MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

tail_gunner · Apr 26, 2005

I'd say the P-40. ALWAYS overshadowed by the P-38, P-51, or other aircraft. But it flew on all fronts, and it looked cool.

Glider · Apr 27, 2005

For this topic I must suggest the P40, Halifax, B24, B26 and Do217. They all did a great job and you hardly hear about them.

Early on the in stream ther was a question about the limits on the aircraft the Fins could buy. They were limited to 60 combat aircraft and tended to buy about 50% from Russia and 50% from other country's. There were able to get around this to a degree when they purchased I think it was 60 Hawks as trainers. As I am sure you know the Hawk is an excellent GA aircraft.

BombTaxi · Apr 27, 2005

Hmm, big list here... ALL of the Bomber Command's early twin-engined bombers (except the Manchester), Halifax, Hurricane, P-40, most Italian fighters, and the Me-410.

Incidentally, I didnt include the B-239 because I dont think it's performance against the Russians was all that surprising. You must remember that it was a very different beast to the F2A-2, which was the 'Buffalo' of Far Eastern fame. the B-239 was a better aircraft than the Buffalo, and with a skilled pilot, fighting against less skilled Soviet pilots, many of whom were (in the Winter War at least), were in older machines like the I-16, SB-2 or DB-3, there was no reason why it shouldn't be sucessful.

I included the Bomber Command types, namely the Whitley, Hampden and Wellington because people seem to forget that Bomber Command was active from the very first day of the war, and Berlin was first bombed by Hampdens in 1940, when the Lancaster had not even been conceived. Right up until 1942, Wellingtons served alonside the four-engined heavies on night raids, and some were involved in the 1000 bomber raid on Cologne. The Whitleys and Wimpeys than went on to do sterling service with Coastal Command.

And finally I included the Hurri for the obvious reason that despite winning the BoB and playing a massive role in the Battle of France and the Western Desert, and as a home defence nightfighter, it was utterly overshadowed by the prettier Spitfire.

Nonskimmer · Apr 27, 2005

BombTaxi said:
... it was utterly overshadowed by the prettier Spitfire.

You forgot to say "and better".

Seriously, I agree that the Hurricane was somewhat underrated. While it was an older design, even at the onset of the war, it more than proved it's worth during the BoB and in the desert for a time.

BombTaxi · Apr 27, 2005

I dont deny that outright the Spit was the better plane, but it's no good having a good plane if you cant get it to squadrons. Hence my point that the few Spits fighting in the BoB got far more glory than thier contribution deserved

Nonskimmer · Apr 27, 2005

Agreed.

mosquitoman · Apr 27, 2005

Yep, the B-24 did the bulk of the bomb-carrying in the 8th AF but the B-17 was more photogenic. The Hally, Wimpey, Lib, Whitley and Hampden provided the bulk of Coastal Command aircraft aswell- punching well above their weight

evangilder · Apr 27, 2005

The B-17 actually carried more total bomb tonnage than the B-24 for the war.

B-17's dropped 640,036 tons of bombs on European targets in daylight raids. This compares to the 452,508 tons dropped by the B-24 and 464,544 tons dropped by all other U.S. aircraft.
http://www.libertyfoundation.org/history.php

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 27, 2005

ok but what if you compare that to the actual number of sorties carried out by the aircraft, and use only the true bombing sorties for the B-24's figure...........

Timppa · May 11, 2016

FLYBOYJ said:
I once read that many of the post war treaties between the Soviet Union and the Finns were due to the Russians actually being afraid of them!

Maybe some kind of respect at most. After the iron curtain was deep in Europe, Finland was not strategically important to the Soviets any more.

FLYBOYJ said:
I think because of these treaties the Finns had to buy a certain percentage of Soviet military equipment. Comments?!?

No. Only buying war material from Germany and Japan was forbidden.
For political and economical (barter trade) reasons Soviet material was bought, like T-54/55/72 tanks, MiG-21's, 130mm artillery etc. But these were equal to any western material of the day

CORSNING · May 11, 2016

No.1: The P-39. Considered 2nd-3rd class by the USAAF. It was considered the best import fighter by the Russians in 1942-1944. In 1-on-1 combat below 5,000 m. it could hold its own against the best. It had several serious faults, but it was there when needed.
No.2: (in my opinion): The B-24. Its crews were there deep in battle just like the B-17, but you seldom hear about its accomplishments.
No.3: Not sure yet. I haven't done enough research.

GrauGeist · May 11, 2016

One of the most under-rated aircraft of WWII is the Romanian IAR.80

Fast, maneuverable and well armed, it performed well against it's adversaries.

