance, ASW and rescue of pilots which was so important (and such an asset for the Americans / Allies for example in the Pacific, with major benefits in the attrition War against the Japanese) and also as navigational guides to land based aircraft.

In reading about the various convoy battles such as leading to Malta and to Russia, as well as the invasion fleets in the Pacific (particularly locating and defeating Japanese invasion fleets), it really is a dramatic, fraught business. Lots of boring interminable hours of droning along through the clouds with nothing whatsoever going on, then storms and navigation troubles and engine issues, but then also very dramatic fights for the survival / elimination of convoys, and even a surprisingly common level of air to air combat between such airplanes as Sunderlands, Ju 88s, H8Ks, Beaufighters and He 115s.

The importance of the convoys is hard to overstate- Malta for example was certainly saved by the arrival of the survivors from at most a handful of battered / beleaguered convoys, and if Malta had fallen so perhaps would the English supply chain. And Russia without a doubt desperately needed the supplies and war machines brought there by very hard pressed northern convoys of course. In the Pacific the entire course of major Strategic operations was decided by a few small fleets of transport ships and carriers, and they couldn't be sunk until they were found.

The really important maritime aircraft in my mind:

  • AR 196 - the humble German float plane was surprisingly formidable in combat, two 20mm cannons didn't hurt. Very important for recon and air-sea rescue, it was also used more aggressively.
  • BV 138 - a much more exotic three-engined German seaplane, in spite of the unusual configuration, heavily armed and quite versatile.
  • FW 200 Condor - Though it's often described as a structurally weak design, this big four-engined plane was to a large extent the terror of the Atlantic.
  • He 115 - Another versatile and at times quite dangerous seaplane, the He -115 did a lot of damage to quite a few convoys especially in the far North.
  • BV 222 - Another exotic Blohm & Voss design, built in small numbers but it did have an impact. This massive 4 engined seaplane had very long endurance, and heavy armament plus radar etc. made it dangerous both in anti-shipping and air-to-air roles.
  • Do. 24 - German seaplane, three engined but roughly equivalent to PBY Catalina. I think their main impact on the war was on the allied side in the hands of the Dutch who used it effectively in the recon role in the Pacific.
  • CANT Z.506 - another three-engined aircraft, this one doubled as a pretty effective torpedo bomber as well as the usual recon and rescue functions. It may not have been the most lethal aircraft in the war but it was certainly one of the more interesting.
  • A6M2-N - the Nakajima built seaplane version of the Zero, which I have brought up before here. Certainly the best float-plane fighter of the most active years of the war (rivaled perhaps only by the Curtiss SC Seahawk which was excellent but came too late to see any real action). The A6M2-N couldn't be used for rescue and wasn't so great for bombing, but it was a dangerous fighter, and the reality of maritime warfare seems to be that long range aircraft were often clashing.
  • JU 88 - the versatile German dive bomber was also heavily involved in maritime activities. Used as a dive bomber, for recon, for torpedo bombing, and even as a fighter since the Germans lacked a long range fighter plane. It performed remarkably well in all these roles.
  • He 111 - Also sometimes used as a torpedo bomber. Not as effective as the Ju 88 but could also sink ships without a doubt.
  • Ju 87 - Shorter ranged dive bomber but by far the most lethal ship killer in the German arsenal. Deadly in the coastal areas against ships.
  • Short Sunderland - The biggest (I think) seaplane in the Allied arsenal, tough airplane with an incredible endurance and a heavy defensive armament. Didn't carry a heavy bomb load but useful in protecting convoys and for recon. Got into some duels with FW 200s and so forth.
  • B-24 / PB4Y-2 - Under various designations, maritime patrol may have been what this plane was best suited for. Extremely long endurance, heavy armament and could carry a substantial load of bombs or depth charges. Made a strategic difference in the Battle of the Atlantic without a doubt.
  • B-17 - used a lot in the maritime role particularly in the Pacific. Didn't sink many ships but it was useful for recon and very hard to shoot down. But though the B-17 was the better heavy bomber, the B-24 seemed more effective in the maritime role.
  • H6K - Large Japanese seaplane, equivalent to PBY basically. Useful but they could have used more of them, and a bit vulnerable to fighters.
  • H8K - Japaneese equivalent of the Short Sunderland, basically. If anything even more formidable as it had a bit heavier armament (! 5 x20mm cannon and 5 x 7.7 mm mg). Not available in large numbers but it was helpful
  • Lockheed Hudson and Ventura - These rather old fashioned looking planes played surprisingly useful roles as navigation, ASW, recon and bomber / strike aircraft, as well as long range fighters. Also used a lot for pathfinding and navigation for land based fighters and so forth.
  • Bristol Beaufighter - This was the most deadly and most versatile maritime (among other uses) aircraft on the Allied side, IMO. Very dangerous in anti-shipping role and quite respectbale in the fighter role. Sank a lot of ships and shot down a lot of planes, and also valuable in recon. Surprisingly survivable in clashes with enemy land based fighters, absolutely lethal against more lightly armed / slow maritime aircraft.
  • Aichi E-13 - The most modern of the Japanese float planes, main role was as recon from Cruisers and other warships.
  • Mitsubishi F1M - The predecessor of the E-13, biplane seaplane, launched from ships, used for recon and also as a fighter against other slower type planes (it had two 7.7 mm mg for offensive use).
  • Fairey Fulmar - Not great as a fighter but as a long range / maritime fighter it did cause some damage and have some impact. Could certainly give a Ju 88 or Fw 200 something to think about. Not sure what their record in the Pacific was but the long range of the A6M made 'second line' fighters more vulnerable there.
  • Supermarine Walrus - Kind of a simple / crude plane but it rescued a lot of pilots. I'd put the Grumman Duck (and a bunch of other smaller seaplanes) in a similar category.
  • OS2U Kingfisher - The main catapult launched American recon plane. Rescue and recon. Though slow it outlasted it's planned replacements by a long shot and many downed pilots owe their lives to this bird. Simple but reliable.
  • Sea-Hurricane - Hurricane may not have been at the top of the heap on land against the very best, but it was certainly a contender. Way out to sea, launched by catapult from a merchant ship, (and flown by a very brave pilot) it was a nasty as hell surprise for enemy maritime or bomber aircraft. Took brass gonads to fly that mission knowing you were going to have to ditch in the frigid and probably not very gentle waters of the North Sea at the end of your flight.
  • Wellington - Very long range made it useful in the maritime role and it could also carry torpedoes.
  • Pe-3 - The fighter variant of the versatile and fast Soviet Pe-2 bomber was used in the far north for Convoy escort and specifically did some damage to rampaging He 115s and Fw 200s.
Of that whole long list I would say the top 10 champions of Maritime aircraft were, in descending order of impact and capabilities:
  1. Beaufighter
  2. Fw 200
  3. Ju 88
  4. Sunderland
  5. B-24 / PB4Y-2
  6. PBY
  7. AR - 196
  8. A6M2-N
  9. Sea Hurricane
  10. He 115
I didn't include most of the standard Navy fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers in this specific Maritime list because they are already on the 'main' list of underrated aircraft if they qualify. I see this special "Maritime Combat Zone" to coin a phrase is something that exists beyond the reach of most front-line land based fighters and bombers, though once a Carrier moves into the area that brings the front line to it.

Some of the air battles between these more exotic and unusual types of aircraft need to be better documented! I want to see Osprey titles for Sunderland vs. Ju 88, Pe-3 vs He 115, AR 196 vs Sea Hurricane, A6M2-N vs. PB4Y-2 and so on.

S
 
Last edited:
BV 222 - Another exotic Blohm & Voss design, built in small numbers but it did have an impact. This massive 4 engined seaplane had very long endurance, and heavy armament plus radar etc. made it dangerous both in anti-shipping and air-to-air roles.

Thought I'd mention that the Bv222 had six engines - originally the Bramo323, then the Jumo207C.

An interesting fact about the 222, is that it's the largest aircraft in WWII to score an aerial victory.
It encountered and shot down a USN PB4Y-1 over the Bay of Biscay.
 
Greyman said:
I don't think so. Sounds like a great way to blast your prop off.
Click to expand...
Ok, you're free to think whatever you like, but the fact remains that the Defiant's turret was designed to lock forward, with the turret's fire controls being enabled at the pilot's controls.
To what extent the MGs elevated, I am not sure, but those clever Brits probably thought about that issue before giving the turret the ability to do so...

 
I presume they slowly raised the guns until the prop didn't get shot off.
 

In the forward stowed position the electrical cutout is engaged and the guns cannot fire. Minimum elevation given for forward fire is 17 degrees.
 
From "The RAF and Aircraft Design 1935-1939" by Colin Sinott:

"The P.82 Defiant turret fighters had a license-built SAMM electro-hydraulically powered turret which housed four electrically-fired 7.7-millimeter Browning machine guns. They lacked nose- or wing-mounted forward-firing weapons common to typical fighters; however, the gunners could rotate the turrets directly forward and transfer firing control to the pilot, thus making up this weakness. In the forward-firing mode, however, the guns pointed 19 degrees upward, and the pilots did not have gun sights, thus making accurate firing difficult."
 
I guess we're talking about different things. The Defiant had a 'stowed' position of the guns where they were locked fully forward. I thought you meant the pilot was firing when the guns were like this:



In terms of the lowest possible angle, I'm seeing a few different figures. AFDU gives 17 degrees, A&AEE gives 22 degrees, 19 degrees from the book above. I imagine it depends how fast and at what altitude the Defiant is flying - the attitude of the aircraft varying a few degrees.
 

No 'U' in QANTAS. Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services.
 

That list is long with aircraft of varied roles.

Others that you may consider were the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, the de Havilland Mosquito FB.VI and FB.XVIII and the Dornier Do 26.
 

You are right! and my bad! Yeah they were pretty ornery beasts those BV 222s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
687
yulzari
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
408
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
897
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
544
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register