By the last part of the war, it simply couldn't hold off the overwhelming number of Allied aircraft, as was the case with all Axis aircraft.

FLYBOYJ · May 11, 2016

Timppa said:
Maybe some kind of respect at most. After the iron curtain was deep in Europe, Finland was not strategically important to the Soviets any more.

Boy, this is an old thread!

from Canada;

Why Finland doesn't fear the growling Russian bear next door

Timppa said:
No. Only buying war material from Germany and Japan was forbidden.
For political and economical (barter trade) reasons Soviet material was bought, like T-54/55/72 tanks, MiG-21's, 130mm artillery etc. But these were equal to any western material of the day

Thought I saw somewhere that either by treaty (or maybe by policy) Finland maintained a 50-50 split between western and soviet equipment during the good ole cold war years...

All good equipment, I think the MiG-21Fs were outmatched during their operational stint, but the MiG-21MF was a excellent choice for their mission during the years served.

stona · May 11, 2016

BombTaxi said:
I dont deny that outright the Spit was the better plane, but it's no good having a good plane if you cant get it to squadrons. Hence my point that the few Spits fighting in the BoB got far more glory than thier contribution deserved

During what the British call the BoB, 655 victories were credited to 30 Squadrons of Hurricanes at 22.5 per Squadron, while the 19 Spitfire Squadrons were credited with 530 at 28 per Squadron.

There were roughly 3 Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires, not exactly a few Spitfires, but the Spitfire was marginally more lethal to the Luftwaffe.

Cheers

Steve

GregP · May 12, 2016

Hhmmmm ... more deadly with less kills. Doesn't add up to me ...

More deadly per airplane, sure.

More deadly overall? No. Advantage Hurricane squadrons for the overall battle.

Timppa · May 13, 2016

FLYBOYJ said:
Thought I saw somewhere that either by treaty (or maybe by policy) Finland maintained a 50-50 split between western and soviet equipment during the good ole cold war years...

Definitely not by any treaty. It was (unofficial) policy to buy military equipment from both east and west. But not necessarily with rigid 50-50 split. Note that "west" was mainly Britain, France and Sweden. US was a big no-no until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Back to the topic:

1. F2A
2. P-39
3. Ki-43
4. I-16
5. I-153

The last one shot down more FAF planes than any other russian or lend-lease plane in the Continuation War (1941-1944)

stona · May 13, 2016

GregP said:
Hhmmmm ... more deadly with less kills. Doesn't add up to me ...

More deadly per airplane, sure.

More deadly overall? No. Advantage Hurricane squadrons for the overall battle.

I said that the Spitfires were marginally more lethal. A Spitfire squadron shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft per squadron (and therefore per aircraft) than did a Hurricane squadron.
Had all of Fighter Command's squadrons been equipped with Hurricanes then less enemy aircraft would have been destroyed. Had nineteen squadrons been equipped with Hurricanes rather than Spitfires they would have shot down 427 aircraft whereas the actual nineteen Spitfire squadrons shot down 530. The 'extra' 103 enemy aircraft destroyed are a measure of the more lethal nature of the Spitfire.
Of course this sort of statistic ignores many factors impacting the effectiveness of the squadrons, apart from the type flown. Nonetheless, it is a significant sample taken over a significant time.
Cheers
Steve

Shortround6 · May 13, 2016

I believe the average pilot or aircraft had a longer life expectancy when comparing Spitfires to flying Hurricanes. It may have been a matter of a few days or a week but a difference was noted.

Hmmm, Spitfires and pilots lasted longer and shot down more enemy planes on average???

stona · May 13, 2016

Shortround6 said:
Hmmm, Spitfires and pilots lasted longer and shot down more enemy planes on average???

Hurricanes were more likely to be shot down. I can't give the figures as I'm not at home, but the percentage difference between Hurricane and Spitfire was significant.
To be fair to the original and ancient post, the poster acknowledged that the Spitfire was a better aircraft, he just underestimated its numbers somewhat.
Cheers
Steve

CharlesBronson · May 13, 2016

My vote goes for the Messerschmitt Me-110, underrated, despissed, ridiculized. Is true that probably its line of development true that the shall not put the effort in a fighter but a fast bomber/attacker.

I agree on the the P-39, is a fascinating airplane that deserve better research, I still got in my library some old books claiming thta russian used it as a tank killer, biased and incorrect info.

MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

Recruit

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Master Sergeant

"Shooter"

Major General

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Major

Senior Airman

Major

Major General

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads